# Which "arms" should be protected by the Second Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795 "2016-03-21T20:42:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/61 "2016-03-23T03:22:44Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I thought I was on pretty firm ground considering that self defense training _encompasses_ weapons training. Unless you don’t think firearms are used for self-defense? > > It’s true that in the first 6 or 20 hours, firearms won’t be emphasized. There are more fundamental issues at hand. Weapons courses are sometimes relegated to a second class. > IIRC, Shodan expressed the opinion in another thread that it requires years of practice before you can effectively apply unarmed self defense techniques. From his perspective he is correct: Judo training is like that. (Same for Akido, IMHO). Both are terrific sports, but require practice to apply. There are quicker approaches, insofar as the basics are concerned. > > That said, I agree that firearms can be useful tools. They also carry risks: households with a firearm are more likely to kill a household member than an intruder. But those risks will vary by household - that’s just an average I quoted. A sober approach to self defense would provide the student with the necessary knowledge to weigh and assess the risks appropriately. You won’t get that from anti-science organizations like the NRA. 1. This topic has been debated vigorously and inconclusively on this board. Both sides think seem to think their conclusions are obvious. I recommend those threads. Good times. > > 1. I myself utterly defeated an armed gunman a head taller than myself. So it can be done. Well, ok we were on a staircase: since he was up a step it gave him that height advantage. He did have a gun. But I had my hands. No contest. > > I applied the ancient technique I call hand-over-my-wallet-_jutsu_. Then we parted company. And I lived to tell the tale. Total and complete victory for myself. > > The point: you are assuming that most violent interactions have to involve a knock-down battle. That’s piss-poor risk assessment. The basics of self defense involve flight and voice. They can also involve knees and elbows. If somebody has spent hours in the shooting range but has never practiced any sort of model mugging or confrontation, then he is a shooting hobbyist, but not a person I’d want packing heat near me in a potentially violent situation. No thanks. Go play somewhere else. > Those who believe that every potentially violent encounter is a necessarily violent encounter lack the intelligence and character to be responsible firearm owners, IM-not-so-HO. Good post and I agree with you. Life\>\>possessions. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/62 "2016-03-23T03:30:04Z")
Since the _intent_ of the Second Amendment was to provide the government with a capable military force for national defense I would say it allows ordinary citizens the right to handguns, assault rifles, drones, tanks, Stingers. What’s that? Most of those are illegal? Why? ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/63 "2016-03-23T03:38:51Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Wrong. It’s also meant as a hedge against tyranny. Bizarre, the same person can have both Texturalist AND Contexturalist perspectives when it comes to this Amendment. It means exactly what it says in all manner of allowing unrestricted gun ownership, and yet also, means what it does not say in that the ownership is meant to keep the government in check. Since this crap is considered sound rational, why not the Second Amendment is originally intended only for well formed militias under the command of The Commander-in-chief and they are also to protect the government from other gun-toting lunatics? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/64 "2016-03-23T03:52:41Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Bizarre, the same person can have both Texturalist AND Contexturalist perspectives when it comes to this Amendment. It means exactly what it says in all manner of allowing unrestricted gun ownership, and yet also, means what it does not say in that the ownership is meant to keep the government in check. > > Since this crap is considered sound rational, why not the Second Amendment is originally intended only for well formed militias under the command of The Commander-in-chief and they are also to protect the government from other gun-toting lunatics? Convince the Supreme Court, convince the armed populace and their supporters which includes a decent amount of the military, and convince others that have real power that your interpretation is the correct one and you might have something there. I don’t get what’s so difficult about the concept of natural rights and writing and adopting a charter for a limited government. [Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Is a link to some light background reading. