Look, as a guy who comes from 2 Bay Area liberal families, I think it’s important for me to point out that I don’t understand gun culture. My Dad technically owned a gun that he kept locked up and never used but other than that I have never known anyone who’s given two shits about guns in my entire life. It’s just not something I get, in the same way I don’t know what it’s like to grow up in an Asian American family or in the inner city for that matter. Yes, I’m white, but rural American “values” are as completely foreign to me as anything in Mozambique. I have no idea why so many people think that if we make some minor changes to our gun laws the government’s going to immediately impose martial law, but from what I can tell, a LOT of people believe this.
I have been robbed a gun point though. Twice. Do I wish I had a gun in either one of those circumstances? Nope. Would have made the situation way worse and taken it from a minor robbery to a potential homicide. In both cases. I mean, what’s the best case scenario there, I injure the dude which subdues him to the point where he can’t move and eventually the cops show up? That’s the best I can come up with. I’d rather take the $60 hit to my bottom line. Anyway, there are a million great pieces about how NRA marketing made this happen (like this one here), but I hadn’t heard the whole National Guard angle before which is the only reason I’m posting this. We already have a well regulated militia, that’s a decent point. (from MarketWatch):
“The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.
What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.
And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces.
A “well-regulated militia” didn’t mean guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine running around in the woods with AK-47s and warpaint on their faces. It basically meant what today we call the National Guard.
It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.
The one big difference between this militia and a professional army? It shouldn’t be made up of full-time professional soldiers, said the Founding Fathers.”