A Well Regulated Militia

That is one interpretation as espoused in Heller. Another interpretation is that that people make up a militia; therefore, their right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of serving in that militia. For a group of learned men, their punctuation choices has been the subject of much analysis. By the way, if it were clear, there would be no debate.

I am not advocating Reason Magazine’s libertarian views, but it has a (cough) reasoned explanation:

What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

 

I disagree otherwise the amendment would have been written as such.

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

 

Why don't we try a new interpretation... everybody can own a gun with no infringement but if you do, you must be part of a new "well regulated militia". Similar to the national guard and you have to show up for gun training, serve some time every year, etc. in order to "protect the security of a free state" otherwise your ownership of a gun isn't covered by this amendment. It's all in the same sentence. Let's regulate the hell out of that militia but no infringement on the gun rights.

 

Yes there are limitations as to what individuals can legally own when it comes to certain weapons of destruction. As for people who own weapons I'll also concede the argument a small group of people are no match for the feds or the state much less a well armed police force that can bring in support from all manners of law enforcement.

That said the unfortunate piece in all of this is the genie is out of the bottle in the same manner as nukes. No matter how much we want to put that genie back in the bottle it is not going to happen. Not here in the US at any rate. Disarming the public is pipe dream.

 

My guess is if there was any kind of public obligation tied to gun ownership (i.e. service in the well regulated militia) most of the toy soldiers would decide they would like to take up another hobby.

 

Greater propensity to settle disputes with fists or guns. That’s how American manhood is expected to be displayed. Not so in European countries as a rule.

 

I’m just going by statistics.

 

Florida Militia

 

A bunch of overweight dudes in bdu's out in the woods drinking beer and barking about how oppressed they are is not going to take down the US military if it ever came to that. #mealteamsix

 

Using rough numbers, about 50,000 people in the U.S. die from firearms each year. Maybe, 20,000 of those deaths are from murders. The murders from rifles might be less than less than 1,000, but they often are horrific. Deaths by fists are 600 or so.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with government over reach.

 

Bingo. This gun obsession has more to do with the metaphorical size of the American penis, and absolutely nothing to do with fear of government over reach.

 

yep. they are gonna need their adult diapers, not their guns.

 

From the FBI data for 2019:

Circumstances Total
Total murder victims 13,927
Total firearms 10,258
Handguns 6,368
Rifles 364
Shotguns 200
Other guns or type not stated 3,326
Knives or cutting instruments 1,476
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 397
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 597
Poison 16
Pushed or thrown out window 3
Explosives 3
Fire 81
Narcotics 93
Drowning 7
Strangulation 64
Asphyxiation 92
Other 840

Interesting that knife murders are four times rifles. Hands, feet, and blunt objects account for almost three times rifles.

 

No, “right” is the subject. The first part is clearly a phrase that modifies the second.

Or actually, if you want get technical, “government” is even though it doesn’t show up in the Amendment. The core sentence “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is passive, meaning the subject is hidden (though, clearly understood) to emphasize the object “right.” If it was an active sentence it would read, “The government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

 

Government is not the correct interpretation. The correct interpretation would be Congress. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states at the time of ratification of the Second Amendment, and the very purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the federal government from meddling with or disarming the state militias. That, of course, makes the current interpretation of the amendment both ironic and antithetical to its original purpose.

 

As you like. I was being broad. Congress is a fine interpretation of what the subject is. Though, I thought it was made clear in later case law that the Bill of Rights binds the states as well. And despite your interpretation, the Amendment does say “people,” not states. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that framers of the Bill of Rights made a clear distinction between the states and the people: