The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads:
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.
However, Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the US Constitution states:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; . . .
Doesn’t the fact that Congress did indeed raise and support the US Military make the stated reason for the Second Amendment moot? The presence of state and municipality police forces, along with the abolition of slavery— given that those “well-regulated militias” were permitted due to the foreseen need to keep down slave rebellions (god, American history is disgusting)—, should completely moot the first half of the Second Amendment, which would eliminate the rationale for the right specified in the second half. A well-regulated militia doesn’t exist in the first place— the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws means any asshole with the money and the need to intimidate his (and most of the time it’s a man) fellow citizens with a show of force (and indirectly the pitiful size of his tiny, tiny, TINY penis) can buy all the fire power he wants.
How about nationalizing gun manufacturing and sales? The Second Amendment says NOTHING about the right to manufacture and sell arms— just to bear them. That suggests to me that the Federal Government could regulate production and sales all they want. And I’m 1,000,000,000% fine with that, as I’m sure a good majority of the weary citizenry of the US must be by now. (Or not. I’m getting more and more pessimistic.)
Would this have ANY traction at all…?! Or are we as a people too psychotic and rage-filled to ever give up our “don’t you DARE challenge my need to aggrandize myself in public with these” firearms?
Fine— don’t answer that. I know the answer too.
We’re fucked.