The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
This is an example of militia control, not gun control.
The
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.
It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.
No. Its regulation of the militia.
Related to, but separate from, gun control and not related to the right to keep and bear arms.
Not just regulated militia units but forcing male citizens to join them, as seen in the Militia Acts. These, together with a small standing army and multiple threats (the threat of invasion, slave revolts, attacks by Native Americans, and attacks by fellow citizens) led to the need of such regulation.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't speak to gun control outside the regulation of the militia - in other words, the regulation related to the militia applies only to people in the militia and is therefore not gun control across all those that the the right to arms; further, nothing in the regulation of the militia in reference to firearms may infringe on the right to arms held by those people in the militia.
The
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound. Period.
.
.
It doesn't because the Second Amendment isn't about the right to bear arms. Rather, it uses the right to bear arms as justification for forming regulated militias.
To recap, the right to bear arms is a natural right and comes from English common law. That's why even before the Second was written colonists armed themselves and militias were already in place.
The basis of the right to bear arms is the right to defend oneself and loved ones. That does not require government approval, and it makes no sense to me that citizens need government approval to defend themselves.
The catch is that defending others, including strangers, is not a natural right. That's where the Second comes in. The problem was that the Continental army was small and the new country faced multiple threats: European invaders, whites rebelling, Native Americans attacking, and slave revolts. To solve this problem, the government took the natural right to bear arms and used it to justify what was essentially conscription. Thus, militias were either formed or existing ones were used (including those that were used as slave patrols) and regulated by government. That's why the context of the Second is Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the Militia Acts.
In essence, the Militia Acts were the implementation of the Second, where white males (and later, non-whites) of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) were forced to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and train under militia units regulated by the government. They were to be used by the latter for various events involving the Whiskey Rebellion and others.
Thus, the Second is actually a form of gun control, in the sense that it was used in context of Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts to force citizens to arm themselves and serve the government.
As for the right to bear arms, it is a natural right and does not require approval from any government or through a Constitution.
Given that, what about gun control outside militias? That has nothing to do with the Second. Rather, gun control is an abridgment of natural rights, which is not a violation of the Constitution. What that means is that citizens have the natural right to defend themselves, but government may abridge that right through various restrictions, from registration to mandatory training to an outright ban. And the same may apply to other rights.
That's why convicts are not allowed to possess firearms. That's also why in some states capital punishment is allowed.
How to avoid gun control of one type or another? Make sure that the politicians who support one's beliefs wins.
