bump to post 90.
Excellent definition of the second amendment, and fits right with a linguist who wrote a paper for a court case. Wish I could find that again, read it here on FR.
The gist was that linguistically the militia was not reffering to “the people” in the admendment, and the right to keep and bear arms was not being given but was already inherent. In other words the right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with the militia in the sentence structure. Linguistically the militia was only prudent because it was a necessity for a free state.
Your excellent write up says exactly the same thing (i.e. the right to keep and bear arms does not hinge on being in the militia, heck it is the counterbalance for it.)
Excellent write up, and I wish it was taught this way in schools. Heck, I even wish most gun advocates understood this correctly.
Yes, most people fail to realize the full intent of the amendment by the states. People who disagree come up with their own assertions, bias, and ignore the history and the context of why the states were amending the constitution with the bill of rights before they would ratify the founding document into law. The Militia (Organized Military) was the government entity that needed regulating and the method to accomplish this was for the people to be armed with no infringements placed on them by the government. Revisionists today say you can’t own a tank or artillery. When the constitution was adopted you could in fact own cannon if you wanted one and many merchant ships and ship owners did in fact arm their sea going vessels with cannon.