Let's be real: there's no reason weapons should be so common place, especially anything more than a handgun.
There were fewer gun control laws in the past, and these school shootings weren't happening then. At my highschool in the 80's, it was common to see several pickup trucks in the parking lot with rifles hung in the window. And school shootings weren't happening then. Columbine started this, and ever since it has become a thing created by media driven hysteria. More spotlight equals more copycats.
Understand I'm not talking about "gun crime" generally. Gun crime in the US was worse in the past. Worse in the 60's and the 90's in particular. I'm only talking about "school shootings" as a phenomenon. The guns have always been around. Criminals have always been around. But juveniles with murderous intent willing to shoot up a school full of innocents is a fairly new thing.
"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."
The 2nd amendment doesn't specify anything more than the right to "Keep and Bear Arms". This is for the sake of a **well regulated militia**. But the word militia itself means basically "soldiers" from Latin when you go back far enough, but itself means "military".
Yeah at the time of the Revolutionary War, those "arms" included cannons. Including private citizens owning ships with cannons. So it's true they didn't strictly define the term. But the Supreme Court did, in 1939. See US v. Miller. Per the US Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment protects the peoples' right to keep and bear, "ordinary military equipment." And per the Heller decision in 2008, the Court found that the 2nd Amendment also protects firearms that are, "in common use."
Here's the thing: a Militia has to be raised from the civil population. What counts as a Militia officially? Well, using Wikipedia, sinful scourge as it is, which does provide a source for its choice of wording:
"Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8]
Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]"
- Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
So what does this mean? Well, The only ORGANIZED militias (ergo as, quote unquote: "well regulated") are State forces, IE: the National Guard. As such the only groups that have a right to bear arms according to a very strict understanding of the law.
If the 2nd Amendment was intended only to protect the military forces of the State, why does there even need to such an amendment? The Bill of Rights is a listing of protections of the people's rights AGAINST the government, not a listing of further ways the government has privilege and power over the people.
I understand that in the ratified version it lacked the , after "militia" and "arms". HOWEVER, this does nothing as it still clarifies it must be a "well regulated militia". To ignore the first two words I have quoted is to attempt to capitalize on a subsection for personal while ignoring the rest, as it ignores that a Militia IS the "people" upon which have the right to bear arms.
Again, nope. Do a bit of research on the meaning and usage of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It doesn't mean loaded down with lots of government rules. It means kept in good working order.
Also, your suggestion that the only people the 2nd amendment applies to are people in a State militia is just about silly. "The people" in the context of any article in the Bill of Rights means ALL the people. The Bill of Rights is all and only about the collective citizenry being secured rights against government action. Not securing rights only to people who do the government's bidding.
Remember, the people who wrote the Declaration, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights ... they were Revolutionaries. They were "Fight the Power!" kind of people. They went to war over high taxes and an attempt by British soldiers to confiscate privately-owned weapons. They didn't intend the government they founded to even have a standing fulltime army, or a "National Guard."
Last edited by Hanafuda,