Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
In Jeelen's post, you see the capitalization of the word Arms. It is a good point. It emphasizes not muskets or rifles. It does not say "firearms". It says "Arms".
Arms are not guns. Arms are weapons. Militias are not government sponsored but citizen sponsored. A well organized militia requires that citizens have guns. I would argue that a well organized militia in America keeps its small arms--guns--decentralized, but registered, not allowed for purchase by criminals (that's not good organization). Maybe in cities people are so proximate a well organized militia means keeping the guns in a public armory, accessible when needed for threats or training.
Futhermore, a well organized militia, entitled and uninfringed to bear arms, deserves the rights to bear cannon, ships, horses, swords, and if you think I'm being facetious, what I actually mean is their 21st century counterparts. Bombs, artillery, rockets, tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, machine guns, mortars, communication satellites, uniforms, fuel stores, etc. As the militia must be Well Regulated, those things are not appropriate for private ownership. Maybe machine guns and RPGs are of certain degrees, but as such would need further registration.
But what is registration. Reasonably, it would be given by the militia, with the method approved by the local government overseen by the state and federal government. It is not to infringe on the right to bear arms but to ensure standards of "well regulated" without infringing on militia.
OR
We are not defining militia as an entirely separate entity from The State's army and navy (and whatever). Rather it is a citizen's army as part of a citizen's Free State. In this regard, a Well Regulated Militia would be the best one, the Army. In this justification, to be a citizen in the militia would be inactive, non-conscriptive military participation, such that we are armed against threats foreign and domestic, but part of the national entity. In this regard, it is then completely up to the state to define what Well Regulated and Bear Arms mean. In that way, the State could restrict all private gun ownership so that the arms are closely guarded within the State's armories and chains of command.
I find both of these to be reasonable interpretations of the second amendment. It comes down to this: is our democracy inherently representative of the people so long as the Constitution is followed and therefore cannot be oppressive and thus never loses its legitimacy? I.E. is our Constitution the Leviathan so long as it can remain enacted (and therefore not the equivalent of a failed king) and therefore undefiable? If so, then there is no necessary justification for our Well Regulated Militia to inherently mean the peoples' right to bear arms is part of their private property rights. But if our Constitution is inherently fallible, i.e. it believes itself fallible, than the purpose of its second amendment is to therefore make certain that if the Constitution fails its purpose WITHIN the confines of Constitution, the citizens need be armed to protect themselves and The Free State.
Because if it is not fallible, if it is the Leviathan, it doesn't matter what our rights are arms wise against an oppressive government, we either obey the oppression as freedom, or we break the contract and we define our own rights and bear arms anyway.
But since the Constitution allows for the President to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of invasion, foreign and domestic, and that's a value call, it seems the Constitution knows it is fallible within its own framework.
With that in mind, I suspect the second amendment allows for an armed citizenry, with small arms held privately, and larger arms held in the militia's armory, but still legal to the militia that is outside of the army and navy.
Arms are not guns. Arms are weapons. Militias are not government sponsored but citizen sponsored. A well organized militia requires that citizens have guns. I would argue that a well organized militia in America keeps its small arms--guns--decentralized, but registered, not allowed for purchase by criminals (that's not good organization). Maybe in cities people are so proximate a well organized militia means keeping the guns in a public armory, accessible when needed for threats or training.
Futhermore, a well organized militia, entitled and uninfringed to bear arms, deserves the rights to bear cannon, ships, horses, swords, and if you think I'm being facetious, what I actually mean is their 21st century counterparts. Bombs, artillery, rockets, tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, machine guns, mortars, communication satellites, uniforms, fuel stores, etc. As the militia must be Well Regulated, those things are not appropriate for private ownership. Maybe machine guns and RPGs are of certain degrees, but as such would need further registration.
But what is registration. Reasonably, it would be given by the militia, with the method approved by the local government overseen by the state and federal government. It is not to infringe on the right to bear arms but to ensure standards of "well regulated" without infringing on militia.
OR
We are not defining militia as an entirely separate entity from The State's army and navy (and whatever). Rather it is a citizen's army as part of a citizen's Free State. In this regard, a Well Regulated Militia would be the best one, the Army. In this justification, to be a citizen in the militia would be inactive, non-conscriptive military participation, such that we are armed against threats foreign and domestic, but part of the national entity. In this regard, it is then completely up to the state to define what Well Regulated and Bear Arms mean. In that way, the State could restrict all private gun ownership so that the arms are closely guarded within the State's armories and chains of command.
I find both of these to be reasonable interpretations of the second amendment. It comes down to this: is our democracy inherently representative of the people so long as the Constitution is followed and therefore cannot be oppressive and thus never loses its legitimacy? I.E. is our Constitution the Leviathan so long as it can remain enacted (and therefore not the equivalent of a failed king) and therefore undefiable? If so, then there is no necessary justification for our Well Regulated Militia to inherently mean the peoples' right to bear arms is part of their private property rights. But if our Constitution is inherently fallible, i.e. it believes itself fallible, than the purpose of its second amendment is to therefore make certain that if the Constitution fails its purpose WITHIN the confines of Constitution, the citizens need be armed to protect themselves and The Free State.
Because if it is not fallible, if it is the Leviathan, it doesn't matter what our rights are arms wise against an oppressive government, we either obey the oppression as freedom, or we break the contract and we define our own rights and bear arms anyway.
But since the Constitution allows for the President to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of invasion, foreign and domestic, and that's a value call, it seems the Constitution knows it is fallible within its own framework.
With that in mind, I suspect the second amendment allows for an armed citizenry, with small arms held privately, and larger arms held in the militia's armory, but still legal to the militia that is outside of the army and navy.
BTW Lincoln falls very well in line with the Hayek-Friedman types who inspired today's bastardized version of Republican Party economic thought. But in terms of their politics and economy views, he is one of their own.
