[jleyank]

People forget the “well-regulated militia” part. Register all the guns so they can be called up at need for the militia. Why not place all of the militia, err, gun owners in the Guard and have they drill monthly and 2 weeks a year… This is what was intended as the aFounders were not fond of a standing army. They tended to oppress people and suppress liberties.

[elmerfud]

People don't forget that part, but people fail to understand that part. It's a fallacy to say that people can keep firearms only in regards to service in a state organized militia. This has been roundly rejected by all constitutional scholars of any merit. Those that espouse that point of view are not taking the statement in the context and time in which it was written.

Even if you do not support the conservative leaning of the current supreme Court it must be acknowledged that they do view things in a originalist intention. This is why they have rejected this point of view as it is completely incorrect.

[jleyank]

Guess you disagree with Mr Hamilton, eh?

[elmerfud]

You're confusing the idea of many of the founders not supporting a standing army and the idea of gun registration or the national guard being considered a militia. Hence why there's specific provisions about not being able to quarter military forces in people's houses.

There was a very good reason many of the founders and people of the time did not support a standing army. If you do a little bit of research and learning about history you will understand that the concept of a police and the concept of a army weren't really two different things that we have today. In that context not wanting a standing army is a good position.

Because when you look at the duties of an army and the duties of a police of the first fights the enemy of the state the second should be to protect the people. When you have one force that attempts to do both jobs what you usually end up with is that the people become the enemy of the state.

This is one of the reasons why there are many people who do not support the current militarization of our police force being handed decommissioned military weapons and vehicles. This removes the incentive of the police to protect the people or to find alternate means to de-escalate situations. Instead they can take the overwhelming force option that we do with our military.

[jleyank]

I agree with you re current interpretation. Guns > people in the US and they like it that way. Or, enough like it that it’s essentially unchangeable.