I think America needs to have a dialogue about the Second Amendment and determine the meaning and context of "a well regulated militia" in relation to the right to bear arms.
In the now-locked thread, you mentioned something along the lines of everyone getting to have a single bolt-action rifle. Let me say that my interpretation of the Second Amendment (which is, of course, the correct one) is very much along the lines of this suggestion.
The meaning of the Second is crystal clear, if you look at the Federalist papers, the debates on Ratification in various States (principally Virginia, not surprisingly), and the background of the various State constitutions. It's very much a Machiavellian thing, not in the sense of
The Prince, but in the sense of
The Discourses and Sparta.
Simply put, the idea is that the citizenry must have access to arms in case of invasion, the rise of tyranny, or the breakdown of civil government. Very much, the idea is about every citizen being able to go to his/her attic/basement and get out their/their father's/their grandfather's musket when there is "big trouble." That's the ideal state of affairs. It's not about walking around with a concealed weapon for protection from muggers, sleeping with a handgun in your dresser to shoot a burglar, or even hunting really. It's about a safeguard for defending society and democracy as a whole.
This doesn't mean you don't defend yourself or your property; doing so is the process through which this occurs. A real life example of the reason for the Second:
Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida in 1992. Much of the area south of Miami--called Cutler Ridge, Perrine, Florida City and Homestead--was extremely hard hit. The National Guard and local authorities were on the scene, helping with cleanup and protecting against looters from pretty much day one. But they couldn't be in every neighborhood at every moment and nighttime, with no power anywhere in the area, was pretty scary for the people that were still there, trying to salvage their homes. There was some looting, but not as much as there might have been. Why? Shotgun duty. People got out their shotguns (the area is pretty rural) and stood sentry on their porches. In some areas, neighbors cooperated in this regard. And it was a good thing. Nobody was shot, that I remember (I could be wrong, though) and looting was minimized. And this didn't go on for all that long, but imo, it was a valid exercise of the Second.
And note that it was "shotgun," not "handgun" duty. Sure, some people had the latter, but a shotgun, like a big dog, is a real deterrent, since it is clearly visible when you are standing there. Handguns don't fit this template. This would be true in other situations, as well. Shotguns and rifles are the implicit weapon of choice to exercise the second. Personally, I have zero problem with getting rid of handguns. Skynard said it best...
But back to the bolt-action bit. I think the underlying sentiment there is correct, though I also think we should keep up with the times. As much as I have no problem with getting rid of handguns, I also have no problem with people owning automatic shotguns or even AK-47's. But they belong in a locked trunk in the attic, not under a bed or in a closet.
Do I own a gun? Yes--I recently received my Grandfather's shotgun, some 50 years old and in perfect condition. I oil it and clean it every so often. But there's not a shell in my house. Where do I keep it? In a locked trunk in my attic.
