But, a well-regulated Militia is NOT necessary to the security of a free State

The Second Amendment is premised on the assumption that “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State” – but it’s not – is it? There are countries all around the world that manage to have both freedom and security without any such thing. The police and the Army are so necessary. But the reserve militia is not – you can tell by the fact that it has never, ever been mobilized. In fact, not even the state National Guards are strictly necessary to our freedom and security – they’re good to have, certainly, in event of natural disaster or civil unrest, and as a reserve of trained troops for wartime – but we could probably get along without them.

Our Founding Fathers were wrong about some things, and this is apparently one of them.

The Founding Fathers (and the country as a whole) were not very keen on standing armies.

The militia was their answer to have an available armed force handy if needed without maintaining a large standing army.

Armies have a tendency to take over states. I don’t think that we really know that much about what makes a democracy a success or not given that most of the ones without a militia but with a standing army have been around less than 100 years. Let’s see what happens when they go through some serious adversity.

What ?

Democracies with standing armies are a relatively new concept. We don’t know how it will all turn out.

Parsing this backwards;

So after say 200 years is it then safe to form an opinion? Or will you also say ‘Meh, let’s see what happens’?

there were no democracies before 1913 with regular armies?

Okay, then you can quickly give me list of all those regular armies taking over states.
Right?

It’s actually a relatively long list, but those nations tend to have one thing in common: they were two-bit, corrupt democracies in the first place. If anybody thinks that the only thing stopping the Army from taking over the US is citizens with guns, they are sadly mistaken.

I could see why they thought a militia was necessary back in 1787. It wasn’t until 1903, over one hundred years after the U.S. Constitution was adopted, for the militia to be abandoned and replaced with the National Guard. Heck, according to the 1903 law the militias weren’t disbanded they were just reorganized.

Of course the world isn’t the same in 2012 as it was in 1787. Thankfully the framers of the Constitution made it possible to amend the Constitution according to our changing needs.

As a Chinese official once said when asked about the effects of the French Revolution: “It’s too soon to tell.”

Not a whole lot. And 1913, there are still people alive from then, I wouldn’t exactly call that long term in the sweep of human history.

Outside the West, happens all the time.

Well, clearly we don’t need the 2nd Amendment any more, at least, not for the reason the authors stated therein. The National Guards have guns issued to them, and if the “reserve militia” ever is mobilized it will need the same – their personal hunting rifles will not play any relevant role. The “right of the people to keep and bear arms” has no relevance here.

Can anyone think of any other good reason for the Second Amendment? I can’t. I have no brief for any particular regime of gun control, and I can see why private gun ownership has some practical value. But I do not see why it is important enough to warrant its being set above ordinary electoral/legislative politics and given constitutional protection. This should be an ordinary policy question, not a constitutional one.

I don’t think things have changed on this subject since April of this year.

I’ve pondered and prayed about that saying, and as many of you know me, I feel there is a spiritual meaning along with the physical meaning to all laws, and all laws are mediated by God, not just scriptural laws, but all laws of nations and states. Part of the weirdness of how it is worded is IMHO because it is a spiritual law.

For all those who care, this is my interpretation of the 2nd in the spiritual:

The first part, ‘a well regulated militia’ refers to the ability of (demonic) ruling powers being able to control (regulate) it’s citizens (with anything from fear of jail to bureaucratic red tape).
The middle part ‘being necessary to the security of a free State’ is a bit of a oxymoron, a form of doublespeak. In the spiritual ‘security’ is oppression and confinement. So the ‘security of a free state’ means the ability to oppress people in the free state so they are no longer free.

‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ is God’s mediation, it allows anyone the right to use God’s own weapons against these demonic rulers so they will not be subject to the security/oppression measures and can enjoy the free state without hinderance.

As such in the spiritual interpretation is has little to do with the right to obtain physical arms, but all to do with the right to overcome oppression even without physical arms, a right of the people guaranteed by God. Actually like so many spiritual things it is exactly opposite the worldly meaning. In the worldly meaning man depends on guns for his freedom (which is the conventional interpretation of the 2nd), in the spiritual man depends on God even in the absence of guns for his freedom.

So as for my own interpretation, yes the well regulated militia would be necessary to the oppression (security) of a free state.

And as always YMMV

Yeah, well, that’s a lot of nonsense that you made up.

Even if you’re right, and this SHOULDN’T have been in the Constitution, the fact remains that it IS.

You want it out, you’ll have to get both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures to agree with you.

Good luck.

I’m merely trying to show why amending the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment would not be any threat to American liberty, nor security.

Not that I expect that to happen this decade. Politically impossible – and not all that important, we have much more urgent political things to worry about, constitutionally and otherwise. The Second Amendment is Mostly Harmless. But it remains a Bad Idea.

To prevent Tyranny.
An armed populace is a whole lot less likely to be dominated by ANY government

Plus there’s the right to self defense, a basic human right. I’m not sure if the founders had that in mind when writing the 2nd amendment, but they covered for whatever they may have forgotten when they wrote the 9th.

The right to defend oneself is about as basic a human right as you can identify. I’d say it’s definitely covered under the 9th, if not the 2nd.

The Iraqis under Saddam Hussein were armed. Didn’t help. The police and the army are always armed better, and, more importantly, organized and trained better. Historically, the only really effective check on government is the rule of law, which is itself a governmental thing. Yes, a lawyer is more important to your freedom than a militiaman.

It depends on how far a tyrant is willing to go to keep the populace down. The US army, far better equipped than Saddam’s military, went through hell trying to defeat an insurgency. If the US army tried to put down the American people with the same tactics used in Iraq, they would fail. Now if they used Saddam’s tactics, that’s a different story.

I fail to see any coloration between gun ownership and resistance to authoritative rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country