[QUOTE=DanBlather]
I did do reading. Here is one quote: cite I suppose you could define “professional police force” to exclude paid sherrifs, constables, and night watchmen, but that is a semantic argument.
[/QUOTE]
You can argue semantics all you like; the fact remains that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution a police enforcement force as we know it today–that is, a uniformed, professional, enforcement agency dedicated to the maintenance of the general peace and protection of the citizenry at large–was a rare and irregular thing. The notion that the possession and use of firearms in the defense of one’s person against purely criminal acts–not to mention use in hunting and protection of livestock–would be restricted or prohibited would have been so alien to the authors that they would not deemed it worthy of specific mention.
Curiously, you skipped over a bit of your own cite: *The southern colonies, where slavery was a key part of the region’s economy, created slave patrols by the 1740s to police the black slave populations. They protected white citizens from slaves, fought slave uprisings, and captured runaway slaves. All capable men between eighteen and fifty years of age were expected to serve for a certain time. Historians consider the slave patrols the first modern police force in the United States.*Setting aside the deplorable issue of human slavery, it seems that the “early policing” you espouse included the raising of what would be otherwise termed a militia of the citizenry. Continuing on:*Few changes occurred in colonial policing until later in the eighteenth century. Following the French and Indian War (1756–63), in which the British defeated the French on the American frontier to seal their control of North America, an economic depression hit the colonies. A major rise in crime followed, primarily involving property and street crimes. Each colony and settlement responded individually to needs for improved policing with little or no coordination of efforts.
Even the new U.S. Constitution adopted in 1787 following victory over British forces did not specifically mention policing. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution adopted in 1791, known as the Bill of Rights, did set important limitations on governmental police powers.*
Paging down a bit: *Immediately following adoption of the new U.S. Constitution, the first U.S. Congress passed the first laws of the new nation. One act created federal marshals, the first federal police officers. The marshal was responsible for seeing that federal court orders were carried out and to enforce the first few criminal laws created in 1790. Communities still relied on volunteer constables and night watchmen.
On the western frontier, few federal or local police could be found. Order was maintained by groups of citizens, called vigilantes, beginning in the 1790s. As the frontier moved westward toward the Pacific Ocean over the next sixty years, vigilantism moved with it*The United States Marshalls did act as a law enforcement arm on the Federal level but were not then or now typically involved in the active prevention of local crime, and had many duties that are not assigned to law enforcement agencies today.
But this is all a side issue; making the argument that “The Founding Fathers didn’t intend this,” or “Nobody in the 18th Century could have predicted Saturday Night Specials/pistol gripped assault weapons/John Woo films where the hero leaps across the screen shooting double fisted,” avoids the simple fact that the 2nd Amendment clearly and specifically recognizes the right if individuals–not states, militias, or professional peace officers–to possess firearms without infringement. One can argue the interpretation of infringement, but it seems pretty clear that the authors of the Amendment intented ownership to be available to responsible citizens for practical uses, including but not exclusive to the participation in an organized militia.
One can also argue that circumstances and technology have overcome the original intent, and that such uses are no longer needed or beneficial (although my personal philosophy and first hand experience in the matter persuade me otherwise), in which case there is an entirely legitimate means to alter the Constitution via the proscribed amendment process. Trying to wordsmith it away by pretending that it doesn’t mean what the text states, isn’t relevent to modern society and weapons technology, or should otherwise be swept in the bin with yesterday’s beer bottles is intellectually disingeneous. And the type of misrepresentation and ad hominem espoused by the o.p. does not further any arguements to that end.
Stranger
