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.
Individuals are not legally allowed to own the kind of firepower you would need to be able to fend off the federal government. Whatever it is that you think you are accomplishing by stockpiling rifles is not going to work. The militia would be your best option. Imagine yourself, Carpeveritas, getting on the football field to face the Kansas City Chiefs with all their coaching, administration, money and front office. Even if you got all the best guys from your neighborhood and you trained every day, it just isn't going to happen.
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.
I think the problem with that is you could be training a potential substantial paramilitary force or insurrection that you have to deal with later.
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.
How effective do you think these guys would be against the 101st Airborne Division? 75th Ranger Regiment? 7th Special Forces Group? With FBI, NSA, NRO etc support? I’m just naming a few units at random. How much territory could they realistically defend? I just don’t think people understand. What is their knowledge of space operations? How will they operate in a space denied environment? No GPS, no Internet, no email? All their comms blacked out. Bank accounts frozen. The latest fighter aircraft, the lastest ships, Navy Seals, top notch intelligence services all barreling down on them? You think a few guys with guns are doing anything? Even if they had a few modern tanks or planes (which they don’t) they’d get annihilated.
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.
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.
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:
