That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2A by so many people. When it mentions a militia that DOES NOT say that you have to be part of one to "keep and bear arms"; that's the FALSE argument that the left and others use to claim that 2A is only a collective right and NOT an individual right, which is totally FALSE.
The term "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the founders saying "Look, we understand that as a nation, there's a 'necessary evil' to keep a standing military force BUT that can lead to tyranny over the people THEREFORE....": "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Back then, the word "militia" referred to the army that was put together on demand from the people to fight for the nation, not quite like the word's connotation today. The people didn't suddenly gain the right to have firearms when they got together with each other in the form of a militia and then give up the right and surrender the firearms when the militia was not together, but that's how gun control advocates would try to tell you the 2A actually means.
Every single right outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and NOT a "collective right". Why would the founders make this ONE right a collective one in contrast to all of the others? The answer is, they didn't.
Every citizen has an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms and DOES NOT have to be part of a militia to possess that right.
Don't fall into the trap of gaslighting and language of the left.
EDIT: Also, the Constitution does not "give" us any rights, they come naturally from God and are merely outlined for protection in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Let's be accurate with our language regarding such things.
Here is something I posted that adds on nicely to your statement...
(I said "settled law" cause the left likes to throw that term around!)
This is now settled law.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
People get really tripped up with and take the militia verbiage completely out of context separate from the clear meaning and intention of the founders at the time. One has to be reminded what they were going through at that moment in history: they were facing tyranny from the greatest empire and military force in the world, and perhaps in history, at the time. They knew what the danger of such a force meant to the free people. They were giving a WARNING in the first part of 2A, not restrictions.
The founders were wicked smart, and they didn’t waste a single word in those amendments on empty rhetoric.
“A well regulated Militia...” - This recognizes that not only do you have the right to own and possess arms, but ALSO that you have a inalienable right to drill, train, make ready supplies, plan logistics, and practice military maneuvers, both alone and in groups, whether that group is organized or not, and irregardless of whether it is officially recognized or affiliated with the government.
”...being necessary to the security of a free State...” - This affirms that all these actions are de facto in the interest of national and state security, and thus do not fall away under any ‘emergency declarations’ or ‘safety measures’, and that “freedom” is the only purpose you need ever use to justify it. Therefore, the right cannot be limited to sports, hunting, personal defense, collecting, military support, or anything else. It also creates a lower limit for weapons types and standards equal to those used by the military.
”...the right of the people...” - This affirms that the Right is an individual right, not a collective right or ‘right of office’. That means there is no condition that can be imposed upon it such as “only when practicing together” or “only when the governor calls up a militia”.
”...to keep and bear Arms...” - This affirms that the individual maintains the right of possession, ownership, and custody at all times, that the individual can carry, display, and show their weapons and prowess (drills, abilities, expertise, militia identity, insignias, etc.), and that lethal weapons of any kind (bound by military infantry standards) are included, not just “guns” or certain calibers, or other imposed ‘definitions’.
”...shall not be infringed.” Constitutional scholars believe this phrase, when translated from 18th century common English into modern vernacular, means something close to, but not exactly the same as, ’FUCK AROUND AND FIND OUT’.
Liberals blow everything out of context. Some are mystified as to why everything has been blown out of proportion and yet the 2A is interpreted literally. It's the one thing they haven't perverted and they can't stand it.
Nobody is tripped up by the opening clause. They use it to obfuscate the perfectly clear meaning of RKBA.
After thinking about it for almost thirty years, I have concluded that the part that most disturbs the left is ". . . the security of a free state. . ."
Another word people get hung up on is regulated. In this context it doesn’t mean to limit the rights... it’s like regulating the airflow in a home so that all rooms are getting the same amount of cold air. Unfortunately some of our states wouldn’t be able to step up if needed because their rights have been taken away.
Regulated militia means organized fighting force like military or police, both of which are necessary for the security of a free state.
The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means those well regulated militias have no right to demand that citizens surrender their own weapons.
Basically saying we understand that police power and a militant fighting force are necessary for the security of the state, but those groups do not and will not ever have the right to disarm the people of this country.
All of those citizens were part of that militia, all male citizens under age 45. Another way to phrase the 2nd Amendment is, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-armed citizenry is necessary for a free state."
Thank you for your internet service, Pede. About 3 years ago I wrote an essay in college about this very subject, 10 pages, and my argument was framed such as that. Perfect score on the essay, by the way.
The other thing that leftists and other pretend not to know about is the Federalist Papers.
For those not familiar, they are a group of articles/essays by 3 of the key founders of the USA prior to the ratification of the Constitution who were trying to convince the individual states (New York primarily) to order themselves into this new proposed union to be called the USA. The point is, the states were going to have to give up some liberty in accepting membership into the USA (Federal supremacy etc) and the FP were written to explain in more detail what they were getting and what they were giving up. Mostly trying to reassure they weren't signing on to another tyrannical gov't.
All one has to do is read them and several "controversial" constitutional rights become very clear what the framers intended.
There are plenty of other speeches and letters from the framers after the Constitution was ratified which similarly detail their thoughts but the FP are the most well-known and were created prior to ratification.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2A by so many people. When it mentions a militia that DOES NOT say that you have to be part of one to "keep and bear arms"; that's the FALSE argument that the left and others use to claim that 2A is only a collective right and NOT an individual right, which is totally FALSE.
