RE: California ban on high capacity magazines declared unconstitutional
March 30, 2019 at 10:31 am
A particular misreading of the 2nd amendment has become popular, but that misreading doesn't fit at all with how the 2nd amendment has been understood in practice throughout American history. There is a phrase that is sort of confusing, and it really does have to be understood within the context of its time.
The context is basically a federalist verses antifederalist thing. Anti federalists believed that the state tends to become corrupt. They didn't want an authoritarian state with a standing army. They wanted a system where the people rallied to the defense of the nation, rather than a standing army. However, the federalists weren't big fans of depending on citizen militias to defend the nation. They had had experience with citizen militias in the Revolution, and knew that citizen militias just aren't very effective against the trained soldiers of hostile enemy armies. But, the anti federalists had had experience with being disarmed by authoritarian states with standing armies. An armed state tends to disarm its citizens. So the 2nd acknowledges that a state must be armed, and promises that the people will not be disarmed.
This understanding is in keeping with how the 2nd has been practiced throughout the history of the US. That currently popular understanding in which the 2nd only refers to well regulated militias is not in keeping with how the 2nd has been practiced.
The context is basically a federalist verses antifederalist thing. Anti federalists believed that the state tends to become corrupt. They didn't want an authoritarian state with a standing army. They wanted a system where the people rallied to the defense of the nation, rather than a standing army. However, the federalists weren't big fans of depending on citizen militias to defend the nation. They had had experience with citizen militias in the Revolution, and knew that citizen militias just aren't very effective against the trained soldiers of hostile enemy armies. But, the anti federalists had had experience with being disarmed by authoritarian states with standing armies. An armed state tends to disarm its citizens. So the 2nd acknowledges that a state must be armed, and promises that the people will not be disarmed.
This understanding is in keeping with how the 2nd has been practiced throughout the history of the US. That currently popular understanding in which the 2nd only refers to well regulated militias is not in keeping with how the 2nd has been practiced.
We do not inherit the world from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
