The RKBA v 2nd Amendment [View all]

My apologies in advance for addressing a subject which could, and probably should occupy volumes in a single short post.

IMHO, apart from government and society, the right to keep and bear arms is the right to own and use, for the purpose of personal defense, common weapons. The term weapons covers more than just firearms. It is a familiar scene in a movie where a small contingent stands reasoning with a larger angry group carrying torches, clubs and pitchforks. A knife or gun is not necessarily weapon. Tools designed to cut or to fire bullets can be used for purposes other than aggression. A weapon is most generally that which is used to subdue an opponent. A weapon can be a gun, a hand or foot.

Many essays have been written as long ago as Augustine of Hippo in the 4th/5th century on the justification for a forceful defense. Read them if you care to. Taken in its most extreme instance, a forceful defense is killing someone who is trying to kill you. In my mind, saying that there is a right to life but not an ultimate right to defend your life, is a contradiction.

The 2A (2nd Amendment) expresses this right. True, the militia clause is there but that clause does not cancel anyone's natural right of defense or the right to prepare to do so, namely to acquire, own and carry weapons. This topic is where many arguments begin, where debates become heated and relationships become strained. IMHO, the militia clause is part of the Bill of Rights to ensure that no individual state or subordinate agency of government will form it's own armed contingent and outlaw arms to individuals such that tyranny would be more easily enforced. The intent of the Founders, in my opinion, was to secure the state and federal governments against becoming tyrannical. The nature of a militia force allows for an armed contingent to be raised for any proper reason, anywhere and anytime.

The 2A expresses 2 ideals in parallel. The means to enable raising a militia force and the right of individuals to prepare for both militia service and their own defense by keeping and carrying arms.

All due respect to Justice Stevens, et al. the militia clause does have effect but does not limit the amendment to a sole single purpose.