Anyone like to shoot?

[merolpn]

Wow, there was much written on this thread in the past day or so.

One thing that seems to have been missed or maybe I didn't read it while trying to catch up is that:

1) The founding fathers were terrified of standing armies in times of peace. There was significant hesitation by some in creating a "Federal" government due to the fear that military power could be concentrated in too few men. James Madison addressed this in the Federalist papers by saying something like the largest standing army the federal government could realistically keep would be something like 10,000 troops. He went on to say that opposed to those "Federal" troops would be 500,000 citizens with THEIR arms and they would be led by men they choose. Basically because the American people were armed, NO army could be turned against them.

That to me, does not sound like the "National Guard" which is commonly used by anti gun people to say that the Guard IS the "Militia." It is not. The Militia reference in the second amendment is any able bodied male. The original wording was probably more specific to "White" or "Free" able bodied males. I would have to reread. The 14th amendment settled that to mean everyone born or naturalized in the United States.

2) The words "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment DO NOT mean regulations or laws. "A well regulated militia" really means a properly organized, equipped and lead group of citizens. George Washington spoke of this in a letter to his wife (or possibly Abigail Adams) that he needed to explain to one of his men (Isreal Putnam) what it means to properly "regulate his army" after a poor job of leading it. (The exact wording escapes me now.)

The 2nd Amendment was NEVER about hunting, target shooting or collecting firearms. (So called 'Sporting Purposes') It was SOLELY meant as an ARMED response by the PEOPLE to any future regime that may come into power and misuse military power. Just because the military hasn't really been used against the people doesn't mean that we should just give it up because our elections are peaceful. I think of the 2nd amendment as more of an insurance policy that they do go peacefully. There was an instance in Tennessee (I think) of armed citizens contesting a corrupt election. In the end they won. I may be wrong on the state.

The Supreme Court (I think in Heller) stated that modern firearms were protected by the 2nd amendment just as modern forms of communication were protected by the 1st. So the whole "They only meant muskets" goes out the window. The founding fathers never wanted to see government troops more well armed than the "People." Personally when I hear some politician saying that certain firearms should "only" be in the hands of law enforcement or the military, it really bothers me and I think we have forgotten our history.