El Cid said:
I hate to deviate from the thread a bit but, I was wondering what you guys think about the whole "right to bear arms" under the pretext of "a well organized malitia"? I'm all for ownership of weapons but I'm more for accountability of firearm owners.
My personal opinion here:
What do you mean by accountability? Weapon registration, personal licenses, something else? We already have perfectly adequate accountability: "do the crime, do the time". Committing crimes with a gun is a quick ticket to a long stay in the clink.
Quite honestly, I believe that if I'm not out committing crimes, the government has absolutely no business in my private life. I have firearms that are older than I am and have been handed down in the family. No business of the government's whatsoever.
And if someone else IS out committing crimes, I shouldn't have to get the permission of the government to defend myself and my fellow citizens.
Moving on to the Second Amendment:
The wording is unfortunately a little odd, and actually can be interpreted in very different ways. For example, many argue that "the people" is a collective entity and the right of that collective, in the form of an organized militia, to keep and bear arms is emphasized.
On the other hand, one might argue that BECAUSE we have militias run by the government, people (as individuals as well as collectives) must be able to keep and bear arms to discourage a violent and oppressive government.
The Supreme Court has never come out with a clear ruling on the issue (they keep applying the Second Amendment in specific cases only), and neither has Congress attempted to clarify the Amendment. This indicates, to me, that while you can debate the intent of the Authors, there is a certain reluctance to change their words. Perhaps the authors intended a little vaguery, or maybe the wording is the result of compromises. There are many many pages written on all sides of this issue...
