4 ms·

Please define "being part of a well-regulated militia" in terms of bearing arms in the current US situation. The entire premise of individuals owning weapons i

by rswail 4y ago

Please define "being part of a well-regulated militia" in terms of bearing arms in the current US situation. The entire premise of individuals owning weapons is based on that "well-regulated militia", yet no such entities actually exist in 2022.

oldcigarette 4y ago
This has been discussed at great length many many times and courts nor anyone serious about this topic agrees with you. The right is not predicated on being part of a militia in any way. Anyone who says this is pretty much immediately ignored by gun owners because they are clearly not serious at all about the topic.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
Words change in meaning over time. The second amendment has been hit hard by that. In the time period: "Regulated" means up to a particular standard of strength. This is why British regulars were called "regulars," because they had a particular set of equipment. "Militia" referred to the pool of people who could be called to defend the country. In 1776, that meant men of fighting age (14-60). This is different than the voting population, who were specifically landed men, or the population of citizens. In other words, the second amendment called for a fighting-age male population that was as well-armed as the military. This is why DC vs Heller was decided in the way it was. The "well-regulated militia" before the comma meant something totally different than its current meaning. As an aside, I think that most modern military weapons should be banned, but that is actually not what the 2nd amendment calls for. The right solution to the problem is to amend the constitution, not try to pass gun control laws and see what a court will approve.
- lliamander 4y ago
  I disagree with your policy preferences, but I respect and appreciate that you have a correct understanding of the constitution.
- rubyist5eva 4y ago
  This is the best layman's explanation I've seen of the text of the second and it's meaning in context, thank you.

by rswail 4y ago

oldcigarette 4y ago

This has been discussed at great length many many times and courts nor anyone serious about this topic agrees with you. The right is not predicated on being part of a militia in any way. Anyone who says this is pretty much immediately ignored by gun owners because they are clearly not serious at all about the topic.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Words change in meaning over time. The second amendment has been hit hard by that. In the time period: "Regulated" means up to a particular standard of strength. This is why British regulars were called "regulars," because they had a particular set of equipment. "Militia" referred to the pool of people who could be called to defend the country. In 1776, that meant men of fighting age (14-60). This is different than the voting population, who were specifically landed men, or the population of citizens. In other words, the second amendment called for a fighting-age male population that was as well-armed as the military. This is why DC vs Heller was decided in the way it was. The "well-regulated militia" before the comma meant something totally different than its current meaning. As an aside, I think that most modern military weapons should be banned, but that is actually not what the 2nd amendment calls for. The right solution to the problem is to amend the constitution, not try to pass gun control laws and see what a court will approve.

lliamander 4y ago
I disagree with your policy preferences, but I respect and appreciate that you have a correct understanding of the constitution.
rubyist5eva 4y ago
This is the best layman's explanation I've seen of the text of the second and it's meaning in context, thank you.