Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, but they're fundamentally different, in that it no longer makes sense to require (or permit) people to keep arms so that they can muster out to join the militia in times of emergency.
I think all of this business about individual vs. group rights w/r/t to the Second Amendment misses the point -- it presumes too much about the framers. They provided for an individual right to bear arms for militia service, not thinking that technological development would lead to an entirely different military. They were writing before the internal combustion engine. The army was, essentially, men and horses.
|
I think that the founding fathers also intended to have the Second Amendment act as a break on the power of the federal government. The militias of the several states served as an implied check on the ability of the federal government to exercise too much power over the states.
That issue aside, I agree that the relationship has changed, and that the Second Amendment should not limit the power of the government to regulate or prohibit the possession of firearms.
