I might as well just call this topic bob.....

I can't think of a title.

Anyway, I am pretty much just trying to say this more or less out loud, so if you just want to argue about it, please just let this topic slip into obscurity.

Ok, so.....


During the revolutionary war, one of the biggest issues was supply. Food, clothing, and weapons. As far as weapons go, it wasn't because the british hindered supply lines or anything. We just didn't have them. Private citizens didn't have them because they cost 3 months wages for a skilled worker, were inaccurate, had to be cleaned about every 4 shots, were hard to maintain, if broke, required a specialized person to work on of which there were hardly any of, and decayed quickly.

The prevalent idea for the defense of the new republic, after it had been established, was that militia was the best option. I can see the thought process, in a government by, for, and of the people, it makes sense to have the defense of it handled by the people as well. Not a standing army.

Now, the best way to ensure that the people that would constitute a militia would be supplied with weapons, was if they already had them.

The best way to ensure that people would be familiar in the use of arms was if they actually used them. So it was set that:

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.

And it looks good, but, it fails to instill a desire for something that is expensive, and does not have an application in day to day life.

And so, the people remained unarmed, and the militia was anything but "well regulated".

In fact, the militia became such a joke that it was done away with. However, the right of the people to keep and bear arms stayed. One could argue that it is because the idea of the American experiment still being a government by, for, and of the people, the people should be entrusted with arms. One could argue that it stayed because the people in general were unconcerned with Arms in the first place, so why bother trying to control something that people didn't have interest in.

The idealist part of me says the former, while the realist says the latter.

Then something interesting happened. The development of interchangeable parts made things easier to repair. The development of percussion caps made firing more certain. The development of the Minie ball increased accuracy. The development of self contained cartridges allowed one to use a firearm in all weather, and allowed for the development of repeating arms.

Arms became less expensive, more rugged, more reliable, and more accurate. They became things that people actually wanted because they served purposes more than just armies going to war. They supplanted the bow and arrow for hunting, and the sword/axe/knife for self defense. Due to smokeless powders, one doesn't even need to clean firearms for hundreds of rounds, and so target practice becomes something that one can do as a leisure activity.

Because the were things that people actually wanted, idea of the founders was actually feasible. There were enough people who owned and were familiar enough with their firearms to make defense of the state by the people possible. It's a whole other question to ask whether or not enough of the common man would jump to the defense of his state in the time of need to make militias plausible.

Still, enough of an idealist of me remains that a government by the people, for the people, and of the people should allow the people behave in a manner that they see fit. They should be able to subscribe to and practice any religion or lack there of that they wish. They should be able to hold their own ideas, and freely express them. They should be able to gather information, regardless of how it reflects upon those in power. They should be protected against undue or unjust exercise of power by the state. They should feel secure in their possessions and persons, and be able to defend them if necessary. They should be allowed the ability to provide for their family.

These are my thoughts. They come with a dark side, unfortunately. In order to permit everyone the freedom to do these things, one needs to understand that there will be people that have ideas and ideals that the majority will find offensive. One needs to understand that there are those that would provide for their family by contributing to the detriment of another. One needs to understand that there will be those that use the means that others would use to protect themselves to force their will on others, or commit horrible acts. These things will happen. If everyone behaved in an altruistic manner, there would be no need for these things. If people did not find religion or ideals offensive, there would not need to be freedom of religion or speech. If governments never abused their power, the people would not need to be protected against them. If there were not reason for people to feel insecure in their possessions and persons, there would not need to be a defense of them, and if there were not people denied the ability to provide for their family or selves, well, you get the idea.

That is all well and good, but it is enlightenment thinking. It contains a certain optimism. That most people are good, and would work to the betterment of themselves and of society if given a chance. It is my opinion, based on my observations of the modern world, that we have lost touch with society. That we have lost touch with any sense of community that we once had. There are more people around an individual than at any point in history, yet we are more alone than ever. More cut off from society. These are more barbaric times, and I am a product of the times. Like it or not. I don't have a connection with those around me. I don't share the same ideals with them, and even when we reach the same conclusions, it is for different reasons. And so, it is not for idealistic reasons that I bear arms. It is of no desire to be a hero and save others. It is of no desire to defend country. It is expressed in the Havamol:

Away from his arms | in the open field
A man should fare not a foot;
For never he knows | when the need for a spear
Shall arise on the distant road.

I bear arms not because I am worried about confrontation, but so that I do not have to worry about confrontation. So I can put that out of my mind in this sea of people of different ideas, ideals, and faiths that I have no connection to.

all