The argument goes that the second amendment was meant for the state to be able to arm a militia it controls for its protection. Notwithstanding the meaning of the words in the second amendment during the time of its creation, let's just say "Great. Screw it. No more individual right to keep and bear arms." It was there to provide for the common defense since standing armies = TEH DEVIL.

Yes, it's a thought experiment.

So let's actually apply what's been said. Draft everyone from 17-45 (the people who make up the unorganized militia) and teach them how to use firearms. We can get rid of the standing army (though I would suggest keeping the Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Marines. None of which could occupy a medium to large country. You need boots on the ground.)

Getting rid of the standing army means we have less money going towards the defense sector, though initial training cost and bureaucratic red tape would probably be pretty high until we get that sorted out.

larrymod wrote:I'm not sure if you are expecting people to recoil in horror from this "thought experiement", but what you are suggesting is almost exactly what I advocate, in full seriousness, for the U.S.

- Swiss-style homeland defense force ("well-regulated militia") with essentially universal particpation
- Minimal or no standing military (and thus no possibility of interventionist adventures abroad)
- Invidividual weapon ownership in connection with the homeland defense force (also following the Swiss model, as I understand it), and tightly restricted outside of that framework

I have no illusion that we can transition to such a model easily, or that it wouldn't have profound effects on the vaunted American "lifestyle", but this model does follow, I believe, the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment -- and not incidentally, would lead to a much more humane society, I believe.