Replies

The problem with the wording is that it carries two thoughts, and this confuses the left. It states the obvious: that a well regulated militia is necessary for the defense of a free state. However, having a militia does not cancel the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What has happened over the years is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms had been infringed numerous times - in plain violation of the prohibition against such infringement!

I would have liked for the point about "all able bodied men...not in the regular military are in the militia" to have been carried further. In the State of Florida (and I am sure in others), all abled bodied residents are constitutionally in the militia. Therefore, by the logic of the desenting judge, any abled bodied Florida resident (who is either a US citizen or intends to become one) may own and carry whatever firearm the Adjuntant General deems necessary for the defense of Florida!

In another words, rather than upholding gun control laws, her desenting opinion actually overturns every firearm regulation in the nation!

In addition to which, and simply stated, why should "the people" have a different meaning in Article Two than it has in any other article of the Bill of Rights?

This fundamental question was raised specifically, and logically and correctly addressed by the appeals court majority.

IANAL - BUT, I can google up the legal definition of the militia - see [US Federal law] TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Most people don't understand that they already legally a member of the militia if they fit those criteria (male, a citizen, aged 17-45, not a member of the military, and for ladies, if a member of the National Guard).

>>
The problem with the wording is that it carries two thoughts, and this confuses the left.
<<

It is not anywhere that easy, indeed may I suggest it is worse than you think. To a leftist, reality is but one source of the bricks, mortar, beams and other supplies which they can pick and choose to assemble and sustain their personal, alternate, emotional and mental reality.

How the left relates to the Second Amendment is a wonderful and very succinct, example. To a leftist, the words become easily separated bricks that can be reassembled to construct an Amendment that says what they want it to say. The words are the same, but the meaning is totally different. Not opposite, but sufficiently different that it destroys the true intent of the plain text.

Given the principle that he who controls the meaning of words, controls the outcome of the debate, leftists run up against words that are inconvenient to their desired outcome. Not a problem! Just change what the words mean! For example, "people" are not people in their Amendment, they are states.

Further, if you read the Court's opinion, you will find that the District of Columbia is not a State, so the Bill of Rights does not even apply! I'm not making this up.

Of course, that absurdity was necessary and convenient to argue for this one case. If we were litigating the arrest of an anti-war protester, of course the left would insist that if the First Amendment applied anywhere in the territory of the United States, first and foremost, it would apply in the District!

A FREE state can only exist and be maintained when the great majority of the able-bodied population can be counted on to act as members of the militia whenever and wherever needed. When you see/hear a home invasion in progress at the house next door, and grab your gun and head over to take care of the problem and find another armed neighbor running over to help too, that's the militia at work, preserving the FREEdom of the citizens to live in peace and be secure in their homes. A small property owner shouldn't have to worry about the government seizing his/her property to give to a developer, because the property owner should be able to be confident that in the event of any government move to arry out such a freedom-destroying plot, one phone call to a friend or neighbor asking for militia assistance to defend the property would result in the prompt arrival of dozens or even hundreds of fellow freedom-loving citizens, all armed to the teeth and prepared to shoot if necessary, The militia is not just about occasional big events in which some state governor "calls up" the militia en masse and organizes them to carry out an assigned mission. It's about the PEOPLE preserving FREEDOM.

The problem with the wording is that it carries two thoughts, and this confuses the left

They understand the wording and the amendment clearly.

They just don't like it, so they try to babblespeak it out of existence. That's all.

You don't really think that people who mysteriously found a right to kill unborn children in a document which nowhere mentions such an act actually have a problem reading a rather plain, unfettered right in that same document, do you?

No. They understand it perfectly. They just want to take away the right declared in the second amendment.