I've been arguing the intent of the 2nd Amendment with a friend for some time now. Woke up this morning with the question/debate resolved (in my mind, that is).
My primary defense of the amendment's intent to affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms has been the knowledge that the great majority of militia armories (where they actually had armories - most small towns didn't) did not store small arms; those were the property of individuals, and kept in their homes. Nearly all of those arms were shoulder weapons used for hunting, and for defense against Amerind incursions. AND recently, in opposition to their rulers, the government of Great Britain.
This morning I found that I had a conclusion. The authors had a dual purpose for the amendment. 1) They wanted the states to be assured that their militias would be preserved in the Constitution. 2) They wanted the citizens of the states to be assured that their guns would not be taken away. X) So the two assurances, being logically related according to the prevailing conditions, were summed in the 2nd Amendment.
I can't fault the authors, really. They couldn't know that their Brave New Nation would **** in its bed. The states have given up control of their militias to the federal government (essentially to the Executive), and the majority of the Nation's citizens have no training or even familiarity with small arms, and so fear them. We have 'come to a sorry pass'.
My primary defense of the amendment's intent to affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms has been the knowledge that the great majority of militia armories (where they actually had armories - most small towns didn't) did not store small arms; those were the property of individuals, and kept in their homes. Nearly all of those arms were shoulder weapons used for hunting, and for defense against Amerind incursions. AND recently, in opposition to their rulers, the government of Great Britain.
This morning I found that I had a conclusion. The authors had a dual purpose for the amendment. 1) They wanted the states to be assured that their militias would be preserved in the Constitution. 2) They wanted the citizens of the states to be assured that their guns would not be taken away. X) So the two assurances, being logically related according to the prevailing conditions, were summed in the 2nd Amendment.
I can't fault the authors, really. They couldn't know that their Brave New Nation would **** in its bed. The states have given up control of their militias to the federal government (essentially to the Executive), and the majority of the Nation's citizens have no training or even familiarity with small arms, and so fear them. We have 'come to a sorry pass'.