Call For Sanity

Gun Control Recent mass shootings have once again ignited debate about "military style" semiautomatic rifles such as the AR -15.  Should they be banned outright, as they were for a period from 1994 to 2004 under the now-expired  F ederal Assault Weapons Ban ? See my previous post  Defending the 2nd Amendme nt  for my thoughts in general on the subject of the solution to senseless gun violence. This post is focused more specifically on an approach to regulating gun ownership that balances the concerns about access to weapons that are most often used in mass shootings with the constitutionally protected right to own guns. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says the following: " 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." So, while gun ownership is protected, the amendment also says that the people form a militia that is expected to be "well-regulated....

Every time there is a high profile gun-related crime, there are renewed calls for increased gun control.  Some even suggest that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished, or at least modified, to allow for greater regulation. So, I think we should look at whether the intent behind the 2nd Amendment is still relevant today. Let's start with the actual text of the law: 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. What does this mean? A well-regulated Militia What is a "well-regulated Militia"?  How much regulation is intended, and what, exactly, was intended by the term "militia"? Militia in the eyes of the people in September of 1789, when the Bill of Rights was sent to the states for ratification? Militia I have no problem quoting from Wikipedia, in this instance, as the article has several citations and is curated by passionate people on both s...