4 years ago
Poor Bob Bettilyon tries but doesn’t get it quite right.
Since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and many believe in the original-intent interpretation of the Constitution, perhaps only guns with the technology that existed in 1791 should be allowed, i.e., muskets.
I would be OK with a “concealed musket law” or a “stand your ground musket law.”
Carrying gun powder and 30 lead balls for a musket seems more reasonable than 30-round magazines. Drive-by musket shootouts, or lunatics going to a school armed with a musket and 30 lead balls, don’t seem quite as scary.
The National Rifle Association could say “only a good guy with a musket can stop a bad guy with a musket.”
So, I propose banning all guns not originally available in 1791, except for real militias such as a police department.
The first paragraph quoted sets the stage for the misadventure since it contains false assumptions. The argument ends in disaster, when he says that police departments are the real militia.
Using the colonialists as a reference point, they couldn’t have been referring to police departments as the militia, because the constabulary existed in colonial times.
… the constabulary in North Carolina resembled the office of petty constable in the mother country, though in the colony it lacked the “almost infinite variations of methods [found] in [the] shires and hundreds and parishes” of England that emanated from centuries of “custom and practice.” Fundamentally distinguishing the English petty constable from his colonial counterpart was the former’s role as a spokesman for his village. In the hierarchical schema of English polity and society, the petty constable served as an intermediary between local inhabitants and politico-judicial authority. In North Carolina, however, local justices of the peace and sheriffs stayed more closely attuned to the people, obviating a mediatory role for the colonial constable.
And do you notice one of the differences pointed out between British and American constables? We don’t need or want an intermediary. In fact, we don’t want a “hierarchical schema” at all.
Don’t tread on me.