|
joether -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/15/2012 11:00:18 PM)
|
The 2nd Amendment, as understood locally (and I mean, Concord, MA locally), its very different to how its currently 'understood'. Since Concord, MA only played a 'small' part in US History....
The state that actually pushed to have the 2nd added to the US Consititution was Deleware.
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.
The 2nd is broken into four parts (not the two most people like to believe). Unfortunately, most people seem to lack the ability to place themselves in those times with all the thoughts, feelings, consideration, knowledge, and oh yes, fears of the unknown of folks in that time. Another part is that people in today's world have very little in the way of time to 'sit down' and 'study the crap out of the subject'. Most Americans for example, have never fully read the American Affordable Care Act of 2010, but have been told parts of it. In fact, only about 8% of America's population has fully read the document that was voted on. And the other 92%? Ignorant of facts beyond the sound bites they have been programmed to think and speak. Should not be surprising that the 2nd Amendment (like the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and even 8th) are not well understood by American citizens these days.
"A well regulated militia,...."
This part of the text was suppose to convey the concept of what a militia was defined as (i.e. not a rabble). The militia was set up akin to a professional military. With ranks (Sergeant, Captain, Colonel, etc) and protocol (how the men were organized). A militia was defined as "Any male over the age of 18 that was able to be in a militia". It was pretty vage, but it assumed a crippled man would not be needed in the militia unless absolutely nessisary. Likewise, the militia was to have drills on the town's common every two or four weeks (depending on the laws). Drilling was considered "marching, shooting, and disiciplined training". The militia had rules and regulations by which it followed, taking orders from both those higher up the chain of command and through the Governor of the state.
"...being necessary to the security of a free state..."
The purpose of said militia was designed to handle to problems: 1) Be a military force against invaders, and, 2) Handle domestic problems. The first part is pretty straight forward. In those days, the country had problems with the English, French, Dutch and even the Spanish. Not to mention other nationalities and the indians. The domestic issue, is a bit harder for modern day folks to understand. The domestic problems were considered anything from armed revolt to handling floods or fires. Also the militia handled highwaymen and dealing with 'organized crime'.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Its funny that people back then were much more wise then some of the jokers we have now in elected office should not be a surprise. The idea of those in the "...well regulated militia..." having arms rather than at a local town/city armory was a good idea in those times. If the armory was on one side of town and the inidians were attacking on the other; the militia would have to race to the armory, fetch their arms and then race back to the trouble. Problem is, the action is over and the militia is exhausted to really do anything about the problem. So, it was decided that every member of the militia would have access to a firearm (musket, riftle or shotgun), with 42 shots (with powder), bayonet, and provisions for one day. That way if trouble did start up, those at the location could defend until help arrived. Those NOT in the militia, were NOT allowed a firearm (or so the thought process was).
"...shall not be infringed."
Some of you have pointed out that 'back then' people were afraid of a tyrannical goverment taking over. And that an armed population would disway such a thing from happening. This part, like the part before it, had nothing to do with individual firearm ownership be a person whom was not a member of a well regulated militia. This was a "commandment" that could not be broken by said goverment. The thought process goes like this...
...If the Governor of the state could order a militia to active status because of some situation, and even direct how the militia was involved in said action; what else could the Governor do? If the Governor could order the militia to do or not do things (behaving like a professional military with officers), could he order the militia to surrender or lower their weapons? A modern day idea would be a military officer giving the command to his soldiers to kill unarmed women and children (the soldiers, if they are smart, will not obey). So if the goverment (whether that be a town, city, state, or God forbid, the nation) the militia would never obey an order from the commanding officer or governor. Of course, back then (unlike today) the common sense was still factored in to the equation. If the other side outnumbered your side, 10:1 and they had battery support and your in open ground.....it MIGHT....be a good idea to surrender when they ask you to do so.
An Example of a modern 'well regulated militia': Your local police department. They are regulationed and have rules that must be followed. There is a distinct chain of command from offier on up to Governor of the State (and beyond to the President). They're role is to protect against domestic problems (giving the US Militiary and federal agencies the job of handling foreign problems). And generally, given their role in the community are often good role models for children and hold good relations with members of their communities. Granted US History being what it is, this is not always true, but for the majority of the time, they stick to the right side of the law and try to protect people from danger.
In this piece, I'm simply explaining how the 2nd was interepeted in New England states alone. The southern states may have a different view point. The problem with the 2nd Amendment is not one thing, but a multiude of issues and problems that are either contradicting or so vague as to render a decent guess based on evidence and facts impossible. We can sit here, discuss, argue and debate the 2nd Amendment either 'back then' or 'modern America' and get no where quickly. The two major sides of this (whether that is NRA vs Brady, right vs left, conservative vs liberal, Republican vs Democrat) have to much invested to 'simply come to the table' and 'find solutions like gentleman and scholars'. It is much, much easier to argue like a bunch of spoil rich kids on whether to kick or punch the poor kid because your daddies have such an army of lawyers as to render anything the school does as irrelavent.
What *ARE* we trying to talk about exactly? The historical viewpoints? How we deal with firearms in today's life? Is there a limit and what is it? The problem is, it *STILL* doesnt matter, because none of us will ever come to an agreeable answer. No one is willing to come to the 'table' as it were and say "I'll give something you want, if you would consider granting me this." And what you grant is just as valuable as what you get (and the other guy agrees). Isn't that how we buy products in today's world? I'll give you, the gas company $3.93 for a gallon of gas, and you agree to give me a gallon of gas for $3.93?
|
|
|
|
