Originally Posted by sjfrellc
You sir are right.
"Since the recent school shooting, there is a daily op-ed piece that purports to spell out what the 2nd Amendment means. Many writers wax poetic about the tragedy and how the amendment is being misinterpreted by the NRA.
Here is the cold hard fact: the militia is NOT a governmental body. This amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because some signatories felt there were issues that needed to be spelled out, in detail. They feared that the federal government would overstep its bounds, and there needed to be a check in place to prevent that. The militia was never intended to be answerable to the federals. The National Guard is NOT the militia, contrary to what little the writer knows on this subject.
And the "well regulated" has nothing to do with the federal government putting restrictions on the militia. Regulations were lists or codes drawn up by militia bodies, as to acceptable behavior, the maintenance of equipment, and what training and equipment militiamen were expected to have.
The repeated calls for bans on semi-auto, "military style" rifles? According the amendment, militia men are to be equipped with military arms. Does that mean cannons and anti-aircraft missiles? YES. Do most private organizations have the wherewithal to purchase such weapons? No. But certainly mortars and portable rockets would be within their reach. They were not intended to be a standing army, but a less formal organization, to show up on short notice. More like Apaches, Sioux, or Viet Cong, less like the First Infantry Division.
Sound crazy? Remember, militia men would still be subject to local laws and civil litigation if they misbehaved. And regulations would require those militia arms to be kept secure until such time as they were needed, not stashed under a bed or in a car trunk.
This goes beyond any SCOTUS ruling. Politicians and special interest groups, that think they can simply OUTLAW violence, will be around for a long time. But the Bill of Rights was written for a specific purpose. If one believes that narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will further their political agendas, remember, the other amendments can be re-interpreted along the same lines. It's been said that people should only be able to purchase muskets, in line with the 18th century, so it's not a stretch to say that the First Amendment only applies †o printed or spoken words, and not †he internet. Or that quartering troops does not apply to paramilitary organizations. Or that trial without cross-examination of witnesses or evidence should be acceptable. Short term interests will be the undoing of our country if such is the case."— RonMcDonald