Quote: I agree with the fact that it was never really needed in the first place
But it was, Brian. To serve a particular political purpose in 1789. That being to allow the southern states to maintain their slave hunting militias without fear of federal ( i.e. "northern") interference.
Thus sayeth Patrick Henry ( ironically of "Give me liberty or give me death" fame) at the ratification convention.
Quote:Quote:"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.... Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?
Quote:"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States.... May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
The current problem stems from a single 5-4 decision by the right-wing shits of the SCOTUS in the Heller case. Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers explained the intent of the Founders:
Quote:THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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.''
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
The 2d Amendment is about well-regulated state militias. It is not about every shithead having a private arsenal. In 1789 the US was not to have a standing army but was to rely on calling up the militia in various states for the national defense. It was probably one of the stupider ideas underlying the formation of the nation but at the time it was needed to get the various colonies to sign off on it.
Stevens is right. The 2d Amendment as written is obsolete. The militia system has been superseded by the National Guard.
