Debate about Gun Control

[Mikebert]

(06-23-2016, 09:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-23-2016, 08:34 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Once a standing army was developed (something not originally anticipated) the militia became superfluous.  The straightforward meaning of the 2nd Amendment no loner was relevant.  One can interpret it to mean self defense,  but it doe snot explicitly say that.  One can interpret it to refer to all sorts of weapons that did not exist at the time it was composed.  The interpretation that it applies to army weapons follows naturally from the fact that the militia IS the army (or it was and traditionally had been when the Amendment was conceived).

Since this is no longer the case the interpretation given by Miller makes no more sense that the earlier ones from the 19th century. It means what the Court says it means.  And that caveat they added to Heller says they haven't decided this issue for more powerful weapons.

I could go on at length, but a few points.

The standing army was anticipated and well established before the American Revolution.  During the English Civil War, militia units often made a difference, but it was Cornwall's New Model Army, paid professionals, that were the decisive arm.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of this.  I'd add that the units that surrounded Boston after Lexington and Concord were militia, were unpaid but reasonably trained and experienced ordinary citizens.  They came from a culture used to indian wars.  However, the forces who wintered with Washington at Valley Forge and triumphed at Yorktown were part of a standing army.  They were paid and received far more extensive training than militia.  Look also to the Constitution.  The sections addressing the Army, Navy and Militia are quite distinct.  The founding fathers knew full well what they were doing. An argument based on their ignorance is bogus.

To at least the same degree that standing armies didn't exist in peace time, police forces didn't exist period.  The militia, the adult male population, was responsible for enforcing the laws, keeping the peace and defense of family, community and themselves.  The notion that the adults in period couldn't and didn't protect themselves and that the 2nd doesn't protect the right and duty to do so is rightly held in contempt by those familiar with the period.

Finally, the Supreme Court is supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  They are not supposed to decide that it means what they think it ought to mean based on current fads and the direction of the current political winds.  To change the Constitution one is supposed to make amendments or hold a constitutional convention.  That's the supposed to be.  In practice, the Supreme Court has always been political and has often put politics above law.  The modern court's habit of 5-4 decisions along the lines of the parties that appointed the justices is, alas, more typical than unusual.

This doesn't make it right, nor does an attitude of contempt of the law by those most responsible for upholding the law make for a healthy democracy.

Of course it was.  Some founders though a standing army was what we would have.  Others wanted to rely on the militia for defense.  Only some thought a Bill of Rights was necessary.  Typically those in favor of a Bill were less enthusiastic about standing armies and wanted to rely on the militia.

If the militia still existed it would to have to apply all modern weapons of war, aircraft too, and not just small arms.  The distinction between crew served and individual weapons is completely arbitrary. It is just some way to limit the scope of the weapons covered so as to not make the Constitution a suicide pact.  Other approaches could be tried.  But scope is an issue that will have to be addressed at some point.  Consider would the Orlando shooter have achieved all that much more carnage had he been equipped with an M-16?  Heat transfer limits how many rounds can be fired from a fully auto weapon.  The semi allows for a rapid rate of fire and more accuracy.  So for what reason can you draw the limit at fully auto weapons, where it is now? 

Based on these two precedents I don't see how you can.  I also cannot see how one cannot assert the right to bear Stinger missiles.  Suppose a religious cult decided to acquire stinger missiles, artillery, and deploy mines on their land to discourage trespassers and argues that the 2nd Amendment gives them this right, how will the authorities do that.  And what if they try to acquire a nuke? There is nothing explicitly in the amendment that limits it.  Yet you can be sure the Court will come up with a limit.  But they will just be asserting it, unless Congress finally decides to do the right thing and amend the constitution.

My point is there is a limit, even if there is no constitutional authority for it.  They are higher laws than the constitution.