So much good rebutal to standard gun control talking points!!!! Glad they have all been adressed so well....
No doubt it is still a uniquely American consideration, but the varied points of view do help, as just about everyone can learn from those more exposed to the topic...
On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right were already explicitly provided?
One might suggest that the Constitution is a living document, and as such, has been interpreted and changed many different ways since it was originally penned.... The "Individual Right" as ruled by Heller is just the latest interpretation.... considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....
I can be on board with "most" of that. Before the Columbia v. Heller decision the courts, for the overwhelming majority of the previous 200 years, applied the 2nd amendment more in terms of it's literal interpretation (militias NOT individuals).
This is historically inaccurate. The 2nd was
originally intended to protect an individial person's right to bear arms, and the initial portion "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a preamble that needs to be interpreted using the meaning of the terms of the times. The focus on the militia is an important distinction, that I believe another poster pointed out referred to the total body of able bodied men
eligible to enter military service, what we would today call the Selective Service. However, the term "well regulated" should also be considered, because it's use in context & during the age referred to
training of that militia, not it's legal association to a state. The framers regarded marksmanship a skill that all men should learn, and that it was best taught by fathers to sons. This tradition flows from both the English common law, that a free man held a natural right to defense of self; as well as the Swiss tradition of the citizen militia, that all the citizenry are responsible for the defense of the state. This kind of "well regulated militia" would have been literally impossible if not for a personal right to keep & bear arms. And if that argument wasn't enough, and it wasn't even enough for those who were to ratify it at the time, the framers went to great lengths to explain themselves, and both major factions (the Federalists & anti-federalists) agreed that the 2nd existed as an enumerated acknowledgement of the classic common law right to self-defense.
George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[101][103]
Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[104]
Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[105]
While both Monroe and Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed ..."
Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
"Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."
This interpretation of the 2nd's meaning was never questioned, by any faction, during the lifetime of those framers. Furthermore, the original version presented before Congress on June 8, 1789; said thus...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
This version was edited in committee, of course, and came out like this...
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
There was then debate, primarily concerned about the religious exception, and it was amended again to this...
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Then edited shorter, by removing the explicit definition of a militia, and striking the concentious objector clause, resulting in this...
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
Then again to this...
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
And finally to this...
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
The numerous public statements, documents & notes from the framers, none of which have ever supported the idea that a militia was anything akin to a formal military force; the evolution of the 2nd itself is proof enough of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, as it was understood & ratified by every state.