In Charles' view, the well-regulated militia phrase of the Second Amendment has been deliberately overlooked by gun advocates because it undermines their main argument for looser gun control rules. [More]In a way he's right. But he cherry picks just as much as they do, and ignores many inconvenient truths.
Some are trying to lead the way to the true interpretation. Which, by the way, bolsters the individual rights argument as being essential.
[Via Felix B]
4 comments:
I always include the "a" when listing the dependent clause of the Second Amendment. That's because "a" is an indefinite article, which means the militia referenced is not "the" militia listed in the main body of the Constitution. "the" is a definite article, which means "the militia" is specific and definite.
Those writing the Second Amendment knew the difference between the indefinite and the definite articles.
The government’s failure to uphold its responsibilities to organize the militia in no way dissolves my rights. You may as well argue that freedom of the press would expire if the Government were to shutter the Post Office.
DC v. Heller
Pp. 2–53.(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. Pp. 2–22.
HinMO
I used to lean towards the argument that 2ndA was more about militias than gun ownership. Then I researched the 18th century meaning of "well regulated". The phrase has nothing to do with rules and regulations. It IS all about proper function. You could use the phrase "well regulated" to apply to a clock or watch. You could use it to apply to a piano. It becomes obvious (self-evident?) then that the phrase has nothing to do with rules and regulations but to proper function. Absent individual ownership of weapons, militias become impossible; much less "well regulated". Without arms, militias are utterly useless.
Of course it is terribly difficult for an unarmed populous to rebel when government gets too big for its britches, too. Governments from time immemorial have forbade the common man from owning weapons. Even so, there have been successful revolutions. Just not many. So long as the American people retain arms, the threat of rebellion hangs over the heads of those in power. It is no wonder that the current power elite want to do away with such as we bearing arms. Unfortunately (for them) that cat is well and truly out of the bag and is of no mind to reenter it. Worse yet (again for those in power) the very process of disarming the general public is likely to result in the very same action the elites wish to make impossible.
Post a Comment