I love when random internet people claim “this is obvious” about a topic that has caused unlimited controversies among jurists for the past two hundred years…
(And the current jurisprudence is clearly against you on that whole topic, as demonstrated by those blue states laws that have not been overturned for being unconstitutional…)
"Well regulated" refers to their ability to shoot straight, and a militia is a civilian force. This language is about civilians being capable of handling weapons.
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.
It’s about the right.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.
The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
> The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
Absolutely not. The state and the federal government definitely keep the monopoly of violence: you can't kill someone you believe raped your wife, the government can (under due process but still).
Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…
A single man is no threat to the state, so your example is wrong.
A militia could be.
To be able to form militia to resist the government, individuals have absolute right to be armed.
The mechanics is really pretty simple.
And yes, I believe that extends to all arms, as is written, otherwise the intent - to be able to form militia which can overpower the government - can not be fulfilled.
That is the constitution.
I am not saying I agree with it, but at the same time, without absolute right to bear arms, the government _will_ demilitarize the people.
> Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…
A well regulated militia would determine what types of guns, what ammo, what uniforms, what qualifies a member, etc.
Besides the freedom of the State means that its not subordinate to another State. Not that random people get to shoot at the duly elected State government.
regulation, as a constraint vs extremes of behaviour, keeping something within acceptable boundries.
duly elected or not, a government that persues an undue course of action is in need of regulation. the proximal context, a militia occupying cities to enforce the taking of taxes, liberties, and autonomy is a militia requiring regulation.
that regulation manifests as a resistance to application of force that is bane rather than boon to the social order.
that requires the bearing of arms that place the regulating faction [plebe] on equal terms with the offending militia.
This argument has been beaten to death in the courts for hundreds of years at this point.
Why does everyone think that they are some kind of arm chair lawyer who magically knows the right way to read it, and everyone else is wrong?
As a country, we need to have a serious conversation about guns. This argument just makes noise and gets in the way of actually talking about the real issues.
The two real questions are:
1. what types of guns do we want people to be able to own - where do we as a society draw the line on what’s okay for people to have and what we want to keep in the domain of the government control. This is an incredibly difficult question, especially in a country that was founded in an armed revolution and also suffers mass shootings
2. Under what conditions do we remove someone’s right to own guns?
Let’s talk about that, not beating the wording horse to death for the millionth time.
OK, if I accept your argument that the 2nd amendment is only about the militia, then what is the militia?
if your answer is the National Guard, that is ahistorical, because the modern National Guard was created in 1903. [0]
the "militia", as it existed at the time the 2nd amendment was passed [1] was:
> each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted)
so if you really want to hang your hat on "the militia" then the 2nd Amendment means women and non-white people aren't allowed to own firearms, and men over 45 need a permit of some kind?
there's a lot of debate to be had about firearms laws, but grammatical nitpicking on this level is really kind of pointless. there is even debate about whether an extra comma changes the meaning [2].
another source you can look at is individual state constitutions. in my home state of Washington, for example [3]:
> The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
drafted in 1889, and could not state more plainly that it applies to individuals.
historically, it has always been an individual right. if you want to try to argue that modern firearms mean the right should be subject to more restrictions, go ahead. but don't try to rewrite history in the process.
> The chief purport of these amendments was to annex to the Constitution a more specific bill of rights. Freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press were thereby secured; ...; the private right to bear arms;
~ History of the United States Volume II - James Schouler 1880
> [T]he right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, ... including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such States or districts without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.
> The physique and the manly appearance of the American people seems to make them well suited for the military profession. The young people very early get used to traveling and toil. Hunting is the young men's chief pasttime. This not only strengthens them bodily but teaches them to handle guns and thus prepares them for the hardships of war. In addition to this every free man has a right to keep arms in his house and to use them when he wants.
~ America 1818-1820 - Baron Klinkowstrom
> The constitution of the United States contains a number of expres limitation upon the Federal legislative power. In addition to those contained in the first then Amendments relative to freedom of religion, speech, and press, the quartering of troops, the right of the people to assemble, to petition, to keep and bear arms, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures...
~ Principles of the Constitutional Law of the United States (1917) - Westel Willoughby
> The provision in the federal constitution on the subject is; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
~ The United States Constitutional Manual (1845) - Mordecai M'Kinney
> I. Personal Rights of Individuals ... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
~ The Federal Government; it's officers and Their Duties (1871) ~ Ransom H. Gillet
> The constitution makes it the right, the laws make it the duty, of all citizens within certain ages, to bear arms.
~ Education in a Republic (1838) - Edward Everett
> A man may arm himself for a case of probable danger; he may do it with a view to no specific occurrence, and he may do it in self-defense. Who can object to it? The constitution guarantees to every man the right bear arms. No law takes it away, and none every can. The right of self-defense is an inherent one, given by God, to man. It is our own natural right, and, as Blackstone says, no human legislation can ever take it from us.
~ The Life of John J. Crittenden With Selections From His Correspondence and Speeches (US Rep, US Senator, US AG, Gov of KY) (1871) - Edited by His Daughter, Mrs. Capman Coleman
They're not from AI. And that's because most judges are hacks and the supreme court is generally a bunch of corporate hacks who slow walk 2nd amendment challenges.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
You can't have a citizen's militia without an armed populace. If 'the people' don't have guns, you don't have a militia.