Recently I bought a shotgun for hunting when I'm camping, and for this reason only. I also thought about it and decided it would be very useful for home defense if that situation ever came up. I have never had a big stance on the gun control debate but after I bought the gun I remembered that the 2nd amendment called for the right to bear arms in the interest of establishing a well regulated militia.
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.
Well here's a big problem. I certainly don't intend on joining any militia, and even if I did I doubt it would be well regulated. It seems to me that if you own a gun for any other reason than this then you are contradicting the constitution. I understand that it was amended to allow citizens to own firearms without requiring service in a militia, but I think that the supreme court interpreted that wrong. I definitely think guns have a purpose beyond militias though and I wouldn't want to go camping with out one. Are we violating the spirit of the 2nd amendment by owning guns just for the sake of hunting or home defense without actively being in a militia?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I'd also like to add that I think these "militia" groups are paranoid, extremist, and even treasonous in some cases. I am far more fearful of these groups that I would be of the national guard. I certainly won't have any part in them.
I'm not an American but I don't think the "militia" groups you refer to are the ones the amendment is referring to. The amendment mentions the State so I'm guessing it means that your actions are to defend your State and I guess without the unified US military, any army raised by the state would be a militia. So a Virginian will arm himself to defend Virginia. As for a group of kooks who set up a commune on a farm in Virginia or Florida or wherever, well I think they are just crazy and following their own set of rules and its them that are breaking the amendment.
The reserve "militia" in the US is defined by US Code as all able bodied men 17-45 and prior service veterans under 65. Basically, anyone who can be drafted or called back to service.
Yes, we can take personal weapons to war.
There are also various configurations of State Guard units which fall under the "organized militia" banner which aren't National Guard units. And then the Merchant Marines. It's all very confusing. Whatever. 'MERICA!!!
He's either asking questions about the Constitution that should have been addressed in his junior high social sciences classes, but weren't, or he's asking leading questions belying an extreme political viewpoint.
On a meta-level, it is sad that constitutional questions are considered partisan, but whose fault that is also belongs in TGD.
It's the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, which includes the Second Amendment. The Court says it's fine to own a shotgun, so you're fine, legally speaking anyway.
You're worried about the 'spirit' of the Second Amendment, though. I don't know why you would be, but you're still fine. In District of Columbia v. Heller the Court ruled that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_no...)
The Court says you're fine. You're fine. I'm not seeing the problem.
No. It says, a well regulated militia is necessary to keeping us secure BUT (in a second clause) the people can have weaponry too.
The two, despite the fact that they are in a single sentence, represent two related, but un-connected thoughts.
Here's an entertaining, yet surprisingly good explanation: