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. . ."
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.
Good point
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.
Once upon a time I was naive enough never to attribute to malice anything that could be explained by stupidity.
Then I figured out that stupidity, that is, deliberate ignorance, is malicious in and of itself.