[drew]

Someone who was taking an anti-gun position once pointed out that the language of the second ammendment calls for a well-regulated milita, and that pro gun people always gloss over that terminology, meaning, to him, that it was never intended for anyone to get any gun at any time and that restrictive laws were therefore constitutional. What is the position of the NRA on that opinion? I'm not taking up an anti-gun position but rather playing devil's advocate here. I thought it was a good point but wonder what some counter arguments are?

[IronJack]

You've been handed the red herring argument. Notice that the amendment doesn't read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So whatever the "well-regulated militia" clause means, it in no way confers or limits the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

In other words, it's irrelevant.

[Reactionary]

"Well-regulated" doesn't mean that the ownership of guns should be regulated in the sense of being restricted. It means to "put or maintain in order."

[Drew68]

I thought it was a good point but wonder what some counter arguments are?

All the Bill of Rights pertain to INDIVIDUAL rights. That is why they are there in the first place. The First Amendment does not only pertain to well-regulated newspaper publishers.

In a way, I wish the USSC would just take a position on this and settle it once and for all.

Although, if the USSC declares it a "collective" right and not an "individual" right, I'm still not giving up my guns. Free men may keep guns regardless of what some black-robed judges say.

[So Cal Rocket]

But... after the comma... it says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Note that it doesn't say "the right of a militia to keep...". Every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights which uses the term "people" calls for a right conferred on an individual, not a collective.

SCR

[IYAS9YAS]

Okay...the First Amendment has long been interpreted as this..."the People" equals individuals...But when looking at the 2nd Amendment, the grabbers and liberals ingore the statement of "the People" and try to infer "State".

[Billthedrill]

"Well-regulated" meant to the people who wrote it, that the militia should be drilled. Militias were broadly classed as regulated, meaning organized and drilling, and unregulated, meaning essentially every male citizen between 18 and 40. Among other details, a "regulated" militia could be required to keep a stipulated amount of ammunition and a specific type of firearm to hand; an unregulated one could only be directed to show up.

I think the emphasis being on the independent clause meant that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a necessary condition for them to form a well-regulated militia, and that infringing it would ultimately infringe on their society's ability to defend itself. Stating that the dependent clause, the "militia" clause, is the main emphasis means that the amendment does not apply to "the people" per se, but only those in the militia, which would make it truly unique in the Bill of Rights. To state either one and then hold that it only applies to sporting weapons is simply weird.

[Hot Tabasco]

I thought it was a good point but wonder what some counter arguments are?

All the arguments by the founding fathers explaining in depth their logic behind the 2nd Amendment can be found in the Federalist Papers.