Previous -2 - 4
Right you are! In point of fact, 2.5 million times annually, firearms are used righteously and defensively in the US. That's just under 7K uses per day. The majority of these are defending against agressors not armed with a gun. Clearly guns are effective in stopping the threat yet gun-control advocates continue to ignore that data.
You mis-interpret the use of the phrase "well-regulated" contemporaneous with the penning of the Constittution. Read the Federalist Papers.
The question you must answer is should government have the purvue of regulating guns. As you answer that question remember logic, reason, evidence, and dispassionate pursuasion, else you cannot hope to convince others that your way is better.
May I suggest to you that your wife is the one you most want to have your back and vice versa. I vehemently disagree that because she has you to protect her that she doesn't need to be proficient. Would it not be wise for her to train and thus effectively keep and bear for your protection as you do for her?
Don't be so quick to laud the NRA. LaPierre appeard to advocated uniformed officers as the designated armed guards in our schools. This may actually play to the Progressive agenda inflating acceptance of the "police state." Simply recognizing the right to keep and bear while on school grounds places teachers, administrators, janitors, staff, bus drivers, and parents *who are so inclined* between our kids and the murderers. That would be every bit as effective as uniformed officers and at zero cost to the public.
Again, another misinterpretation of contemporaneous language. The term "well-regulated" referred to proficiency with or practice: marksmanship, reloads, malfunction drills, moving and shooting, balancing speed and precision, etc. All things which must be learned when facing any combat situation, armed or not. Quite literally the framers were acknowledging that the right to keep and bear had intrinsically within it the right to train in the use of arms. It had nothing to do with regulation in the sense which we apply to "government regulation" today. In fact, the framers would have found the notion deplorable.
Contemporaneous to the framers, the term "militia" referred to "all of the people." So it was less a qualifier and more a clarifier affirming "the right of the people" statement which follows. The framers could not have predicted that we would change the meaning of the word militia.
Previous -2 - 4