Note: Anything I copy pasted from another thread in another forum is because I'm too lazy to rewrite my entire post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's get to business and analyze the Second Amendment, shall we?
Well, that's fine and dandy. What does it mean though?"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Some people, namely conservatives, take it to mean that the average citizen is free to legally acquire and keep firearms to protect their homes, their families, and their country. Other more liberally minded people interpret these words to mean that citizens can form organized militias to help defend the country, and that the average citizen should not have such liberal access to weapons.
Over the years, many liberal politicians, activists, and analysts have had trouble arguing over which side is right. Then there are the large number of split opinions within this faction. Some people believe that all guns in the hands of private citizens should be banned. Others believe that the government should not be so strict and that simply more regulation is suitable.
So who's right? The liberals or the conservatives? Should all firearms be banned, more regulated, or should the government just mind its own damn business and leave people alone?
In my opinion, they're all right.
Some dangerous weapons should be banned, but we can't take away every single rifle or pistol in the country. How would that even work? Are you going to march into an average gun owning household and demand that they give up their firearms? Go ahead, I'll wait behind this thick brick wall here. Guns are simply a vital part of American culture and history. This is a country with a long and proud tradition of free citizens defending themselves and being able to exercise their free rights. Firearms cannot be entirely banned. To do so is to invite disaster.
Clearly, some weapons like Rocket Propelled Grenades, other explosives, flamethrowers, missiles, tanks, specialized ammunition, machine guns, etc should not be in the hands of the average citizen. Those weapons absolutely demand strict control. So what sorts of weapons should people be allowed to own? Really, the simplest kind. Automatic weapons and drum magazines are not exactly what a family needs when it comes to protection against burglars. It's overkill.
"But," a conservative would say, "we don't just need these weapons to stop robbers. We need them to defend our country! Why are you taking away our big guns? We're being repressed by a bloody tyrant! Aaaaaarghagugugagh!"
"Hold on, cowboy!" I would shout.
"See that? That's what the constitution says. Does the average American household count as being part of a well regulated militia? Well, I'm sure you think little Timmy can handle a hunting rifle just fine with his old pa, but he's not exactly a soldier ready for battle is he?""A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
"But," he would say again, "people can join together and make a militia if they're armed."
"Sure, they could. Though you must ask yourself, does an armed gang really count as a regulated militia? Ultimately, you have to answer to some kind of authority."
He responds, "What? We're a militia, not the regular army."
"Well, yeah, but who do you answer to? If your idea is to defend the country from attack, why are you just randomly walking around town with your buddies armed to the teeth? Are the cops suddenly going to be okay with an unauthorized gang with assault rifles just casually strolling through Main Street? Of course not. You have to be well regulated! You have to be officially recognized by the government. Now, you don't have to follow orders from the Federal Government. You can simply be part of your state's Defense Force. There's nothing wrong with being an officially recognized and entirely legal SDF! You get to do nifty things like put out wild fires, help people in natural disasters, and beat up hippies when they ask you to."
Conservative:
Then after thinking, "Wait, isn't that the job of the National Guard? How can we do their jobs?"
"Because, silly, the National Guard is also part of your state's militia. In fact, the National Guard is our entire country's Well Regulated militia force!"
"Hold on a minute! The National Guard isn't a militia. They're Federalized, and they help the Regular Army invade foreign countries and occupy foreign soil. A militia is supposed to be about Homeland security. They're just another arm of the no good Federal government!" The conservative says.
"Oh, don't be such a schmuck! The National Guard, is defined by the United States Code in Title 10 as being a subset of the United States Militia. Plus, the National Guard traces its history all the way back to the Massachusetts Bay Colonial Regiments! Besides, not all National Guard units are Federalized. A fairly large portion of them serve locally in their own states aiding in disaster relief and stopping riots, as ordered by their state governments. You also can't make the argument that it doesn't count as a militia because it has deployments overseas. What about all the militia units that invaded Canada in the War of 1812? Or what about all of the Militia units that fought in the Mexican-American war? They fought to conquer land, does that make them any less of a militia?"
"Bah, humbug." He would say.
The truth is, the Second Amendment as intended by the Founding Fathers is already fulfilled by the existence of the National Guard and the various SDFs. These are all well-regulated militias that do the jobs the Regular Military can't. So no, the average citizen does not need machine guns to defend his home from burglars. The average citizen does not need to carry around drum magazines to hunt deer. And anything more than a legally concealed pistol on city streets is overly ostentatious.
"But what about bullet proof vests? Gun control activists want to ban those too!"
Well, there I agree with you. Bullet proof vests don't kill people. They should be regulated only to the point where known criminals can't acquire them, but anything else is a waste of resources. Though I'll never understand why anyone would be paranoid enough to walk around Broadway with a large flak jacket. If that's your thing, go ahead.
So there you have it. That's my opinion, as clear and detailed as I can manage. If the average American citizen thinks he has the Constitutional right to bear arms, he should go and join the National Guard.
