4 ms·

The only contortions come from people against the 2nd amendment. Well-regulated clearly meant armed while militia meant most able-bodied men. Even so, it's a p

The only contortions come from people against the 2nd amendment. Well-regulated clearly meant armed while militia meant most able-bodied men. Even so, it's a preamble, not a qualification. The second part is explicit it's an individual right, not a state right.

shadowgovt 6y ago
I disagree with this characterization of "well-regulated;" the relevant Federalist goes into detail on how a state could organize its militia. Simply giving people the capacity to show up with guns is not what the preamble means. Still, I think the rememdy is to amend it out if it is no longer useful; I agree with the plain interpretation that the right is an individual right, not a state right. The preamble can be part of a rational argument for the 2nd Amendment's lack of utility toward the end of repealing it; the argument can start with something like "The Second Amendment's preamble gives justification to its inclusion in the Constitution. That justification clearly doesn't apply to the modern world because modern civil defense looks nothing like what the Founders envisioned. It's time to ask whether the Second Amendment places contortions on proper regulation of deadly weapons that hinder a free and happy society in the 21st century."
- akvadrako 6y ago
  > I disagree with this characterization of "well-regulated;" the relevant Federalist goes into detail on how a state could organize its militia. Simply giving people the capacity to show up with guns is not what the preamble means. Well-regulated includes well-armed and that is what it means in context. How I would put it in modern language: It's important that a large portion of the populace can be called upon to fight against threats to freedom and society. To ensure that the citizens are prepared to do so, they must be allowed to keep and practice with weapons of war. Personally, I'm fine with discussing a repeal of the 2nd amendment; it's a perfectly valid question if it makes sense in a modern context. But that question is mostly academic since it's so politically unlikely to happen as it has broad support and the evidence against it isn't supermajority-level.

shadowgovt 6y ago

I disagree with this characterization of "well-regulated;" the relevant Federalist goes into detail on how a state could organize its militia. Simply giving people the capacity to show up with guns is not what the preamble means. Still, I think the rememdy is to amend it out if it is no longer useful; I agree with the plain interpretation that the right is an individual right, not a state right. The preamble can be part of a rational argument for the 2nd Amendment's lack of utility toward the end of repealing it; the argument can start with something like "The Second Amendment's preamble gives justification to its inclusion in the Constitution. That justification clearly doesn't apply to the modern world because modern civil defense looks nothing like what the Founders envisioned. It's time to ask whether the Second Amendment places contortions on proper regulation of deadly weapons that hinder a free and happy society in the 21st century."

akvadrako 6y ago
> I disagree with this characterization of "well-regulated;" the relevant Federalist goes into detail on how a state could organize its militia. Simply giving people the capacity to show up with guns is not what the preamble means. Well-regulated includes well-armed and that is what it means in context. How I would put it in modern language: It's important that a large portion of the populace can be called upon to fight against threats to freedom and society. To ensure that the citizens are prepared to do so, they must be allowed to keep and practice with weapons of war. Personally, I'm fine with discussing a repeal of the 2nd amendment; it's a perfectly valid question if it makes sense in a modern context. But that question is mostly academic since it's so politically unlikely to happen as it has broad support and the evidence against it isn't supermajority-level.