"Obviously, beyond obviously, the Constitution NEVER envisioned that gun ownership might be contingent upon membership in some kind of militia. Obviously."
Ever read "The Federalist Papers"? Hamilton, at least, envisioned every adult male to be in a militia run by the state he was in.
yale.edu
They saw two prime benefits. One, it made the US very difficult to invade. With such a large potential body of armed men, it would be pretty inconceivable that anybody could field a large enough force to defeat the US on their own soil. Two, if the central government ever got a little horsey, the states could always field their militias and take the central government out.
yale.edu
Unfortunately, this didn't work as well as they thought. The War of 1812 showed several of the flaws. The militias were a bust. Some states, like the ones in New England, refused to send men. Even when men were sent, some refused to fight. Now, they had some luck with the privateers, i.e. pirates, but the whole idea of civilian militias defeating professional military didn't pan out.
So the whole idea was quietly dropped.
Which, as it turns out, was for the best. Because, unless you want to adopt a system like the Swiss, expecting civilians, with typical civilian arms, to go up against trained and equipped military is a losing cause. The FF had no concept of air superiority, or tanks. Much less effective body armor, night vision scopes, tanks, cluster bombs and all of the "toys" of a modern military.
Ooh. And every little boys favorite, the flamethrower.
In the 1700s, there was no difference in the arms used by the military and what was needed to put meat on the table. That hasn't been true for more than a century.
Don't get me wrong, I support the right to own guns. But, don't start making shit up. |
