"a well regulated militia"...

[SHRED]

I must have overlooked "a weak regulated populace" part in the 2nd Amendment.

[Courtesy Flush]

1. The 2nd Amendment contradicts itself.

It starts with "well regulated", and ends with "shall not be infringed." It can't be both. How did that language make it out of committee?

[RomneyLies]

3. Keep in mind, that language was passed by pretty much the same people

who came up with the idea that Black people were, in fact, 3/5ths of a person.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

Read Patrice's first comment to that. Basic English grammar.

[CJCRANE]

6. It depends if you regard it as an individual or collective liberty.

My interpretation is that "the militia" represents "the people" of a state. So each state has its own armed militia (who are ordinary citizens) but that doesn't mean that every citizen should or could be armed.

Of course, others will say that historically every able-bodied adult male was qualified to be in the militia but that still doesn't mean that everyone has a right to be armed, it is still "regulated"...and so there's nothing to stop it from being even more "well regulated".

[leftyohiolib]

10. b/c the 2 phrases are in reference to 2 different things

[Courtesy Flush]

13. Then it's a poorly-worded non-sequitur.

That's like saying "As energy independence is our top priority, breast cancer screenings will be fully funded."

[Atypical Liberal]

12. The MILITIAS were to be regulated, not the people.

It starts with "well regulated", and ends with "shall not be infringed." It can't be both. How did that language make it out of committee?

The amendment reads:

"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."

Note a couple of things here:

It is the militias that are said to be well-regulated, not the people.

The right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the people, not the militias, nor the states.

The amendment basically says that the people should keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that the people can function as soldiers in the militia in an emergency.

The reasoning here was, and is, simple. The founders specifically set up a government with decentralization of power as a primary goal. This extended to the military. The federal government was not supposed to have a standing army. Instead, the founders propagated the decentralized state militia system. This was done to keep the central government from having a military force to oppress the states.

Militias were to be made up of men from their states and led by officers from their states. The idea here was that the people would be more loyal to their friends and neighbors than they would the federal government.

All of this changed in 1903 with the Dick Act, which federalized the state militias.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

We need to recapture the meaning. From colonial and early American papers it's clear. You want your Bushmaster? Sure...drill is every fourth Saturday at the armory for your local Guard unit.

They meant universal conscription of gun owners.

[napkinz]

7. 1st Amendment: "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and ....

2nd Amendment : "You can't open fire... "

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. As I said, they'd admire...Switzerland

It's the closest modern day match to what they meant.

So I have no issue with my neighbor having that gun, as long as he or she is going to drill...

In my mind...the gutting of the well regulated militia in Heller was done to weaken all kinds of gun laws.

[napkinz]

11. yes, "as long as he/she is going to drill"

well said

[jody]

5. Congress has all the authority it needs for the militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16.

The Second Amendment is not about militias other than the fact all men between 17 - 45 are in the militia and in some states all people between 17 - 64.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Yes it is, and thank you fr siding with Scalia

We could not expect less from you.

And by the way, context of when this was written, to derive intent MATTERS justice Scalia.