General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A well regulated Militia, [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The op-ed relies on a peculiar method. It acknowledges the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" but then breezes past without explaining why "the right" is not really a right. He proclaims the concept is wrong and then runs away.
Instead the op-ed focuses on argumentum ad anno (arguing to the year/time). Yes, we have a professional army. No, we do not currently rely on citizen militias. However, unorganized militias do figure into federal law and the writers cannot speak to all time nor the desirability of the current system. We, as a nation, may yet come to move away from a professional standing army, either from expense or some other practical matter. We may decide we want to adopt a system such as the one employed in Switzerland.
The article, and presumably the book it cites, refuse to acknowledge the fact that for a militia to supply itself, as it did, then all citizens needed a readily available commercial trade with its manufacturing, distribution and retailing infrastructure. If the militia were to be provided for the citizenry as a whole had to have a market to support. A piecemeal, single purpose system that supplied the militia exclusively would not suffice. This is born out by the fact that laws did not forbid non-militia from the purchasing arms. Hence, "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But that's the part that keep being ignored.