His argument on 2A was that its true meaning relied on the placement of a comma.
Isn’t it Sweden and Israel that has compulsory military service and then you retain the weapon? Personally, I think this is a model that we need and I would tie college education to years of service. Serve the min 2 years military, get two years college...
Bkmk
I ascribe to Founding Father George Mason’s description of “militia:” anyone not affiliated with the government. Succinct and to the point.
My understanding was “well regulated” meant “well-trained”, therefore a capable, reliable, orderly fighting force.
Not a fan of Dudley Brown
“Well Regulated” means I have rifles and know how to use them well.
This one minute video (with bad language), to me, accurately describes the 2nd amendment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ
“Well regulated” means well-trained to Arms, self-disciplined and ready to obey the chain of command, and prepared with the required gear for The Muster.
Thereby, not being an unlawfully-led mob, rabble and threat to the peace.
“A well-regulated Militia
I discovered a professor wrote a book about the group of Scotch-Irish settlers my family moved to America with. She wrote that the colonies wanted Christian settlers to move to America so they could be useful fighting indians and the English in the event of war. They awarded settlers with land, but only if they could prove they were in good standing with a protestant church. They weren’t issuing guns and providing military training, but by the expectation they would defend themselves, they expected them to armed.
"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."
Let’s see. Does that mean that only Militia members can keep and bear arms?
Put another way: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”
Does that mean only educated people are allowed to keep and read books?
My understanding is that the only part of the 2nd amendment that matters is the second clause, since it contains the operative word “shall” which has special significance in legal writing. The first clause is just a descriptive preamble. The second clause contains the “shall statement” that is legally binding.
The first part is just the prepatory phrase, an explanation. The why. It doesn’t really matter per se. The key part:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That’s it. Of course this could or should have been abolished by Amendment at any time in the last 250 years. I’m surprised it wasn’t. Particularly since Democrats had all both branches of Congress and the Executive at one time or another for many years. From the 1930s up to the 1990s, I think it was at least practicable, especially considering trust in government was very high, the country was still fairly homogeneous and culturally still a high trust society.
Today? Fuggedabout it. Absolutely nobody is concerned about pedantic, theoretical debates on word definitions.
If you didn't know this that means you didn't read Justice Scalia's opinion when writing for the majority in the Heller decision.
Don't play their silly game, don't argue over the meaning of a dependent clause that does not and cannot affect the meaning of the independent clause. Argue instead over 18th Century grammar as codified by Noah Webster's 1790 Rudiments of English Grammar. Because that's what an Originalist should do!
Rule #15 verbatim from the referenced work:
A nominative case or word, joined with a participle, often stands independently of the sentence. This is called, the case absolute.
Examples.
The sun being risen, it will be warm.
They all consenting, the vote was passed.
“Jesus conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.”
Explanation:
The words in italics are not connected with the other part of the sentence, either by agreement or government; they are therefore in the case absolute, which, in English, is always the nominative.
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT firearmsandliberty.com ^ | 1991 | J. Neil Schulman
Because that's what being "well regulated" means - that I'm fully trained.
Gun people are too eager to take up the gauntlet, no matter how pointless, every time the hoplophobes throw one down.
If you let the lib-tards set the rules of engagement, you will lose, every time, because they’re better at the game than we are.
Playing by their rules is what got us in this mess in the first place.
Whatever “Well-regulated” to means, or if the introductory clause was removed, the positive declaration remains: The People have the Right to keep and bear Arms, and that Right pre-exists the Constitution. It does not depend on anything.
The well-regulated language was a sop to the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, to buy its support for the amendment. Since the Bill of Rights affirms what the government cannot mess with, and requires the government to affirmatively protect, the well-regulated phrase has no effect. (Actually when you consider the Constitution as a whole, it should have an effect, since Congress has a duty to equip and train the militia. If the militia is not well-regulated, blame Congress for failing to meets its obligations).
Did the framers intend for there to be legal arguments over whether a particular militia was regulated well-enough, and if deemed insufficiently trained (by whom exactly?), ALL THE PEOPLE would lose their civil right to self defense? Of course not.
“Regulated” in this context is the same etymology as used in the term “regular army.” A regulated militia is one that is provisioned and ready to fight as an armed population. The regular army is provisioned and made ready to fight by the government.
It means trained.