>In 1797 the Kingdom of Great Britain feared an invasion by the French. You may think of the British as always having a large standing Army, but it was relatively small at the start of the Napoleonic era. To give a better chance of defending the nation against invasion, volunteer units of part-time soldiers were formed to serve only within Great Britain. Infantry were easy to form as they just needed weapons and other basic equipment, but cavalry posed a problem in that it needed trained horses. A way to get these was to borrow them from local farmers and country estates.
As an American I interpret this to mean that the British took to heart a lesson learned from their recent experience in the American Revolution. I am reminded of this particular amendment to the US Constitution which was ratified by the US states in late 1791, a few years before the establishment of the Yeomanry.
>Amendment II
>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.
Codifying this amendment in the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone for guaranteeing that trained individuals could be available to the United States should an external threat to the security of the new country arise.
This amendment has obviously become a trigger and a political dividing line here in the US. It's a shame. It is the one amendment of all of them that guarantees that a random collection of individual citizens drawn from any random locality can be quickly made ready to serve their country as an effective fighting force if called upon to serve.
Perhaps it is seen as too outdated, too permissive, etc. though in fact it is short and sweet defining the important desired outcome - (A well regulated militia,) the reasoning behind the need for that outcome - (being necessary to the security of a free state,) the specific right granted - (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
It would have been awesome if they had laid out the responsibilities of the citizenry who exercise this right and the types of arms permissible for a citizen to keep and bear. I'm sure we can figure it all out in time. I'm not holding my breath though and you shouldn't either.
I thought the meaning of the 2nd amendment is now not solely understood as needing a well regulated militia. It is presented as an example of the benefit. So a modern sentence would be something like
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. For example, it is required if a well-regulated militia is to be assembled.
Thus disconnecting the "well-regulated militia" idea as the sole justification.
No disrespect intended at all in my response. I know it is a divisive issue.
Looking at the history though you would want to be a revisionist historian if you were to be phrasing it in that manner.
It was a contentious issue even back then. I have described why it reads as it does as it is important to understand that in reality, those who drafted the amendment went through multiple revisions before arriving at the final version precisely because each state had reservations about the level of power that should be given to individual citizens. They based their reservations on their own experiences dealing with threats on the frontier and with their experiences raising, training, and incorporating citizens into a force capable of defeating a well trained army during the American Revolution.
They tried to use what they had learned looking back, and craft an amendment that would help preserve the nation's ability to look ahead to a more prosperous future as an independent nation capable of defending itself from the threats they knew about or could expect at the time.
Like all the other amendments, the text in this one was a compromise between those who were charged with codifying standards for the new nation that all could agree upon.
>In 1797 the Kingdom of Great Britain feared an invasion by the French. You may think of the British as always having a large standing Army, but it was relatively small at the start of the Napoleonic era. To give a better chance of defending the nation against invasion, volunteer units of part-time soldiers were formed to serve only within Great Britain. Infantry were easy to form as they just needed weapons and other basic equipment, but cavalry posed a problem in that it needed trained horses. A way to get these was to borrow them from local farmers and country estates.
As an American I interpret this to mean that the British took to heart a lesson learned from their recent experience in the American Revolution. I am reminded of this particular amendment to the US Constitution which was ratified by the US states in late 1791, a few years before the establishment of the Yeomanry.
>Amendment II
>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.
Codifying this amendment in the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone for guaranteeing that trained individuals could be available to the United States should an external threat to the security of the new country arise.
This amendment has obviously become a trigger and a political dividing line here in the US. It's a shame. It is the one amendment of all of them that guarantees that a random collection of individual citizens drawn from any random locality can be quickly made ready to serve their country as an effective fighting force if called upon to serve.
Perhaps it is seen as too outdated, too permissive, etc. though in fact it is short and sweet defining the important desired outcome - (A well regulated militia,) the reasoning behind the need for that outcome - (being necessary to the security of a free state,) the specific right granted - (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
It would have been awesome if they had laid out the responsibilities of the citizenry who exercise this right and the types of arms permissible for a citizen to keep and bear. I'm sure we can figure it all out in time. I'm not holding my breath though and you shouldn't either.