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/65 "2016-03-23T04:26:47Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Convince the Supreme Court, convince the armed populace and their supporters which includes a decent amount of the military, and convince others that have real power that your interpretation is the correct one and you might have something there. > > I don’t get what’s so difficult about the concept of natural rights and writing and adopting a charter for a limited government. > > [Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Is a link to some light background reading. You misunderstand me. People like guns, and as it turns out they’ve gone to great lengths to keep and justify having them. My point is your argument isn’t sound. And I have no idea whatsoever what gun ownership has to do with natural rights and adopting a charter for a limited government. If the Second Amendment does indeed exist to protect American citizens from tyranny and the Supreme Court believes that, as well as a decent amount of the military then why can’t a civilian buy a FGM-148 Javelin? I hate to tell you, but sweatpants-wearing Cheeto-finger Cletus isn’t going to last long with his AR-15 when the government instituted tyranny goes down. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/66 "2016-03-23T04:31:44Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > You misunderstand me. People like guns, and as it turns out they’ve gone to great lengths to keep and justify having them. My point is your argument isn’t sound. And I have no idea whatsoever what gun ownership has to do with natural rights and adopting a charter for a limited government. > > If the Second Amendment does indeed exist to protect American citizens from tyranny and the Supreme Court believes that, as well as a decent amount of the military then why can’t a civilian buy a FGM-148 Javelin? I hate to tell you, but sweatpants-wearing Cheeto-finger Cletus isn’t going to last long with his AR-15 when the government instituted tyranny goes down. You assume the government is a monolithic entity. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/67 "2016-03-23T04:36:12Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You assume the government is a monolithic entity. What? Care to lay out your accepted rules of civilian engagement for tyranny? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/68 "2016-03-23T04:42:59Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Good post and I agree with you. Life\>\>possessions. Thank you. The topic of violence is big and more complicated than I let on of course. Firearms can be useful tools. It’s just that I don’t like the implication that a small person is helpless without a gun unless they are a ninja. The parallel to police officers isn’t a very good one: cops use guns so they can arrest the potentially violent. Deescalating situations and if necessary fleeing or reporting the violent are a different category of self defense challenge. Which is not to say a responsible private citizen would never find a gun helpful. But I am dubious about those who think that firearms are the central and critical self defense mechanism. I would stress a layered defense approach including deescalation, voice, stance and flight. Then physical technique including weaponry. But also knees and elbows. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/69 "2016-03-23T06:04:30Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > What? Care to lay out your accepted rules of civilian engagement for tyranny? That will depend on each person’s perception of the political and social situation. I feel that legally owning people was tyrannical and I think a slave revolt would have been moral. At the moment BLM has a point with how the police and justice system treat minorities and other marginalized people. I can’t say I blame them for clashing with the fuzz. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on point of view, the man doesn’t have his boot down on the majority or those who compose the powerful class. Each person has to weigh the costs of martyrdom for himself. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/70 "2016-03-23T07:13:04Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Based on historical practices, ANY weapon that can be reasonably operated and maintained by a single person – including but not limited to machine guns, flamethrowers, and grenades – is therefore included under the Second Amendment. Indeed, a strong argument could be made in this day and age that every able-bodied male of good character 18-45 years old should be _required_ to own at least one of those weapons. We’re arguing from past practices now? > [@BobLibDem](#): > > The oft-repeated saw that everybody is in the militia became outdated when National Guard units were created in every state. > [@SCAdian](#): > > True - not “everybody” is in the militia. As DinoR said, federal law, in defining the militia, excludes old people, children, and most women. Wow, you are both wrong. There is no “disorganized militia” anymore. There are just a bunch of private actors. And the National Guard is a military asset, barely a militia in a conventional sense. > [@octopus](#): > > You are misremembering history. The Constitution grants the government limited powers. The bill of rights are redundant. So you agree that they were only passed for political purposes, and shouldn’t be taken seriously? I mean, if the Tenth Amendment is all you need, then why even have the other nine? > [@octopus](#): > > The whole point of the Constitution was to form a limited government with most rights reserved for the states and the people. You’re thinking of the Articles of Confederation. The “whole point” of the present constitution was a stronger central government. > [@octopus](#): > > I agree with that. But the presence of an armed citizenry is a hedge against tyranny which won’t be constrained by a piece of paper. The problem is, the one time that was put into practice was the Redemption. Apparently democracy and equality were “tyranny,” while disenfranchisement, terrorism, and _de