When the Sandy Hook massacre occurred, I took a day off to reflect on it before posting on the subject.
Today, I post a day in advance of Vice-President Biden’s commission report in order to again add a suggestion to the now ongoing discussion.
If you read the original piece, I mentioned that, although not an American citizen myself, I knew many including some in my own family and that it allowed me the luxury for a foreigner to understand their attachment to the 2nd Amendment of which I offered a version :
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.
I then respectfully proceeded to a no-holds barred sincere to being lucid analysis that in turn let me formulate the following proposition :
For hand-guns and other concealed weapons, I would suggest a mandatory period between initial possession & acquisition and full permit to carry concealed arms during which trained law officials would teach people on use and regulations. Say you acquire a gun legally at 21 and undergo supervised training for a year or two? Pretty much as with temporary driving permits found in so many countries? This would at least allow detection of the most obvious crazies and possible individual exclusions? It does not forbid anyone from getting a weapon, just offers oversight of users and their abilities to bear arms. For some as hunters and sportsmen and military personnel, the period will have been covered already when registering a handgun. For new acquisitions, it would increase public safety.
The contextual mainframe of that previous post has its own value which may bear opening the link or even a re-read. 😎
This being said and done, let us take a more radical position and put the Second Amendment to the test.
*
As explained in the post above, the texts of the Amendment as ratified by Congress and the States themselves differ. Mine is a construct of my own design and volition mixing the two but here they are :
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.
&
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 text gives us the term militia. Interestingly, the two versions of the amendment vary on capitalizing it. The Congress has a capital : Militia; the States do not : militia. What does that say?
If the capital is applied, then one can understand the Militia to be an organized force at State level. That in turns shows the capital in State to have a signification of its own as either the level of organized government it addresses, say Virginia or the USA as a whole. Remember for now the idea of State Militias being meant!
Alternatively, if you disregard the tempting possibility that, capitals being absent all through the States and Jefferson version may indicate either that the States meant to imply daily and mundane interpretation or that they simply did not care for capitals save to begin a sentence? If not that or the habit of the scribe that drafted it, it implicates that the States wanted the message to be read on a close to Earth manner. Under which dictated perspective, the people, arms, state and mostly militia say something else entirely.
[ people ] as in you, I and any individual citizen around us have the right to bear [ arms ] common guns and assorted paraphernalia as knifes and light explosives maybe? since a [ militia ] groups of well-intended folks as neighbours in the wilderness is needed to keep a [ state ] Maine, New York, Oregon or Hawaïï free.
Hum! The only problem with that understanding being that it would heavily discord with the “means to fight tyranny” interpretation that American history warrants we accept as valid.
So let us then read the Congress’ initial version with all the fancy capitals and check if it makes more sense, shall we?
[ People ] as in the all important “We, the people …” meaning each and every citizen AND the nation as a whole have the right to bear [ Arms ] as in the needed weapons to defend our collective good as represented by the State since a [ Militia ] an organized defence able and ready constituted body is need to keep a [ State ] either the State of Missouri or the Nation as a country free.
That implies two evidences, namely that the Militia is of a different level than previously and we will show that to be true and that the intent on defending the State apparently again overrides the protection against tyranny interpretation. We”ll thus let go of it for now and come back to our capital States Militias developed initially.
It so happens that a State/States Militia exist in America : it is proudly called the National Guard. This includes bases of one type or another in all states even in Porto-Rico.
http://www.nationalguard.mil/about/ in their own words, 😎
Hum again? So we do have an example of Arms by checking the State Militia’s arsenal then, don’t we? It includes everything as F-16 fighter jets and armored personnel carriers, the whole works, bells and whistles save satellites and blue water navy ships! …………………. ….. ERR? Did you say fighter jets? … Weally? 😀
I can buy myself an F-16 with cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs? Oh, those pesky neighbors are so gonna get it! I can fit an anti-aircraft missile launcher on my M-113? Darn, those stupid commercial jets from the neighboring airport are gonna stop their noise, he he! Where do they sell the Abrams main battle tanks? 7-11? Thank you, sir! 😀
O.K. Enough jesting, you got the point. The Second Amendment with its capitals applied as in the Congress version does not contradict itself much.
And it does not strictly imply all Arms to all people; note the capitals again.
So? So that for all the legitimacy it gets from historical context, the tyranny fighting ability that some so cherish may not actually be there. And while it can never bring the 2nd Amendment to mean that most weapons are forbidden, it never said that all weapons were available to all.
And if you have any doubts left, read again : a well regulated Militia!
Not scared maniacs on the loose! 😎
And in that light, the rationale of not allowing military grade weapons or at the very least military capacity magazines to common folks makes perfect sense. After all, if you need an assault weapon with a 45 shots reserve to defend yourself, chances are you hang out with the wrong crowds or make poor life choices in general. And to defend yourself individually against a tyrannical Washington?
The Prez has 700 + nukes on the ready, buddy!
What are you gonna do with that AR-15? … 😎
Peace out and good luck America, Tay.
P.S. It may be of interest to those of my readers too distracted by the main piece to check back on my own proposed version of the Second Amendment and so verify what my personal preferences are!
Definitive Lapse of Reason 
Pingback: Definitive Lapse of Reason