I had been posting "Repeal 2" comments around, perhaps a little overzealously, but with a strict purpose: the 2'nd Amendment needs to be upgraded to meet modern technology, and that need is only getting is growing greater every year. I do not propose an outright ban on private arms ownership, however.
There are several problems with the 2'nd as written. First, it speaks in terms of "well regulated militia" securing "free state[s]"; second, the word "infringe" (rather than "deny", e.g.) suggests that no restriction on private arms ownership is allowed at all, for to infringe is to even gently step on toes, albeit unintentionally. A Supreme Court could throw out All gun laws, state or federal, in this nation based on that word alone, one suspects.
The notion that our country is little more than a alliance of free states has always been false, as the events from 1865-1965 demonstrate. Though still retaining considerable autonomy, federalism has come to mean, for good or bad, states' subservience to Washington, Congress, and the President. For good or bad, I'm going to take this as a given. As to militia, whether they should play a role should be the subject of debate.
Full private access to any and all "arms", particularly in the nuclear age, is, I hope, beyond debate. It would be madness to allow individuals, or random collectives, to own tanks, jets, machine guns, WMDs, or weapons of such magnitude. At the same time, if we do have "... the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as the DOI proclaims, then we have the rights derived therein -- such as the Right to Self Defense, the Right to Sufficient Medical Care, the Right to Basic Needs such as clean air, water, food, etc. Bear in mind, government must provide for the defense of all these rights, whether in the form of police, courts, Obamacare, the DOD, etc. At the same time, as we correctly recognize that provision by government alone, especially centralized government, is suspect; for governments, like all human institutions, are subject to human corruptibility and so must be guarded against (why we have the federal system of course, with its separation of powers, state and local rights, again etc.).
This could, and probably should, be expanded into a full thesis, which cannot be done in a forum like this. So I'll simply state my Revised Edition (first cut!) of the 2'nd Amendment, and leave it up for feedback. Here goes:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to self defense by necessary means shall not be denied. Congress and the states will cooperate to regulate and support such militia and their facilities."
There are several problems with the 2'nd as written. First, it speaks in terms of "well regulated militia" securing "free state[s]"; second, the word "infringe" (rather than "deny", e.g.) suggests that no restriction on private arms ownership is allowed at all, for to infringe is to even gently step on toes, albeit unintentionally. A Supreme Court could throw out All gun laws, state or federal, in this nation based on that word alone, one suspects.
The notion that our country is little more than a alliance of free states has always been false, as the events from 1865-1965 demonstrate. Though still retaining considerable autonomy, federalism has come to mean, for good or bad, states' subservience to Washington, Congress, and the President. For good or bad, I'm going to take this as a given. As to militia, whether they should play a role should be the subject of debate.
Full private access to any and all "arms", particularly in the nuclear age, is, I hope, beyond debate. It would be madness to allow individuals, or random collectives, to own tanks, jets, machine guns, WMDs, or weapons of such magnitude. At the same time, if we do have "... the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as the DOI proclaims, then we have the rights derived therein -- such as the Right to Self Defense, the Right to Sufficient Medical Care, the Right to Basic Needs such as clean air, water, food, etc. Bear in mind, government must provide for the defense of all these rights, whether in the form of police, courts, Obamacare, the DOD, etc. At the same time, as we correctly recognize that provision by government alone, especially centralized government, is suspect; for governments, like all human institutions, are subject to human corruptibility and so must be guarded against (why we have the federal system of course, with its separation of powers, state and local rights, again etc.).
This could, and probably should, be expanded into a full thesis, which cannot be done in a forum like this. So I'll simply state my Revised Edition (first cut!) of the 2'nd Amendment, and leave it up for feedback. Here goes:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to self defense by necessary means shall not be denied. Congress and the states will cooperate to regulate and support such militia and their facilities."
