Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Since we're quoting the Heller Decision (0+ / 0-)

    Lets also discuss this part. which was part of the court's decision (courtesy of wikipedia):

    The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

        "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

    This is part of the framework that underpins the fact that the right to keep and use guns is not subject to military or militia service.  This has been made as an official declaration.  While I gather that your diary is in part a tongue in cheek response to the common "what part of shall not be infringed don't you under stand" phrase, it really is flogging a dead horse.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site