I think we probably agree on the issue. The definition matters, however, because it disarms the primary line of attack of liberals. So in addition to arguing the grammar of the operative vs. prefatory clause of the 2nd, like we typically do, we can also show liberals in debate that “well-regulated militia” doesn’t mean anything like what they want it to mean.
I like schooling liberals in debates...
note the part i outlined in my post with the [[ ]] that states that the prefatory clause does not negate the post clause- ie the right of —The People— to own guns- the court’s arguments hinged on the fact that we all have an inalienable right to self defense using effective means, that has nothing to do with belonging to a militia- There are certain inalienable rights that can not be infringed, and are basic to survival and well being- the right to effective self defense is one of them and why our constitution includes the statement that the people’s right (Not the militia only’s right- but all the people’s right) shall not be infringed