cowleyj wrote:DorostheConqueror wrote:cowleyj wrote:As far As I am concerned, being british and objective in this matter:
1) All you need to defend yourself is one good, reliable handgun.
2) The 'well regulated militia' is the national guard/military reserve.
So basically, from a logical point of view, there is no need for ANY private household to own a class III-style heavy weapon such as an AR-15.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
You're wrong. As I mentioned before, the "well regulated militia" section of the Second Amendment is irrelevant filler; the militia was never envisioned to be a force similar to our modern Guard, nor is the right to bear arms conditional upon the militia- it "shall not be infringed", period. Gun-control advocates like to stress the militia statement as though it somehow excuses gun-control once the government gains enough power, but even a cursory examination of the actual wording reveals this is not the case. Indeed, this interpretation not only violates the letter of the law, it's runs utterly contrary to the spirit as well.
Nor is all you need one good, reliable handgun. In the present state of affairs, when the forces of tyranny can throw tanks, cruise missiles, and clouds of nerve gas at you, the idea that one handgun, let alone an arsenal of fully automatic weapons, can defend you is laughable. Doesn't hurt to try, but, like a samurai who lives as one already dead, one must always keep in mind the inevitable.
But who "needs" a "need" in order to justify owning a cool toy? You may not "need" an AR-15. You don't "need" a gaming computer or a flatscreen TV or a motorcycle or a house or a diet more varied than rice and barley. If you refuse to get things simply because you don't "need" them, then move to Amish country, hippie.
Hm. For one thing, I am not a hippie, sir. Do not judge people whom you have never met, it is the height of impoliteness. Secondly, "when the forces of tyranny can throw tanks...at you". To fight those is what your professional armed forces are for, is it not?
Amish, hippie, same thing. You may call yourself what you wish. And no, you misunderstand. The right of private citizens to defend themselves is as much a check against the power of the government itself as it is an insurance against external threats. Ensuring that liberty could survive and remain vigilant against the creep of tyranny at home was, after all, one of the primary driving forces behind the Constitution, the reason why the Founding Fathers chose to make it a document of
enumerated powers (the government can only do what it's TOLD it can do), rather than enumerated restrictions (the government can do whatever it wants, with a few explicitly stated exceptions, as was the case in even the most liberal monarchical systems). It's also why the US military was set up the way it was, with the military leadership consisting entirely of members from and dependent entirely upon the civilian government. The Founding Fathers knew all too well that the greatest threat to Republican liberty was NOT enemies from the outside, but it's own members. The Roman Republic, after all, fell not to the barbarians, nor to the Carthaginians, nor the Greeks, but to it's own army and a single populist leader.
In other words, the tanks "we the people" have to worry about
are our own. Now, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we've gotten to the point where the people must exercise their right to revolution and dissolution (a right which the Federal government has sought increasingly to denigrate and stamp out ever since the Civil War). Indeed, I'm more than cynical enough to believe that a modern Revolution would quickly derail itself
against liberalism and wind up saddling us with an oppressive system that even Camus could not anticipate. But the principle is solid, and inviolate. Political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and the people must not surrender their swords unto the Shogun, under any circumstances.
The first part labels whats in question, them the second part is its effect, the third part is the manifestation of such and the last is saying that that shall not be infringed.
Actually, this is a syntactically valid sentence formulation even today.
Nor does the fact that it's structured somewhat archaically change the
meaning of the sentence. The only part that matters, the only part which is relevant in regards to the law, is the conclusion: the part saying what shall not be infringed. Everything else is filler. It may be
ritually important filler, filler which gives us some insight (very limited, unnuanced, and largely unnecessary for those of us who have access to more comprehensive historical records) into the reasoning behind creating such laws. Perhaps that's where you're having such a hard time accepting the wording? Perhaps it'd be an easier pill to swallow if I selected a less pejorative phrase to describe the fluff? But it doesn't tell us anything about the Constitutional authority granted to the federal government, so filler it must be.
Again, this isn't an Eco novel here. Either change it, or accept it.
