(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.
Bingo!
The 2nd Amendment was a way to get buy-in to the Bill of Rights from the slave-owners of the South. All that bandering about Rights might get some of slaves thinkin - "you know?" What better way to keep the hundred or so ratio in-line than allowing the White people to have some firepower?
The Slave-State Origins of Modern Gun Rights
Slavery's been out-of-date for a while, maybe it's about time to update gun laws?