“Gun-control advocates say this means that the government can limit firearms ownership as part of its power to regulate the militia. Gun ownership is cast as a collective right, with the government organizing armed citizens to protect homeland security.”
Now there’s some convoluted logic: the gun grabbers expect us to go to the armory to get guns to defend them (since they couldn’t be expected to know how to use them) while also expecting us to accept the repeal of the 2nd Amendment—by judicial fiat.
Incredible . . . .
The Constitution was written to grant regulatory powers for the purpose of ENHANCING individual rights, not limiting them. There is nothing in the “collective rights” argument which enhances the lives of individual citizens, only the enhancement of gov’t power over compliant subjects.
To a very precise end: I could be called up for national defense - but most assuredly when I’m called up (at 39, I’d be among the last called, and that under extremely dire circumstance) the gov’t won’t have much in the way of arms to hand out; under the “individual right” theory I’ll just bring my own which I already am familiar with, but under the “collective right” theory I’d be SOL on the front lines until I found what another dropped, with the hopes I could figure it out in time.
To wit: the “collective right” argument does nothing to enhance my ability to protect the nation.
Another way of presenting it:
We all pretty much agree that the government is somehow delegated the power to “regulate” traffic, dictating which side of the road to drive on, behavior at stoplights, what signs mean and what people are supposed to do when encountered, the “right on red” allowance (or disallowance under certain conditions), vehicle sizes & standards, driver education minimums, etc. Surely we can all agree that traffic is, indeed, “well-regulated” in this country: you can own whatever vehicle you want and use it how you want, subject to certain rules which on the whole improve our collective experience of driving.
A “well-regulated militia” presumably is similar: everyone can own and use what they want how they want, so long as rules of direction of fire, safe carry & storage, ammo standards, user education minimums, interchangability, etc. all designed not to hinder usage, but to maximize usability and collective effectiveness.