I pose the following as a thought experiment. This post is not intended to question the interpretation or ongoing support of the 2A. But rather, to initiate a discussion on the value of it in this day and age, and how the founders of our union would interpret it in these times.
So, as I understand the interpretation of the 2A, it is designed to allow all citizens to own and maintain arms, with the ultimate intent to, if needed, enable the formation of a militia to overthrow an ill-willed government once again, as was done during the Revolution.
In those times, it was a relatively fair fight. Though outnumbered, the colonists had weapons that were of the same size and scale as those of the British. When it came time for an uprising, with some brave and clever strategy, and acknowledging that for the Brits, it was an 'away game' which was a much more severe constraint in those times, the colonists ultimately had their way.
Today, our situation is nothing like those days. The government possesses weapons that would present an overwhelming force to citizens armed as we are today. It would in no way be, as it was a few centuries back, a fair fight.
So, what is the value, and interpretation of the 2A today?
Do people see it as an anachronistic artifact that allows some minimal way of some and personal defense?
Should federal and state law be modified to allow citizens the same access to weaponry as the government? (given sufficient wealth, should a citizen be able to purchase and maintain and air force? RPV's with laser missiles?)
Is there an interpretation of the 2A that maintains the intent of the founders but is pragmatically reasonable in our times?
I should add that I don't have a good answer here. I very much prize the value of the 2A, and how it separates our citizens, and our freedoms, from those in most other law-abiding countries. But I don't see how the 2A any longer fulfills the intent of the Founders.
B
So, as I understand the interpretation of the 2A, it is designed to allow all citizens to own and maintain arms, with the ultimate intent to, if needed, enable the formation of a militia to overthrow an ill-willed government once again, as was done during the Revolution.
In those times, it was a relatively fair fight. Though outnumbered, the colonists had weapons that were of the same size and scale as those of the British. When it came time for an uprising, with some brave and clever strategy, and acknowledging that for the Brits, it was an 'away game' which was a much more severe constraint in those times, the colonists ultimately had their way.
Today, our situation is nothing like those days. The government possesses weapons that would present an overwhelming force to citizens armed as we are today. It would in no way be, as it was a few centuries back, a fair fight.
So, what is the value, and interpretation of the 2A today?
Do people see it as an anachronistic artifact that allows some minimal way of some and personal defense?
Should federal and state law be modified to allow citizens the same access to weaponry as the government? (given sufficient wealth, should a citizen be able to purchase and maintain and air force? RPV's with laser missiles?)
Is there an interpretation of the 2A that maintains the intent of the founders but is pragmatically reasonable in our times?
I should add that I don't have a good answer here. I very much prize the value of the 2A, and how it separates our citizens, and our freedoms, from those in most other law-abiding countries. But I don't see how the 2A any longer fulfills the intent of the Founders.
B