William Winner wrote:
Traditionally, Republicans view the Constitution through the idea that it should be interpreted exactly as the framers would.
Actually, that's completely wrong - it's the Liberterians that believe that (and if I was forced to establish an affiliation, that's who I would side with). Neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans are interested in what was intended by the Constitution. Granted, Democrats are moderately more prone to "convenient interpretation" than the Republicans, but they're both guilty of it. It's pretty much a known fact that governments get real nervous when the populace is armed.
William Winner wrote:
Except when it comes to the 2nd. The views get switched there. Democrats say that the framers needed the public to be able to "bear arms" because without a militia (note that it says "well regulated militia"), we would never have been able to raise an army large enough to defeat the British. Even with it, we couldn't without the help of the French.
By my view, every abled-bodied citizen is already in the Militia, and are expected to come to the defence of the country when called upon to do so. In order to participate with the militia, they need to keep/bear arms. Early drafts of the amendment included a concientious objector clause to allow people to opt out if their religious views precluded the keeping/bearing of arms, but it was struck out before approval and ratification. In 1833, Joseph Story wrote this prophetic statement: The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over