posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 12:20 AM
Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year require a well regulated militia
with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?
In short, yes. In a longer answer, most assuredly yes. There is no "individualistic" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, especially in light of the
version passed by the Senate, as seen here:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Or an earlier version (actually the first to be sent to the floor):
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
James Madison, a staunch Federalist, wrote:
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to
control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
A "well-regulated militia" would be kept at home only, within the borders of the U.S. It is what the National Guard was intended to be before it was
put under the U.S. Army. The militia would be mostly governed at the state level, but armed at the federal level with federal funds. As to your
assertion of "open vigilantism", that is not the intent of the 2nd Amendment, nor is it assumed.
Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?
Question 3: Should we conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks if the times
we live in makes it militia relevant weaponry?
At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, the most powerful of weapons were cannons, and individuals could own cannons as personal property.
Any force that went against an individual with muskets and cannons were met with muskets and cannons. It can be translated today to an individual met
with M-16s and rocket launchers, should be met with M-16s and rocket launchers.
Alas, current federal laws prohibit certain weaponry from individual ownership. But are they necessary today? Is it necessary for me to own a rocket
launcher? I don't personally believe so because, in the event that I need to defend myself against such a force that only something like a rocket
launcher will help me, I'll just "acquire" them.
Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American
Simply put: they can't without repealing the 2nd Amendment. However, I would ask: how's that drug war going? Since drugs are illegal people can't
buy or own drugs, right? Banning guns will make citizens powerless against force, both by criminals who will have guns and a government no longer
afraid of the unarmed populace.
Welcome to ATS. Leave my guns alone. They may be used to save you someday.