The first clause is a justification for the primary clause. If one does not have weapons, how can they take them up to defend, not just against enemies of the State, but the State itself if it should become the enemy.
So, you're not one of those anti-tax people who feels that someday the people may need to rise up and use their arms to overthrow our corrupt and exploitative overlords.
Whether it's possible or not, no attempt can even be made if the people don't have the right to keep and bear arms, can it?
its one of the worst written amendments in the constitution, almost like a puzzle for a 140 character tweet..."how much can we pack in there...." that being said....i consider the amendment to allow for both well regulated militia's to be formed and that the rights of the people to keep AND bear arms cannot be challenged. while i think restrictions in modern society for some of the more clever devices in this category...i do not read it as clauses that qualify each other...hard to see how it does. i voted yes, i do not oppose gun control, but it should have limits too. mostly to show a reasonable restriction of weapons that does not conflict with the words above. aka to keep and bear arms...if you cant pick up a howitzer, you shouldn't have the inalienable right to own and operate one.
I think it's a little outdated, sure, it had its use when new settlers came to America and had to be able to rely on themselves to protect their family. Nowadays we have the police that's supposed to be able to deal with issues like that. This "privilege" is so ingrained in people's minds, however, that I think there will always be an issue in the US. In Germany, where I'm from, most people don't own a gun let alone carrying one around with them all the time. People that do own them are usually hunters, and hunting is not really a sport there either but a profession. I always wonder if the murder rate in the States has anything to do with how freely guns are available. Because it is easier to pull a trigger than to stab or or choke someone with your bare hands. That actually takes guts :P
Germany has one of the toughest laws concerning firearms and even knives can be illegal if they meet certain requirements. You have to apply for a "Waffenschein", which is a license for carrying a weapon. This has to be renewed every three years. They usually have restrictions on them and you are only allowed to use the weapon for certain activities and if you were to be caught with it somewhere else you'd be in trouble.
In order to be even eligible, you have to have a distinct need that requires you to have a weapon (just saying you feel you need to protect your life and that of your family isn't enough), you can't have any prior arrest record (unless it was under 60 days or a monetary fee), you need to have a secure place to store your weapon, be at least 18, not be addicted to drugs or alcohol, not be mentally ill, and you have to take a class where you learn how to handle weapons securely and take a test in the end which you have to pass.
So I think it would be useful to take a closer look at people's lives and psyche before they can fill out a form and answer no to all the questions and then just take home a rifle like they're shopping for groceries. But that's just my European mindset I guess :P
I like it!
This is almost exactly how it is in New Zealand.
We do, however, have a widespread culture of respectful firearm ownership - rather than the fear-based culture that seems to pervade American firearm ownership.
It might turn out to be useful to have a gun for when the Christian Taliban come knockin'.
I say that as a joke, but then again....
Ahh but it also means an unarmed populace can easily be oppressed by a military government. Think of it from an 18th century political viewpoint. The founders felt that a potentially abusive government must always be mindful of armed revolt.....the kind the peasants of feudal Europe were powerless to mount.
As a libertarian and hunter I am in favor of guns but have no problem with reasonable and necessary gun control laws and waiting periods/background checks. I am not paranoid that the government will take my shotgun if they enact laws to keep city streets safe, where innocents die needlessly every day, or keep automatic weapons out of the hands of crazy hick teenagers.
I always find it funny that my Australian and English friends online make fun of us "Americans and our guns", and how our crime rates are so high... I think that since it's so easy for the "bad guys" to get guns, I'm grateful for it being easy for us "good guys" to get them, as well. Legally. Not to say I wouldn't have one to protect myself as well if it weren't legal and all the thugs had them already.
It's a chicken/egg thing, I guess. I wouldn't care if I had one if I didn't know all the criminals on my street/in my neighborhood had one. But, would all the criminals have one if it weren't so easy? I don't know, do they get them legally or illegally? I'm sure the mindset of criminals has more to do with than just gun laws.
sorry if I'm not making a whole lot of sense.
It's always seemed so obvious to me. We have the 'right' to 'bear arms' , whether for protection or hunting or keeping it in our house for defense our neighbours, government or if another country invades us.
For those that say that outside invasion or civil war won't or can't happen again, all I can do is just roll me eyes - I feel like that 'argument' doesn't even warrant a response.
The Supreme Court isn't a Supreme Being is it???
9 people can be wrong.
If you review Supreme Court decisions you will find it hard to agree with every decision, you will also find that there have been very few unanimous decisions.