[rustcleaner]

I have a dream... that one day we will have a DEA which only regulates purity and accuracy of dose for drugs, and an ATF which only regulates quality and accuracy for firearms. These laws do little to protect the public and they mire enthusiasts with steep and discouraging legal (and thus personal physical) risks. This sort of thinking about the role of government has to stop; it is human civilization's chief sickness.

[anon7000]

“Chief sickness” is pretty strong when there are dozens of other human problems that are considerably worse.

[bigfudge]

But drugs and firearms have very different risk profiles for other people. Perhaps it bears repeating: US lax gun laws and culture which glorifies violence leads to an order of magnitude more violent deaths than comparable countries in Europe.

[cyanydeez]

I have a well regulated militia dream.

give up guys.

[sneak]

The 2A is interpreted both popularly and legally as an individual right: it is the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

And, as I’m sure you know, the term “regulated” as written in 2A does not mean the same thing as “regulated” in terms of “government regulation”. In context, it means approximately “well-functioning” or “reliable”.

[dr_dshiv]

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

An individual right to participate in a well regulated militia.

[Pyxl101]

In historical context, the “militia” was everyone, every able bodied person who could participate in common defense. It wasn’t a specific organization like we’d think of today

Beyond that, the right is entirely unconnected with service in a militia. That clause at the beginning “A well-regulated Militia …” does not scope or bound what comes next; it offers one explanation for why that right is protected.

SCOTUS explained the historical meaning of these words in more detail in District of Columbia vs. Heller, including an in-depth examination of the language as part of its opinion that the right is an individual right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...

The SCOTUS decision itself is quite readable.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

Notably:

> Held:

> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[dmoy]

> In historical context

In current federal legal context, the "militia" is all men between like age 18-45, plus all people in the national guard, or something like that. That's what the US CFR says.

[Aloisius]

Are we really to believe that slave states ratified the 2nd amendment with the belief that they were giving every individual the right to keep and bear arms?

Because that seems absurd given their rather large population of slaves.

[herewulf]

Worth noting that this was a 5 vs. 4 ruling and thus reeks of politics.

[15155]

Worth noting that Caetano was unanimous - including some of the most staunchly left-leaning Justices in the history of the Court.

[jandrewrogers]

The militia is every able-bodied person, both as a matter of history and as literally defined in US law for centuries. Furthermore, this militia is expressly recognized as "unorganized" in law i.e. separate from organized militias created by the government.

In the US, the militia is explicitly independent of the government. Even if one were to accept your narrow reading, which no court has, I don't see how it would materially change anything given that any random group of blokes without any government involvement is a militia as a matter of law.

[dr_dshiv]

It is constitutionally ok to require that certain guns can only be kept at well-regulated gun clubs.

Those clubs, or militias, could own tanks, drones, explosives.

Ie, all those things that aren’t allowed today in the hands of private owners.

[15155]

> tanks, drones, explosives.

These are all allowed today in the hands of private owners.

What are you even talking about?