The 2nd ammendment, to paraphrase, says everyone should be allowed to own arms so that if they have to fight together against an enemy of the Free state they know how to do it right?
Pretty much, yeah. Where "enemy of the Free state" includes the government.
I believe firearms CAN protect the Free state: why don't the NRA and their colleagues?
I think they do. I'm not sure why the NRA doesn't advertise this facet more; I think it's because it doesn't resonate with a lot of complacent Americans. Especially the part about using these arms in revolt against an oppressive government -- that could never happen here! Or so they think.
The Founding Fathers were writing about hardy pioneers and farmers when they said The People.
Well, fine, as long as you recognize that they're talking about The People. A lot of peolpe -- Americans! -- try to argue that the terms "militia" and "well-regulated" mean the 2nd Ammendment doesn't refer to a personal right to own firearms, when it's right there in writting: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". So yeah, I assumed that is what you were saying.
All I'm saying is that if that people are unable to be effective combatants (through physical/mental/moral condition or unwillingness to train) they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms as they cannot constitute a part of a well regulated (meaning functional) militia.
Nope, sorry... The right of the people shall not be infringed. You might as well talk about a literacy test before people should be allowed to vote, lest they do more harm than good.
You can't have out of condition or untrained people fighting, they become a general liabity and a source of friendy fire casualties.
Oh, I agree with that completely. I would very much like to see more State militias and free firearm training programs, etc. I have no military training, but I do know how to use rifles and shotguns. I believe that providing training for State militias was part of the initial intent, but that would be under the auspices of the state governments. These used to exist; I'm not certain of how and why they stopped but I suspect it was post-Civil War.
How come there is at the same time 1. A firearms lobby claiming record membership figures and 2. A recruitment problem in the National Guard since the Iraq insurgency began?
Well, it goes back to the beginning of your post: Iraq is not an enemy of the Free state.
The thing is, the National Guard is really not the State militias that are spoken of in the Constitution. For one thing, the purpose of the militia is to defend the country and that is it. According to the Constitution, it is to be used in a time of national emergency for purposes of defense. It is not supposed to be an extra pool of soldiers for the Army to use when they don't have enough troops to occupy a foreign land. If the National Guard were truly a militia, then it would be only the Army/Navy/Air Force that were in Iraq and the National Guard would be responsible for defending the country in their absence.
I would join a State militia in a heartbeat if the purpose was to train for the defense of my home city/state/country. I would pick up a firearm right now in defense of my home if necessary, and yeah it'd be nice to have training. As soon as you want to send me off to some foreign land for dubious reasons, the deal is off. Why would I want to go overseas to shoot at some Iraqi that's never done a damn thing to me?
This probably isn't the reason for the phenomenon in many cases, but I feel that increases in firearm lobby membership and decrease in National Guard recruitment are perfectly consistent with an appreciation for the 2nd Ammendment. Tricking the people into foreign wars is kind of what you might call a "warning sign", if you understand my meaning.
[ Parent ]