Further to my previous post, I think the article below sheds some light on the context in which the well-regulated militia language arose:
sunnetworks.net
Apparently, each man was considered part of the militia at that time, and had to supply his own arms in defense of the state. The states, at that time, were unable or unwilling to supply arms to militia men, or simply didn't see a need to do it as almost everyone had some sort of firearm. The reason the "well-regulated militia" language seems so peculiar to us is that times have changed so drastically since this was adopted.
There still remains some confusion, but it seems pretty plain that idea behind an armed citizenry was not defense against criminals or against domestic despots, but rather ensuring that common folk--all of whom were in those early rural times de facto militiamen--had the arms needed by the State's Governor when he went about the task of organizing and regulating what was then the equivalent of a state national guard.
Given the drastic change in circumstances from the 1780's till now, we are all left disputing whether the 2nd amendment rights are absolute, or whether they only apply to citizens buying arms to join a state militia under the supervision of the Governor. (Which again seems odd since the state national guard provides arms these day "free of charge.").
I suppose a contrary argument could just as reasonably made that all citizens have a right to own weapons because one day, in time of emergency, they may be called to join a state-regulated militia, and supply their own arms.
This 2nd Amendment is very much a product of its times, and a vote or plebescite on what current rights should be seems a fair solution. I have a feeling that absolute rights would not pass, but that ownership with reasonable restrictions (to prevent arms falling into the hands of felons, etc.) would carry the day. |
