Yes Coberly they were worried that they’d have to repeat Lexington and Concord against the new government. The local militia had to fight the Brits to keep their arms–which were stored together for their use as an organization. Members would “keep” (meaning to maintain in working order) those weapons there and would “bear” (carry in service) those weapons when called upon.
The militia clause is difficult to interpret in part because it reflects compromise language–alternative proposed texts have nuanced differences that I can’t claim to fully grasp. But my inadequacy gives me no right to dismiss or ignore the words. Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case was so tortured that my preference not to outlaw gun ownership was severely shaken. I believe in lieu of a new constitutional amendment, locally elected leaders should do what locals want, as was the common legal interpretation of the amendment prior to the 1970s.
just to say i read your comment. you may know more than i do, but i am doubtful of your reading of “keep.” even back then the average home owner had a gun, because of the bears and indians, and he had a healthy fear of government.
we may think we are more civilized than that. and i’d agree that the gun nuts are a little overwrought, but at the very least it would be a mistake to pretend that the founders were enlightened liberals who wanted all guns in the hands of responsible authorities.
Corev,
Hang In There! Some of these people are too Idilogical driven to get thru to. If you say White, they will Black regardless.
Darren
can you understand that that is exactly what they think about you?
Yes Coberly they were worried that they’d have to repeat Lexington and Concord against the new government. The local militia had to fight the Brits to keep their arms–which were stored together for their use as an organization. Members would “keep” (meaning to maintain in working order) those weapons there and would “bear” (carry in service) those weapons when called upon.
The militia clause is difficult to interpret in part because it reflects compromise language–alternative proposed texts have nuanced differences that I can’t claim to fully grasp. But my inadequacy gives me no right to dismiss or ignore the words. Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case was so tortured that my preference not to outlaw gun ownership was severely shaken. I believe in lieu of a new constitutional amendment, locally elected leaders should do what locals want, as was the common legal interpretation of the amendment prior to the 1970s.
pjr
just to say i read your comment. you may know more than i do, but i am doubtful of your reading of “keep.” even back then the average home owner had a gun, because of the bears and indians, and he had a healthy fear of government.
we may think we are more civilized than that. and i’d agree that the gun nuts are a little overwrought, but at the very least it would be a mistake to pretend that the founders were enlightened liberals who wanted all guns in the hands of responsible authorities.