4 ms·

But if you play that originalist game with the second amendment, you still have to contend with the other clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

• sgarland 3y ago
  Which is clearly a dependent clause of the subject, “A well regulated militia.” Every other amendment in the bill of rights follows a similar structure. America had no standing army, and many of the founders did not want one. Hence, the need for a militia.
  • tivert 3y ago
    > Which is clearly a dependent clause of the subject, “A well regulated militia.” Every other amendment in the bill of rights follows a similar structure. I wonder if that means the lack in the US of official citizen militias dependent on private firearm ownership could be considered unconstitutional. IIRC, the National Guard is reckoned to be the militia, but that seems a little like BS to me. It seems pretty much to be a de-facto component of the federal military, complete with rotations to fight foreign wars, etc.
  • rayiner 3y ago
    The second part isn’t a dependent clause, just as a matter of grammar. The second amendment doesn’t say: “within a well organized militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The first explains the purpose, the second gives the rule. So you can certainly argue that the rule must be considered in the context of the purpose. But that still doesn’t get you where you’re going. Because personal firearms ownership certainly facilitates raising a militia if you need one.