Skip to main content

View Diary: Which part of “Well-Regulated” is ambiguous or hard to understand? (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Funny, How about the second part that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kickemout

    clarifies the first?


    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

    Well-regulated meant, "well trained" or "in good working order".

    MEANING the government had a duty to ensure that the militia was well trained and in good working order.

    Ah, screw that, how about we just scrap the old and current definitions all together and go with.  Yes, the government can "regulate arms", it does clarify whose arms does it not?  The militia's right?  And what is the current USC on the definition of "militia?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

    (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.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Wait, what??? I'm not part of either class of the legally defined "militia", so that means, as per the 2nd Amendment, the US government cannot infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.

    HOT DAMN, is that the answer you wanted?

    Clearly it's the one the text of the 2nd A dictates.

    They can regulate the arms of the militia.  It says nothing about anyone else.

    Whew, glad we got that settled!

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 12:22:07 AM PDT

    •  Let also not forget the fact that the militia (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, JBL55

      phrase was part of a prefatory clause meant to provide clarification, not constraint on the operate clause, which was common legal speak in this time period.  I've linked to this several times already, but here is what I've found as the best write up on this subject, from an English professor at the Univ of Illinois.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site