3 ms·

The current interpretation is different from historical. Historically it really did apply to "well regulated militia".

• cm2187 7y ago
  It applies to “the people”. I believe the current legal interpretation in vigueur is in the area of “because a well regulated militia is necessary, ...”
  • danaris 7y ago
    But functionally, the "well-regulated militia" of today is the US Armed Forces. I challenge you to show any way in which hundreds of millions of random citizens with handguns and zero training to fight together qualifies as well-regulated, or meaningfully as a militia to defend our country against an invasion.
    • cm2187 7y ago
      I am no constitutional expert, but my understanding is that the amendment protects the ability to form a militia. And I believe it is not meant to defend against invasion so much than to defend against tyranny (whether internal or external). And it is still true today that no army, even the US army, can control a hostile population that has a wide access to weapons. It is why the colonial wars were futile, and why no major power has ever successfully won a guerrilla war.
• herostratus101 7y ago
  The issue with this argument is that "militia" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1811: “[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.”
• rhino369 7y ago
  It was never interpreted by the supreme court to only apply to a well-regulated militia. At most, you could say the right was interpreted to only apply to guns used by a well-regulated militia in the 1930s. But before that there were no federal gun control laws, so the issue never came up.