I spent 21 years of my life (according to the shortened and paraphrased oath, "To protect and defend from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.") in the Army. Firing and/or walking around with fully automatic rifles in many cases. And other stuff like that. Including walking around in the wilderness for two weeks at a time, sleeping little and practicing the attacking of things.

Ever fire a main gun on a tank? Shoot a machinegun? Rip off a few with an AK-47? Carry or throw live hand-grenades? Fire an anti-tank weapon?

Whichever, I had a discussion recently and it made me think - for a change, some would say. I thought about why things happen.

For every effect, there is a cause.

As an example, we have a lot of prisons in the US, and there are many people in them. They build more. The new prisons fill up. Hmmmm. Maybe we need to stop fighting fires and find out what causes them? Throwing money into a fire just makes the fire burn brighter. And makes the owner of the cash have less of said cash.

Perhaps if we did something like release from prison all those inside that have done nothing to anyone else, things would be better? Release all those not guilty (use DNA tests on those that might be proven to not have done the crime). Release all those convicted of non-violent drug related charges. Release all those convicted of non-violent prostitution related charges. Release those convicted of having "prohibited" items that they did not misuse or plan to misuse. Release tax cheaters after they pay what they owe.

If Joe Blow wants to smoke seven pounds of marijuana, why should we jail him? Who did he hurt? Even better, why don't we tax whoever grew the plant and whoever sold the plant and then make a shirt out of the hemp?

Too radical for you? Emotional bias holding you back? Opinions clouding your judgement?

All you have to do is think of our attempt to outlaw the use of alcohol. Why haven't we learned anything in the last 80 years?

Part of today's discussion related to firearms. Now, I don't really care about them one way or another any more than I would care about a hammer or a screwdriver. Well, except that a firearm is much more mechanical and much more interesting. And much more dangerous. And more misused. And more controversial. And....

Projectile weapons? I like them, I like to shoot them, I've never fired them at other people, they get abused by those that shouldn't have them..... But it's not a big deal to me. I'm not in the NRA, but I don't hate them, as people on both sides do. So I wonder what is the discussion all about?
It seems rather simple.

I have two firearms, neither of which I have fired in the last few years (5? 10?).
One is a .44 cap and ball 'old-style' revolver. This "weapon" is in pieces. I have some caps and some balls for it, but no powder.
The other is a 12 gauge shotgun that's about 4 feet long. I have a box of birdshot for it, but the box (5? 10? years old) is still full.

I've never used either of these, or the others I've had, in a criminal manner. Why shouldn't I have them? And if you say no, and pass laws to enforce your opinion, should I then let enemy soldiers or criminals out to hurt me do what they want in opposition to the laws I myself follow?

And why don't you want me to have these weapons? I've used much more dangerous and deadly weapons while protecting the country, so why wouldn't you trust me with lesser ones in other situations? Was I more suited to carrying machineguns when on-duty in the Army than I am having a shotgun at home?
In any case, I much prefer using a blunt object like a bat or shovel or such. True, the range isn't that great, but they're fairly quiet.

So, anyway, I got to thinking. Yep.

Now, when Tim blew up the building with a truck full of fertilizer, we didn't blame the nitrogen mixture.
Ted, while he was drunk, ran over those people. We didn't blame the car and we didn't blame the booze.
When Joe Blow invaded Whereeverland, we didn't blame his military forces.
Lorena got the heat for her deed, not the knife.
And so on.

So, what is this thing we have with blaming the effects and not the causes in so many other matters? Why blame the tool at all, ever?

Perhaps you need more facts: Go to www.guncite.com and take a look around at the figures, or go take a look at my page, Power And Range And More.

Anyway, let's go look at the Bill of Rights and other things.

The Amendment below is not current English, but think late 1700s. I will preface this with one thought. Argue as you will, the language is clear. The second clause is the main clause. The first clause explains why the second clause is needed; it does not limit it. An example would be: "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books, shall not be infringed."

Amendment II: 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.

Now, does this say "National Guard"? Does it say "Arms except 'A' and 'B'"? Does it say "If the Arms have a hunting purpose."? Do you see any periods in there? Is this any harder than King James?

No. Amendment II says something simple ---- Don't infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. Why do you think the Supreme Court has never ever never directly ruled on the Second Amendment?

Or to ask directly -- What is a militia? What is well regulated? Have you read what the people who wrote the Bill of Rights thought a militia was or what they thought well regulated meant? What did they mean by the security of a free state? What is a free state? What does "State" mean?

If you read US Code, it pretty much describes "The Militia" as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45. Hmmm. Okay, it's 18th century, non "politically correct", but you get the point, I hope.

You look up the other stuff.

I (as have said others) would guess that "The People" in this Amendment is the same as "The People" spoken of in Amendment I or Amendment IV or Amendment IX or Amendment X.

Or, are you saying that "The States" have the right to things people in those states don't? That's crazy mad wack, yo! That's like saying police can carry pistols while on the job but can't when they're not working. What kind of warped universe is that, where we trust their judgement when working but don't trust it when they're not?

Regardless, are we to punish the many for the acts of the few? It seems as if some want to. But what have I done to arouse such ire from you? We do not understand, and seemingly, neither do you. That's the bizarre situation many are in.

I would hope anyone with some kind of reasoning skills can just read and understand what's out there.
Whatever I myself personally think, here's what the Constitution says about "The People":

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So! If 'the people' have powers reserved for them if those powers are not delegated nor prohibited; if 'the people' have rights not denied because the rights are or are not in the Constitution; if 'the people' have the right to be secure and free from unreasonable searches and seizures; if 'the people' have the right to assemble peaceably -------- Then how do 'the people' not have the right to keep and bear Arms?
Are you picking and choosing which amendment you like and which amendment you don't like? That's not the meaning of a true representative government!

Regardless, here's what Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and others have to say:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Alexander Hamilton

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams (1780)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason, 3 Eliot, Debates at 425-426.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense."
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788).

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . "
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

'To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.'
Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, ed. Walter Hartwell Bennett

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...."
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No.28

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves?...Congress has no power to disarm the militia....Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette February 20, 1788

"The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia..... all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided."
Richard Henry Lee

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Tench Coxe in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . .(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46

"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F.Adams ed., 1851).

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.