The Second is not meant to affirm the right to bear arms, as that right is intrinsic and part of English common law. Rather, the Second uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of well-regulated militias. The definition of well-regulated militias is found in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and explained in detail in the first two Militia Acts. Those two acts called for conscription of most white males of a certain age range to arm themselves and train with militias regulated by state legislators twice a year, with all militias under the command of POTUS. The first use of the statutes involved using militias to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. Another reason for forming militias was to control Amerindians.
In addition, the Second was revised several times, with "State" replacing "country." That's because there were already militias in place, and several of them were used as slave patrols. With that, states could operate militias for their own use (thus, regulated by state legislators) and could be called by the federal government to serve the country. Thus, militias could operate against whites, slaves, and Amerindians.
A third Militia Act made the statute permanent, a fourth included conscription of African-Americans, and a fifth led to the formation of the National Guard. Later, conscription was removed.
Thus, the Second was not meant to give citizens the ability to overthrow the government. In fact, the contrary idea doesn't even make sense: why would a government give citizens the ability to overthrow it? And why do citizens need affirmation from government to give it the ability to overthrow the latter?
The same argument can even be seen for any who oppose gun control because it is a form of government "tyranny." If one opposes gun control for that reason, then why does one want a government that is already considered "tyrannical" to do the same?
And to recap: ironically, gun control is avoided thanks to lobbying from the arms industry, which in turn sells weapons not only to citizens but to the government for profit.
Finally, in case you are not yet sufficiently confused about this issue, consider this article:
"The Secret History of Guns"
"The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/308608/
Login
Register
FAQ