The term "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the founders saying "Look, we understand that as a nation, there's a 'necessary evil' to keep a standing military force BUT that can lead to tyranny over the people THEREFORE....": "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Back then, the word "militia" referred to the army that was put together on demand from the people to fight for the nation, not quite like the word's connotation today. The people didn't suddenly gain the right to have firearms when they got together with each other in the form of a militia and then give up the right and surrender the firearms when the militia was not together, but that's how gun control advocates would try to tell you the 2A actually means.
Every single right outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and NOT a "collective right". Why would the founders make this ONE right a collective one in contrast to all of the others? The answer is, they didn't.
Every citizen has an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms and DOES NOT have to be part of a militia to possess that right.
Don't fall into the trap of gaslighting and language of the left.
EDIT: Also, the Constitution does not "give" us any rights, they come naturally from God and are merely outlined for protection in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Let's be accurate with our language regarding such things.
Excellent points!
Here is something I posted that adds on nicely to your statement...
(I said "settled law" cause the left likes to throw that term around!)
This is now settled law.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
People get really tripped up with and take the militia verbiage completely out of context separate from the clear meaning and intention of the founders at the time. One has to be reminded what they were going through at that moment in history: they were facing tyranny from the greatest empire and military force in the world, and perhaps in history, at the time. They knew what the danger of such a force meant to the free people. They were giving a WARNING in the first part of 2A, not restrictions.
Yup.
One used to have to spend lots of time explaining "well-regulated militia" to gun grabbers.
Then came Heller.
Yay! Settled Law, motherfuckers!
It was settled in 1776 as far as I'm concerned.
I disagree that it’s strictly a warning.
The founders were wicked smart, and they didn’t waste a single word in those amendments on empty rhetoric.
“A well regulated Militia...” - This recognizes that not only do you have the right to own and possess arms, but ALSO that you have a inalienable right to drill, train, make ready supplies, plan logistics, and practice military maneuvers, both alone and in groups, whether that group is organized or not, and irregardless of whether it is officially recognized or affiliated with the government.
”...being necessary to the security of a free State...” - This affirms that all these actions are de facto in the interest of national and state security, and thus do not fall away under any ‘emergency declarations’ or ‘safety measures’, and that “freedom” is the only purpose you need ever use to justify it. Therefore, the right cannot be limited to sports, hunting, personal defense, collecting, military support, or anything else. It also creates a lower limit for weapons types and standards equal to those used by the military.
”...the right of the people...” - This affirms that the Right is an individual right, not a collective right or ‘right of office’. That means there is no condition that can be imposed upon it such as “only when practicing together” or “only when the governor calls up a militia”.
”...to keep and bear Arms...” - This affirms that the individual maintains the right of possession, ownership, and custody at all times, that the individual can carry, display, and show their weapons and prowess (drills, abilities, expertise, militia identity, insignias, etc.), and that lethal weapons of any kind (bound by military infantry standards) are included, not just “guns” or certain calibers, or other imposed ‘definitions’.
”...shall not be infringed.” Constitutional scholars believe this phrase, when translated from 18th century common English into modern vernacular, means something close to, but not exactly the same as, ’FUCK AROUND AND FIND OUT’.
Indeed. Also, it's important to note that "the militia" to the Founding Fathers was basically all citizens physically able to bear arms.
Liberals blow everything out of context. Some are mystified as to why everything has been blown out of proportion and yet the 2A is interpreted literally. It's the one thing they haven't perverted and they can't stand it.
Nobody is tripped up by the opening clause. They use it to obfuscate the perfectly clear meaning of RKBA.
After thinking about it for almost thirty years, I have concluded that the part that most disturbs the left is ". . . the security of a free state. . ."
Well stupid people get tripped up by it, other more insidious people purposefully twist and obfuscate it as you say, true.
Well regulated back then meant well trained and equipped. Iirc.
This is true.
Another word people get hung up on is regulated. In this context it doesn’t mean to limit the rights... it’s like regulating the airflow in a home so that all rooms are getting the same amount of cold air. Unfortunately some of our states wouldn’t be able to step up if needed because their rights have been taken away.
Regulated means trained. Regulars were considered trained soldiers.
Regulated militia means organized fighting force like military or police, both of which are necessary for the security of a free state.
The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means those well regulated militias have no right to demand that citizens surrender their own weapons.
Basically saying we understand that police power and a militant fighting force are necessary for the security of the state, but those groups do not and will not ever have the right to disarm the people of this country.
All of those citizens were part of that militia, all male citizens under age 45. Another way to phrase the 2nd Amendment is, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-armed citizenry is necessary for a free state."
Thank you for your internet service, Pede. About 3 years ago I wrote an essay in college about this very subject, 10 pages, and my argument was framed such as that. Perfect score on the essay, by the way.
The other thing that leftists and other pretend not to know about is the Federalist Papers.
For those not familiar, they are a group of articles/essays by 3 of the key founders of the USA prior to the ratification of the Constitution who were trying to convince the individual states (New York primarily) to order themselves into this new proposed union to be called the USA. The point is, the states were going to have to give up some liberty in accepting membership into the USA (Federal supremacy etc) and the FP were written to explain in more detail what they were getting and what they were giving up. Mostly trying to reassure they weren't signing on to another tyrannical gov't.
All one has to do is read them and several "controversial" constitutional rights become very clear what the framers intended.
There are plenty of other speeches and letters from the framers after the Constitution was ratified which similarly detail their thoughts but the FP are the most well-known and were created prior to ratification.
This is one of the best comments I've seen here. Good explanation!