3 ms·

I just don't think the nature of the militia (or even the militia itself really) is particularly important for the second amendment. The second amendment clear

I just don't think the nature of the militia (or even the militia itself really) is particularly important for the second amendment. The second amendment clearly states that the government does not have the power to infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, and that would be true no matter how you changed the militia clause. "A rag tag posse of unarmed thugs being unhelpful to the functioning of a monarchy, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This places the exact same prohibition on the government's power to infringe the right to bear arms.

beerandt 5y ago
>that would be true no matter how you changed the militia clause. Right- but that's exactly the point, and why reading it differently is critical. >A rag tag posse of unarmed thugs First- the term "militia" also had different meaning back then, and legally, still does, in US law. It means every "able bodied male". That's it. (It's either the first or very near the first thing codified in US statutes as military law.) Today, what we call militia is actually organized or semi-organized militia (or even national guard), which is legally and conceptually different. Think "minutemen" and not "gang". So it makes even more sense that "regulated" doesn't mean 'control of gangs', but the supplying/enabling of responsible citizen minutemen, implying everyone has some responsibly of military readiness in a free-country. In that context (and the original desire to not keep a standing army), "limiting" that individual readiness is in direct conflict with the stated intent/benefit. Which is not to conflate it as the reason individuals have a right to bear arms, but that the right to bear arms is complementary to individual citizens having some level of duty-to-country, to be ready to defend it, if and when called upon to. If anything, it implies citizens should be armed and that the government can and should enable it, as an enumerated function of government. Which doesn't imply any authority to control or otherwise restrict an individuals right to bear arms, with the narrow exception of when fulfilling one's role as activated militia, and even then only because of the nature of being subject to chain-of-command.

beerandt 5y ago

>that would be true no matter how you changed the militia clause. Right- but that's exactly the point, and why reading it differently is critical. >A rag tag posse of unarmed thugs First- the term "militia" also had different meaning back then, and legally, still does, in US law. It means every "able bodied male". That's it. (It's either the first or very near the first thing codified in US statutes as military law.) Today, what we call militia is actually organized or semi-organized militia (or even national guard), which is legally and conceptually different. Think "minutemen" and not "gang". So it makes even more sense that "regulated" doesn't mean 'control of gangs', but the supplying/enabling of responsible citizen minutemen, implying everyone has some responsibly of military readiness in a free-country. In that context (and the original desire to not keep a standing army), "limiting" that individual readiness is in direct conflict with the stated intent/benefit. Which is not to conflate it as the reason individuals have a right to bear arms, but that the right to bear arms is complementary to individual citizens having some level of duty-to-country, to be ready to defend it, if and when called upon to. If anything, it implies citizens should be armed and that the government can and should enable it, as an enumerated function of government. Which doesn't imply any authority to control or otherwise restrict an individuals right to bear arms, with the narrow exception of when fulfilling one's role as activated militia, and even then only because of the nature of being subject to chain-of-command.