Nimble wrote:Almost everyone has their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment pertaining to "arms". Someday the Supreme Court may get it right. No one seems to ask why the militia is mentioned or the historical context.
As to ammunition purchases, I bought a box of .243 100 grain a couple of weeks ago and it was only about a dollar more than the last box I bought over 2 years ago. I suspect that what is driving up the price to the delight of the manufacturers is the self-induced panic from the the more paranoid of gun owners as well as the resources addressed to supplying two wars.
The militias are mentioned, because they're the reason the 2nd amendment was written, to begin with.
One has to consider that, at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, there was no standing army, in the new United States. The fledgling country depended entirely upon local militias, for its defense. The militias were also necessary to protect communities, especially on the frontiers, from attacks - primarily by Indian tribes. For this reason, each community had a standing militia, consisting of the male members of that community.
Each local militia was responsible for arming their members. While most communities provide the larger armaments, such as cannon, they required each individual member to provide his own personal weapon. As much as possible, these militias were armed with the most modern, powerful, and effective weapons of that time.
The militias were also, individually, responsible for training and providing for their own local group. However, they were under the control of, and subject to activation by, the central government - thus, the reference to a "...well-regulated" militia, in the amendment.
If anything, today, violates the spirit of the 2nd amendment, it's the standing army which our country now maintains. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was perceived that it was a standing army, that posed the greatest danger to the freedom of the people. However, times have changed. Technology has changed. It would be almost inconceivable, that local militias could afford, maintain, and be proficient with the modern arms systems that are necessary to defend a nation, in this day and age.
There are those who would say that, considering the circumstances that exist, today - circumstances that couldn't possibly have been foreseen in the 1700's and early 1800's - the 2nd amendment has become obsolete. No longer can we, or do we rely on local militias for our defense.
I don't agree with them, even though I do recognize that it was because of the need, at that time, for "...well-regulated militia(s)", that the 2nd amendment was written, and ratified into the Constitution. As circumstances have changed, so have the needs of the people, and the 2nd amendment does serve a valuable service to the nation, to give us some measure of protection from tyranny.