4 ms·
The current interpretation of the second amendment is the issue. It has been completely severed from the "A well regulated militia" clause.
by Hnrobert42 2y ago
The current interpretation of the second amendment is the issue. It has been completely severed from the "A well regulated militia" clause.
- adolph 2y agoWas there some previous interpretation that was utopian?
- giantg2 2y agoEven if that clause was tied to it, how would that affect things given US Title 10 ss 246? I've always wondered if they would enforce those restrictions - disarming disabled people, disarming people over 45, and disarming most women (not in the national guard). Likewise, would that mean I'm then able to own the same weapons individually that the organized militia uses for their duties? It makes for an interesting thought experiment.
- solidsnack9000 2y agoIt's interesting to me that people who make a big deal about that clause don't ever seem to know much about how the militia system actually worked. It was based fundamentally on arms and ammunition that were privately owned, widespread and extremely ubiquitous in society.
- 15155 2y agoEven Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't make this tired, poorly-designed argument: the prefatory clause isn't a limitation, merely a justification. The jurisprudence surrounding the "militia" prefatory clause is long-since settled. Even if you do the mental gymnastics to rework the English language to make this mean what you want it to mean, the militia is composed of all able-bodied men between 17-45 per 10 U.S. Code § 246. At the time of this country's founding, private individuals owned cannonry, ships, and ordnance far beyond small arms. What purpose would letters of marque and reprisal serve without weapons?