And I bet the authors cannot even define what the “militia” is.
But to be fair, I am not certain what the “militia” is in todays modernity.
you just might get to find out [
The second amendment mentions a militia and the people. I don’t believe the intent was that they were interchangeable. Militias are inherently armed, people aren’t. The stated purpose of the amendment was not that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that a “well regulated” militia is. It seems to me the people were given the right to bear arms as a means to regulate the militia so it doesn’t become oppressive. This is why progressives want to disarm the people. There isn’t a country in the world that would come save our people from our own government. Once we lose the 2nd amendment, it’s bye bye to the rest of the constitution.
It doesn’t matter what the definition of militia is, because the second amendment’s operative language doesn’t tie the right to keep and bear arms to the militia. The first couple of clauses serve as preamble, then there’s the “shall” statement. It’s the shall statement that matters. What it says is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its legal meaning is not modified by the opening clauses.
But the left wants us to focus on the opening clauses instead. They know the notion of a militia is archaic and mostly irrelevent nowadays, so they always emphasize it in the discussion, precisely because they want the second amendment to seem archaic and irrelevent. That’s what the writer of the textbook is up to.