but the 2nd amendment says that arms are necessary for a militia
Not according to the Supreme Court. Grammarians have long argued that "In support of a well-regulated militia" is a prefatory clause, and cannot bear on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", where People is the operative word, and is synonymous with "We the People", of whom this nation is constituted and by which is governed.
Ironically enough, the NRA, currently demonized for apparently endorsing mass killing, considers its main focus to be the training of safe and proper usage of firearms (that is, if you skip over their founding, which was to ensure that freed slaves remained free by giving them a means to protect their freedom). Firearms are interesting in that regard - the more you use them and don't get hurt, the more easy it is to fall into a false sense of security. I liken it to geeks and backups. We all assume it'll never happen to us, so even though we know it to be good practice and all that, sometimes we slip up out of arrogance, or comfort, or whatever.
I can't say that it isn't a consumerist culture, because obviously it is, and you're obviously very right about firearm legislation. I've wondered the same, and often come to the conclusion that probably, all legislation is probably considered poor by those in the know. If you want to have some fun, read up on the Lacey act, which I'm pretty certain makes 99% of all Americans unwitting felons.
A more cynical person might suggest that background checks are bad, and the only evidence you need to prove it is that Congress seems to be all for it. I'm not that cynical, and while I don't have any moral objection to them personally, I do consider them to be at odds with the notion of a Constitutional right. The right to speech, religion, voting, etc., are all practiced freely, without background checks, burden or "common sense" regulation - and just in case, before anyone mentions libel laws, or yelling fire in a theater, those aren't restrictions, but punishments for irresponsible or unlawful use of your right to free speech, in much the same way that laws against armed assault or murder are penalties for irresponsible or unlawful firearm use.
Having read everything I can from the Constitution-era framers, I think it's quite clear that they intended every man to have the luxury of bearing arms. I freely concede that felons and criminals do not and should not, as their rights have been restricted as a result of due process. By default, placing restrictions on the right to bear arms for those whose rights have not been curtailed, amended or restricted as a result of due process is wrong, just as unlawful search and seizure is wrong, or unlawful detainment, and citizens should not allow for it. Considering how poorly we've kept our other rights intact, I'm guessing we'll eventually cede more rights in the sway of politicians, but that's no reason we should have to do so willingly.
I think if they wish to infringe our rights, and 90% of everybody supports it, the process is simple -- amend the Constitution to repeal the second amendment. If that can't be done, then it should remain intact, and the right should not be infringed. If the amendment were repealed, I'd happily support it. Otherwise, until such time as it is, I see most legislation as either pointless, aggrandizing or outright offensive.
I am a bit suspicious about the NRA. I wonder how much they are controlled by arms manufacturer's interests.
I would agree with you that the curtailment of rights is offensive. The recent attempt at weakening Habeas Corpus and various assaults on the Presumption of Innocence come to mind.
I question that as well, but it's also been pretty much debunked. The biggest 'arms manufacturer' donations to the NRA actually come from Midway, which is a retailer, not a manufacturer, and their donations aren't actually from Midway, but donations solicited from users at the end of each sale. If you purchase from Midway, they invite you to donate the 'roundup' to the NRA; if your purchase is $19.50, they'll ask if you want to round it up to an even $20, with the remainder earmarked as an NRA donation.
For the record, I'm not an NRA or NRA-ILA member, though I am a member of the Second Amendment Foundation.
That said, even if we accept that they are in the pockets of arms manufacturers, I don't really see that as being too bad a thing. Arms manufacturers don't have the same degree of exploitative control over their users as, say, telecoms, or software manufacturers.
For the most part, the interests of the manufacturers and gun owners are much more closely aligned than how you find it in the IT arena.
For one, arms manufacturers don't want their name tarnished whenever a nut uses one of their arms to commit mass murder, as well as the headache that inevitably ensues.
That isn't to suggest that they're perfectly aligned of course, but definitely moreso than what we're used to seeing.
Not according to the Supreme Court. Grammarians have long argued that "In support of a well-regulated militia" is a prefatory clause, and cannot bear on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", where People is the operative word, and is synonymous with "We the People", of whom this nation is constituted and by which is governed.
Ironically enough, the NRA, currently demonized for apparently endorsing mass killing, considers its main focus to be the training of safe and proper usage of firearms (that is, if you skip over their founding, which was to ensure that freed slaves remained free by giving them a means to protect their freedom). Firearms are interesting in that regard - the more you use them and don't get hurt, the more easy it is to fall into a false sense of security. I liken it to geeks and backups. We all assume it'll never happen to us, so even though we know it to be good practice and all that, sometimes we slip up out of arrogance, or comfort, or whatever.
I can't say that it isn't a consumerist culture, because obviously it is, and you're obviously very right about firearm legislation. I've wondered the same, and often come to the conclusion that probably, all legislation is probably considered poor by those in the know. If you want to have some fun, read up on the Lacey act, which I'm pretty certain makes 99% of all Americans unwitting felons.
A more cynical person might suggest that background checks are bad, and the only evidence you need to prove it is that Congress seems to be all for it. I'm not that cynical, and while I don't have any moral objection to them personally, I do consider them to be at odds with the notion of a Constitutional right. The right to speech, religion, voting, etc., are all practiced freely, without background checks, burden or "common sense" regulation - and just in case, before anyone mentions libel laws, or yelling fire in a theater, those aren't restrictions, but punishments for irresponsible or unlawful use of your right to free speech, in much the same way that laws against armed assault or murder are penalties for irresponsible or unlawful firearm use.
Having read everything I can from the Constitution-era framers, I think it's quite clear that they intended every man to have the luxury of bearing arms. I freely concede that felons and criminals do not and should not, as their rights have been restricted as a result of due process. By default, placing restrictions on the right to bear arms for those whose rights have not been curtailed, amended or restricted as a result of due process is wrong, just as unlawful search and seizure is wrong, or unlawful detainment, and citizens should not allow for it. Considering how poorly we've kept our other rights intact, I'm guessing we'll eventually cede more rights in the sway of politicians, but that's no reason we should have to do so willingly.
I think if they wish to infringe our rights, and 90% of everybody supports it, the process is simple -- amend the Constitution to repeal the second amendment. If that can't be done, then it should remain intact, and the right should not be infringed. If the amendment were repealed, I'd happily support it. Otherwise, until such time as it is, I see most legislation as either pointless, aggrandizing or outright offensive.