I was reading an [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"article[/url] tonight about how the Supreme Court is taking a case on D.C's ban of handguns. Now, one of the big points that will come from this court case is whether or not the bearing of arms is an individual right or if it is one that pertains to a militia. If you read the second amendment, it states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” So, does that mean that if there is no militia, then there is no need for that individual to have a gun? Or, is it a more individualistic right and the lack of a necessary militia these days does not change the fact that we, as Americans, should be allowed to be armed. Which is it?
Well you have to think of why we would need guns.
1. Protect the individual from an individual in a case of self-defense.
2. Protect the country from foreign threats.
3. Protect the country from domestic threats.
Remember that we had just gained independence from under tyrannical rule. Now what if we need to do it again?
Somehow if New York was to create a militia, it would either be stomped out by the Democrats of New York, or the neo-con Bush regime that doesn't want any threat to their power.
The militia, in a sense, was converted into the National Guard. Each state has their own National Guard unit (as far as I know) and I know that has, in the past, been compared to the militia. So, doesn't that, in a sense, defeat the purpose of the individual having weapons if it is purely for the militia?
From what I understand though, the National Guard is a wing of the U.S. military and answers to the government, either local or federal. So I don't think it would qualify as a militia. Granted, currently militias aren't needed. But if something were to happen, like we were to be invaded, or the government turned into full blown tyrants, then you would see armed men and women take to the streets.
But, if I am not mistaken, didn't the militias of long ago also answer to the government? I mean...Wasn't it the militia of a particular state? For instance, the movie the Patriot was the militia of South Carolina. Any other form of military would be a privatized military such as mercenaries and the such and I thought that, as a whole, was against the law.
The Revolutionary War was a weird time. Technically, we were still under England's control, and were fighting to tell them to [censored] off. It would be the equivalent of people today telling the government in DC that they've had enough and want to secede.
But that didn't really answer your question. Answering to the government back then could imply answering to England, but I know that you mean answering to the individual state governments that decided to rebel. But it was still men who had volunteered, and nothing held them to it other than their will to fight.
I just think that we need to be prepared to do what we have to if the time comes.
The militia system that was penned in the Constitution was meant for the prevention of tyranny, not only the threat of foreign governments such as the English. Not only that, but the right to bear arms isn't intended, as some neo-con Republicans want us to think, that the 2nd Amendment was for hunting deer and quail, it was for personal protection from criminals, whether they be robbing our homes or in DC miles away.
Well you have to think of why we would need guns.
1. Protect the individual from an individual in a case of self-defense.
2. Protect the country from foreign threats.
3. Protect the country from domestic threats.
Remember that we had just gained independence from under tyrannical rule. Now what if we need to do it again?
Well, look at it this way:
We wouldn't need to protect ourselves from people if nobody had guns. just think that if the person who was going to "attack somebody" didn't have a gun, there would be nothing to attack someone with unless he had a knife or something. That would be a HUGE cut down on the "attacks" and self defense would be kind of a joke (unless martial arts or some crazy [censored] with a knife)
Unless the whole world is willing to give up all their weapons and throw them away, there is no reason we should throw away guns from the army and all that...
My opinion: more gun control on the people individually.