As a non American that has lived in the US i still dont understand but then i am a bow person not a gun fan.
What i do wonder about is the conflict between the first part of the amendment and the second. When you have people killing children en mass with automatic weapons i dont think that counts as well regulated.
That is the crux of the problem: The interpretation of what is a 'regulated militia'.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Here is my take on this...
A 'militia' is usually the last line of defense by the people against enemies, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic is for a different discussion. A militia -- in my opinion -- have been falsely associated with the 'National Guards', and here is my take on that as well...
The United States, the Swiss Confederation, the (once) Soviet Union, Canada, Australia, and even Pakistan, are 'federated' countries, meaning there are clearly recognized borders of political authorities with theoretical degrees of autonomy granted by a central or 'federal' government for ease of governance. Large countries are favorable for this type of governance. Historical China is filled with many eras where a united China was a federated state with regional governors ruling with powers near that of the emperor due to distance from the capital city. Federated states are vulnerable to regionally sourced sentiments of separatism, such as that of Quebec in federated Canada.
Chinese Communists were not opposed to federalism in theory, but opposed it on practical arguments in that federalism would (not merely could) be used to oppose the central government and divide the country...
Paper 1
...Chen Duxiu mounted a vehement attack on the Federalists:
I dare say that the biggest hidden reason for those who advocate "federation of provinces" (liansheng lun) is to accept the present state of affairs in which de facto powers are held by the various militarists......... Those who advocate "federation of provinces" are simply using "federation of self-governing provinces" (liansheng zizhi) as pretext to effect the seizure of territories by military governors in the various provinces.
Chen Duxiu was the CCP's first Secretary General.
That said, history also showed that the first line of defense against foreign enemies are the individual states inside a confederation. A state must hold or retard the enemy's advances while the rest of the country, under the leadership of the central government, create or reform the main army. The National Guards system is an adjunct to the main army under this concept of national defense. The main army can be and usually is expeditionary in foreign soil in national interests while the National Guards serves the role of 'home guards'. That mean the National Guards system is a formalized military branch, not a corps of hastily assembled fighting men whose main professions usually have nothing to do with the military. That is a 'militia'.
A 'militia' is not a mob. It can be hastily assembled for national defense when the main army is either not available or have been defeated and the country is being occupied, but once assembled it is usually organized into clear structures of command and control patterned after the main army. But because a militia is composed of men who are either not formally trained in military affairs or are veterans of the formal army, and usually have important social roots to the local areas, a militia cannot be expeditionary, meaning serving the national interests outside the borders. This make the militia the third and last line of national defense and inevitably also the last line of defense against a despotic and oppressive government, should that ever occur.
The words 'well regulated' does not mean under the control of the federal government but being under a rigid command and control structure during times of assembly. It is a loop or a form of circular logic, if you will: If there are weapons and being dangerous, the militia must be under some form of rigid hierarchy, and because there is a clearly defined command and control structure when assembled, allow this corps of fighting men to be armed.
That is why the American Founding Fathers said 'well regulated' instead of a mob. Their country came from resistance fighters of many militias. They know the difference.
So if there is no intention of having a last line of defense, then there is no need for the availability of weapons of any kind. But because the American Founding Fathers were wary of despotic governments, especially when they just severed their ties to one, they made sure that the militia is as forever available as possible to protect the people and for that purpose they made the availability of weapons supreme over the land.
it was illegal for him to have those weapons and conceal them on his person, but the rifle itself was legally owned and in fact --- i know of many people who own such weapons such as the civilian version of the AR15 (which i think fires 3 round burst)
so again -- it's about denying access to those who shouldnt be in reach of these weapons. . .unless the govt. was willing or able to breathe down the necks of every (registered and accounted for) gun owner in America and do everything in its power to "ensure" that lockers (bio metric or whatever) are being used --- i dont see any major policy shift here.
and the NRA will probably not be cool about further federal intervention.....and even an outsider like me knows how much influence and power the NRA wields. Aint no joke.
Any 'civilian' version of the AR-15 that is
LEGALLY sold cannot be automatic, even with the 3-rounds burst feature.
