Reply #22: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution

[Zomby Woof]

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


-end of excerpt-


So simply put, Congress does the regulating of the militia, reserving certain responsibilities to the states. Amendment 2 is referring to the above clause when citing "a well-regulated militia". Which means Amendment 2 is not necessarily a green light for gun fetishists to arm themselves to the teeth with assault weapons and other toys. I am not saying gun owners have no rights, it's just that Amendment 2, as it pertains to fondling semi-automatic weapons and collecting hundreds of handguns, isn't necessarily the source of that "right". Perhaps Amendment 9 or 10 (as states do set many of their own gun laws) are more accurately the source. The NRA has been so successful in perpetuating the myths about the second amendment (it lines their coffers, and that of the gun industry), that it is fully ingrained in the national discourse to the point that refuting it is heresy, no matter how factual the rebuttals are.

Other points:

"Keep", from the "keep and bear arms" clause of Amendment 2, refers to, in 19th century jargon, to the storage of said arms by the militia in a common depot. Surely, militia members can "keep" them at home, but semantically, that isn't the original intent (and aren't conservatives always fond of that sentiment?)

Personally, I find the "suppress insurrections" clause of Section 8 to be the most compelling. Those perpetuating the myths surrounding Amendment 2 often cite that one of the main purposes of the amendment is to take on the gummint when things get hairy - but if said gummint is supposed to suppress the very insurrections that taking up arms against them would entail, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Much as I deride gun fetishizing, I know fully well that gun control is unworkable as are all other forms of prohibition in American history - like the well-known ones against alcohol and drugs. Changing the culture is the only way to decrease gun-related violence, not prohibition. I don't see the former happening anytime in the next few eons, but that doesn't make the latter any more desirable or attractive.