facto_ re-enslavement were “liberty.” It’s Orwellian. Not for nothing do I give the “hedge against tyranny” argument rolled eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/71 "2016-03-23T11:50:44Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > While serving in the militia (National Guard)- all arms are protected. > > While not serving in the militia- nothing is protected. > > The oft-repeated saw that everybody is in the militia became outdated when National Guard units were created in every state. But that line of reasoning runs counter to the foundational principle that fundamental rights are not granted or given or created or otherwise established by their mention in the Bill of Rights. If it is legally true that the right to arms is a pre-existing right and is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, it follows that the right is not _in any manner dependent_ on the Constitution for its existence . . . The right can not be said to be dependent upon, qualified by or conditioned upon, the words of the 2nd (e.g., “well regulated”) or a structure that is itself, ENTIRELY dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (e.g., the organized militia and/or a citizens enrollment status in the militia). SCOTUS has been boringly consistent in affirming and re-affirming this ‘pre-existing right’ principle and the “[not] in any manner dependent on [the Constitution]” condition for the RKBA, for going on 140 years: [INDENT] **Supreme Court, 1876** : “The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.”(1) This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .” **Supreme Court, 1886** : "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (2) is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . " **Supreme Court, 2008** : "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”[/INDENT] (1) SCOTUS is quoting the original indictment’s description of the right to arms, as exercised by the Freedmen, (the indictment of the KKK members who disarmed, kidnapped and lynched the Freedmen), that being armed self defense, in public, by ex-slave citizens in 1873 Louisiana, a state without any official militia (it having been disbanded by Congress). (2) SCOTUS is citing and quoting the earlier case but dropping the case specific language, substituting the words from the indictment for the text of the 2nd Amendment. If your theory is correct, how is it that the SCOTUS recognized the RKBA of two ex-slaves in a state where _even if there was a militia_ they would have been barred from serving? How could _ **any** _ right to arms exist for them if your theory is correct? . ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/72 "2016-03-23T13:22:43Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Not much point if you can’t get into orbit. You haven’t lived until you’ve fired off a weapon with a blast radius longer than its ballistic trajectory. …Um, sorry, I mean to say, you haven’t lived \*after \*you’ve fired off a weapon with a blast radius longer than its ballistic trajectory. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/73 "2016-03-23T15:10:02Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I’m sorry, but that’s nuts. A top ten MMA woman is going to absolutely kick the living shit out of a “large male” unless the large male is also a very, very skilled fighter. > > I’m a big guy, over six feet and about 200 pounds. middle aged, athletically active and correspondingly strong, and I assure you a top female MMA competitor weighing 125 pounds will drop me like a mic in less than thirty seconds, unless of course I just try running away, in which case it might take her 45. A weight advantage is not going to save you against someone who can punch that fast and that effectively. I guess it depends. At some point its just hard to overcome the physics. Grappling techniques allow you to use leverage to your advantage, using your large muscles against your opponent’s small muscles but with enough strength you can muscle your way into better positions. There is a reason there are weight classes in MMA (and most martial arts) and even very athletic women don’t have the arm and upper body strength that a healthy athletic young man twice her weight will have and I suspect that a male amateur with a couple of years of training will be able to beat a top female that is half his weight most of the time. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/74 "2016-03-23T15:11:32Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > You haven’t lived until you’ve fired off a weapon with a blast radius longer than its ballistic trajectory. > > …Um, sorry, I mean to say, you haven’t lived \*after \*you’ve fired off a weapon with a blast radius longer than its ballistic trajectory. nuclear hand grenades? