3 ms·
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, ...”
by 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 agoBut 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 agoI 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.