When written, militia was intended to be as well-armed as any standing military.
That was circumstance, accepted rather than intended. And that circumstance has changed. That was before modern technological innovations. The militia was differently armed even then, but that difference has become larger and qualitatively significant over time - putting modern military weapons in militia hands now would undermine the security of the free State, not enhance it, and such gear can be sequestered away from civilian hands without infringing on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
Win/win.
No, the active military was composed of the militia and its existing arms. There was no difference, nor was there any indication there was intended to be.
If anything, the changing circumstances would only lead the founding fathers to demand more parity with the standing military, not less. To say otherwise ignores everything we know from the Federalist Papers.
It does not make such a distinction between the weapons used by each.
Neither does it forbid such a distinction. It clearly makes such a distinction possible and allowed.
"It may be objected" on grounds that specifically dismiss the specified context of "militia" - as intentionally distinct, then and now, from "military" - would make no sense as an objection. The entire Amendment rests on the distinction between civilians and soldiers, the people and the army, the militia and the military, for its force and meaning.
There is zero evidence that militia is intentionally distinct from the people or the military, since the militia is given as justification for an armed populace, and could be called upon to serve the nation and form the military (select militia).
Again, the Federalist Papers and the anti-federalists leading up to the ratification of the Constitution argued against putting the people at the mercy of the standing military.
question: What are the odds of having to defend your home and family against armed intruders?
As far as I know most break-ins are done when there is nobody home.....
An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007.
A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
So roughly 1 out of every 4 burglaries.
If you're home, to do any defending at all, it is your life and property (castle doctrine) you're defending.
The question was about the odds of being home and being robbed by armed robbers, who are willing to kill to get your toaster.
I did a little checking and it seems that the odds are less than 1 %.
As shown above, about 1 in every 4 burglaries.
p.s. I am a gun owner. My argument is not about the right to own a gun, it is about reasonable regulation.
Gun owner doesn't mean knowledgeable gun owner.
than why did the supreme court rule it was constitutional to do so for decades?
ok never got the supreme court because well no thought it was infringing on their rights. but the simple fact remains that what you claim with certainity cannot be done legally was done for decades with no having a problem with it. your argument relies on anachronism
What are you talking about? As far as I know, only large amounts of extra gunpowder were stored elsewhere. And British troops trying to take these is know as the Gunpowder Incident. All prior to the Constitution.
BTW no one seems to have mentioned having a secured panic room in the event of an armed break in. They actually do exist, they're affordable and effective, much safer than keeping a loaded gun around. Reinforced walls and doors, fire proofing, secure telephone connection and power supply, you take your family to hide in there while the criminals do their thing ransacking the rest of the house, and within minutes the cops arrive to save you and hopefully catch the perps.
A panic room that many people do not have the space for, cannot build in rental property, and costs way more than a 300 dollar handgun. Obviously not an option for everyone. And in the US, castle doctrine means we have a right to use deadly force to defend our property.
Probably a better source for such information than states that place gun profits over the lives of schoolchildren - or than organizations that have financial incentives to spread fear and ignorance.
When an organization that pushes for less gun regulation is paid by the gun sold, it's likely that they have motives other than gun safety.
So you think gun manufacturers and sellers make states enough tax revenue for them to overlook the illegal uses of guns? The only organizations spreading fear and ignorance seem to be ones like Everytown for Gun Safety, who have been called out for their deceptive propaganda, even by the mainstream media.
What organization "gets paid by the gun sold?" And wouldn't gun accidents discourage new gun sales by making them seem more dangerous?
Canada has loads of illegal immigrants too, and millions of regulated firearms (one for every three citizens), yet we still don't have anywhere near the murder rates you get in the US, especially from gun violence. I think a majority of Americans at this point would be quite happy with guns being regulated by people who overestimate their lethality rather than the opposite.
Population size and composition makes a difference.
I define gun nuts as people who want to own guns or want others to own guns for the purpose of taking the law into their own hands, at times when law enforcement is theoretically capable of dealing with the problem, or who want the ability to defy legal authorities at a time of their own choosing.
It is legal, so it can't be taking the law into their own hands (vigilantism), and for the very reason that police are rarely on the scene the moment danger arises. And defying the law is already criminal.