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/75 "2016-03-23T15:28:03Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I thought I was on pretty firm ground considering that self defense training _encompasses_ weapons training. Unless you don’t think firearms are used for self-defense? That’s all well and good, but let’s look at the fact pattern that spawned this thread. > [@](#): > > After a “bad altercation” with an abusive boyfriend put > her in the hospital, Jaime Caetano found herself homeless > and “in fear for [her] life.” Tr. 31, 38 (July 10, 2013). She > obtained multiple restraining orders against her abuser, > but they proved futile. So when a friend offered her a stun > gun “for self-defense against [her] former boy friend,” 470 > Mass. 774, 776, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 690 (2015), Caetano > accepted the weapon. > > It is a good thing she did. One night after leaving work, > Caetano found her ex-boyfriend “waiting for [her] outside.” > Tr. 35. He “started screaming” that she was “not gonna > [expletive deleted] work at this place” any more because > she “should be home with the kids” they had together. > Ibid. Caetano’s abuser towered over her by nearly a foot > and outweighed her by close to 100 pounds. But she didn’t > need physical strength to protect herself. She stood her > ground, displayed the stun gun, and announced: “I’m not > gonna take this anymore. . . . I don’t wanna have to [use > the stun gun on] you, but if you don’t leave me alone, I’m > gonna have to.” Id., at 35–36. The gambit worked. The > ex-boyfriend “got scared and he left [her] alone.” Id., > at 36. So Caetano was assaulted, hospitalized, and homeless. She had restraining orders against her abuser to no avail. He was waiting for her and threatening her when she displayed a stun gun. That alone was sufficient to avoid further confrontation. So do you, **Measure for Measure** , believe that Caetano should be a convicted felon, that stun guns should be outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, and that Caetano who is nearly a foot shorter and close to 100 pounds lighter than her abuser should not have used a weapon to defend herself and instead relied on… a layered defense approach including deescalation, voice, stance and flight? * * * As to the thread topic, anything that facilitates effective self defense should be covered by the 2nd amendment. A good rule of thumb, though not inclusive, is what police avail themselves of. Anything they have at their disposal I should be able to have. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/76 "2016-03-23T15:40:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Anything they have at their disposal I should be able to have. Not me. I want better stuff than they usually get. Glocks and such are serviceable weapons, but I prefer the finer things in life. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/77 "2016-03-23T15:59:29Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Not me. I want better stuff than they usually get. Glocks and such are serviceable weapons, but I prefer the finer things in life. Elitist 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/78 "2016-03-23T16:00:59Z")
It’s not the limit - just a starting point. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/79 "2016-03-23T18:36:19Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > You’re thinking of the Articles of Confederation. The “whole point” of the present constitution was a stronger central government. > > The problem is, the one time that was put into practice was the Redemption. Apparently democracy and equality were “tyranny,” while disenfranchisement, terrorism, and _de facto_ re-enslavement were “liberty.” It’s Orwellian. Not for nothing do I give the “hedge against tyranny” argument rolled eyes. The strengthening of a central government with the Constitution doesn’t mean it was still not limited. Roll your eyes all you wish a piece of paper guarantees nothing. > [@Bone](#): > > That’s all well and good, but let’s look at the fact pattern that spawned this thread. > So Caetano was assaulted, hospitalized, and homeless. She had restraining orders against her abuser to no avail. He was waiting for her and threatening her when she displayed a stun gun. That alone was sufficient to avoid further confrontation. > > So do you, **Measure for Measure** , believe that Caetano should be a convicted felon, that stun guns should be outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, and that Caetano who is nearly a foot shorter and close to 100 pounds lighter than her abuser should not have used a weapon to defend herself and instead relied on… a layered defense approach including deescalation, voice, stance and flight? > > * * * > > As to the thread topic, anything that facilitates effective self defense should be covered by the 2nd amendment. A good rule of thumb, though not inclusive, is what police avail themselves of. Anything they have at their disposal I should be able to have. Wait you mean a piece of paper did nothing to ensure her security but a physical weapon did? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/80 "2016-03-23T19:28:29Z")
Which “presses” should be protected by the First Amendment? The history of English-descended people owning guns, going as far back as the English Civil War and subsequent history, laws and commentary makes the point of the Second Amendment pretty clear: the People en masse should have the weapons necessary to be unconquerable by a despotic government. And to protect that, the government should not have the authority to forbid the people weapons. And yes, “the People” in this context means the _ **People** _, not any government structure that purports to represent them. Second only to 'troops"- regular army soldiers who were regarded as little more than mercenaries or slaves of the state- English commentators on citizen armies disparaged “select” militias: persons vetted for loyalty to the regime and allowed guns in order to help suppress the rest of the populace. (\ National Guard \). Don’t take my word for it, read any of the writers on the subject of citizen militias from the middle of the 17th century onward. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795.md?page=5)