Here’s what I’ve often wondered: why, when the Constitution clearly indicates that bearing of arms is in the context of a" well-regulated militia", is it not permissible, under the Constitution, to regulate firearms? Do the second amendment types have any kind of argument about this? It just seems to me that within the context of the amendment itself, it’s clearly implied that regulation will be necessary and will exist. Is there something that I’m missing?
Yes. The text of the 2nd amendment is contested and several states passed different punctuation, which changes the meaning.
The most favorable version for individual gun ownership reads:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The placement of the comma there makes the well regulated militia part an introductory clause, which explains the purpose of the second part protecting individual gun ownership.
That combined with the historical context that anyone called into miltia service was expected to provide their own gun is the justification for individual gun ownership being a protected right.
The more common text passed by congress is more ambiguous because it introduces an explanatory clause as part of the introductory clause, but you can still read it that way, which the supreme court currently has.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Or, and stick with me, here, maybe I’m asking the question in hopes I can discuss it with someone that has already read up on it and find out that way? Maybe I can learn some viewpoints of others in this thread that might illuminate the answer more quickly and succinctly. What is the point of communicating with others if I can’t seek information through it?
Here’s what I’ve often wondered: why, when the Constitution clearly indicates that bearing of arms is in the context of a" well-regulated militia", is it not permissible, under the Constitution, to regulate firearms? Do the second amendment types have any kind of argument about this? It just seems to me that within the context of the amendment itself, it’s clearly implied that regulation will be necessary and will exist. Is there something that I’m missing?
Yes. The text of the 2nd amendment is contested and several states passed different punctuation, which changes the meaning.
The most favorable version for individual gun ownership reads:
The placement of the comma there makes the well regulated militia part an introductory clause, which explains the purpose of the second part protecting individual gun ownership.
That combined with the historical context that anyone called into miltia service was expected to provide their own gun is the justification for individual gun ownership being a protected right.
The more common text passed by congress is more ambiguous because it introduces an explanatory clause as part of the introductory clause, but you can still read it that way, which the supreme court currently has.
If you cared at all you’d actually read up on the context and interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Or, and stick with me, here, maybe I’m asking the question in hopes I can discuss it with someone that has already read up on it and find out that way? Maybe I can learn some viewpoints of others in this thread that might illuminate the answer more quickly and succinctly. What is the point of communicating with others if I can’t seek information through it?