http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720
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.
The gun owners of the day were expected to drill every month with the local militia. Granted, drill rarely included actual shooting. Lead balls were damn expensive. (So were the guns themselves). In fact, some of it included plenty of beer and food...
Our modern Court, has in my view, eviscerated the well regulated requirement with Heller.
In the modern day this drilling requirement in the Amendment describes the State Guard to a damn T. Yes, they drill once a month, like the original militias, and due to current requirements, two weeks a year.
The founders originally did not even want to have a core of professional soldiers, because of the abuses by royal forces at the end of the Colonial period. There were debates back and forth, even after the Bill of rights on the need for an army. The Navy was settled before even independence was achieved and the Marines soon after. But the army, the debate was settled in 1812. You might remember the US got well, invaded.
Regardless, for a good while, you could argue all the way to the civil war, state militias pretty much were made up of locals, and there were not that many, mostly rifle and shotgun owners. They started to become more professional after the civil war.
We need to go back to that well regulated...that means armed forces and police. Private citizens should be licensed. And as I said in a few other places, all civilian guns, once it is practical, must receive smart gun technology, to literally match them to shooter. Look into that, once the technology is mature it will be a technological solution that makes sense.
I know the other argument those who love to argue intent of founders but know jack shit of this history like to claim that "being necessary to the security of a free state," mean to prevent the rise of tyranny. Well bubba, you and your AR -15 will do none to a modern Army. Now asymmetrical warfare does, but the Michigan Militia and a lot of our gungeoners like to pretend you can fight Uncle Sam and win in a stand up fight...good luck with that fantasy. We will remain out of the line of fire though, thank you very much!
The final clause, often cited by NRA types is this. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This clause is dependent on the other ones. Your right to bear arms is within a militia, and here is where Heller, in my mind, eviscerated intent. And lord knows we have plenty of letters and other documents from that period.
To be honest, even Madison would have a cow, and Jefferson would eat crow in his fear of regulars, as he called soldiers back then. His precious militia is the modern day guard and he'd have a heck of a time recognizing the RKBA arguments.
In some ways we also need to look at the present. Jefferson was not wedded to these documents like those given by God at Mt Sinai...he was aware they were written by fallible men, white upper crust men, and that future Americans could and should change things to meet their current conditions. In a few of his private letters he even knew slavery was a poison pill, but that is for another day.
Will this happen? A serious look and sensible laws that allow gun owners to be responsible and keep guns, but with sensible gun laws? Right to concealed carry gotta go (got the most part), for example, Unicorns have a better chance of farting in the forest. I hope to be proven wrong.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720
= new reply since forum marked as read
