I believe that is why the phrase was written into the Second Amendment. Any individual not capable of being a dependable part of a well regulated militia could reasonably be denied the right to bear arms. I know it's not a popular opinion, but that's the way I read it and it makes sense to me.
Most people want to chop off the first half of the amendment as if it never existed. But I believe it means mentally unstable people, enemies of the United States, violent criminals, those unlikely to follow orders or someone physically incapable of using a firearm correctly and effectively do not belong in a militia, and cannot be guaranteed the right.
You are not wrong on that front, fren. The second amendment IS about the militia. But guess what? WE THE PEOPLE are the militia. You won't find many stronger gun rights proponents than me. But the Second Amendment simply doesn't function as so many like to claim.
Take the horrendously awful Heller case for example. The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right to self defense or the right to a firearm in the home for self defense purposes. Yet that is what the cucked court held. And so many are happy about that. But that reasoning is dead wrong, and potentially dangerous to keeping gun rights.
Most people have no idea that every single one of the 50 states in the union have a militia statute. Depending on the state, from 17 all the way to 65 years of age with the age limit depending upon prior military service, all able bodied "residents" are in the militia. Even non citizens are in the militia by statute. Federal statute is 18-45 with 65 if prior military service. Now this does not limit the militia; rather, it encompasses who for sure is subject to duty in it should the need arise. If it came down to such a need, any and all who would be capable can serve in the militia.
What the court should have held in Heller, instead of their bogus logic, is the exact same framework they use to enshrine other not specifically enumerated rights. Typically, these are involving state laws, so the 14th amendment due process clause and liberty are what enshrines the right. So for abortion, this is how they reasoned this out. The reason it fails for abortion is that society has never considered abortion to be some kind of fundamental right. Hence it was invented out of thin air. The 5th amendment due process clause functions virtually identical to the 14th amendment, but as applied to the federal government. Which the heller case was in DC not a state. It has always been widely accepted since the inception of the country that one has the right to self defense, the right to defend their person and family within their domicile, and the right to use a firearm to do so. Prior to the formation of the union, this was even reflected in the british common law that is the foundation of our legal system. It continues to this day.
The second amendment would essentially be a fallback provision here because you couldn't serve in the citizen militia without a firearm. You'd be useless. So it would be correct to state that the government could not prevent you from firearm ownership nor keeping one in the home based upon the second amendment. But no such right to self defense with a firearm is inherent in the second amendment. This faulty reasoning waters down the second amendment and enables further restrictions on firearms ownership. We should not accept this reasoning.
Only the people can authorize the government to make any restrictions on gun ownership on their behalf. It is ultimately the responsibility of the people to make decisions on who can be armed through the function of a militia.
You would think the militia would only allow those that have good gun control, can keep a cool head under pressure, and can take orders well. I was thinking of the militia sometime ago that showed up at an event and one of them shot themselves in the foot. They locked down the group and made them sit in the grass until they got their weapons under control. They were ceasing to be a well regulated militia. It was a great embarrassment for them.
...being necessary to the security of a free State...
It's well and good to say that only folks who are able to function in a militia should own a gun, but if the criteria for that is up to the government, then you'll lose out on the "free State" part.
A well regulated militia,...
I believe that is why the phrase was written into the Second Amendment. Any individual not capable of being a dependable part of a well regulated militia could reasonably be denied the right to bear arms. I know it's not a popular opinion, but that's the way I read it and it makes sense to me.
Most people want to chop off the first half of the amendment as if it never existed. But I believe it means mentally unstable people, enemies of the United States, violent criminals, those unlikely to follow orders or someone physically incapable of using a firearm correctly and effectively do not belong in a militia, and cannot be guaranteed the right.
You are not wrong on that front, fren. The second amendment IS about the militia. But guess what? WE THE PEOPLE are the militia. You won't find many stronger gun rights proponents than me. But the Second Amendment simply doesn't function as so many like to claim.
Take the horrendously awful Heller case for example. The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right to self defense or the right to a firearm in the home for self defense purposes. Yet that is what the cucked court held. And so many are happy about that. But that reasoning is dead wrong, and potentially dangerous to keeping gun rights.
Most people have no idea that every single one of the 50 states in the union have a militia statute. Depending on the state, from 17 all the way to 65 years of age with the age limit depending upon prior military service, all able bodied "residents" are in the militia. Even non citizens are in the militia by statute. Federal statute is 18-45 with 65 if prior military service. Now this does not limit the militia; rather, it encompasses who for sure is subject to duty in it should the need arise. If it came down to such a need, any and all who would be capable can serve in the militia.
What the court should have held in Heller, instead of their bogus logic, is the exact same framework they use to enshrine other not specifically enumerated rights. Typically, these are involving state laws, so the 14th amendment due process clause and liberty are what enshrines the right. So for abortion, this is how they reasoned this out. The reason it fails for abortion is that society has never considered abortion to be some kind of fundamental right. Hence it was invented out of thin air. The 5th amendment due process clause functions virtually identical to the 14th amendment, but as applied to the federal government. Which the heller case was in DC not a state. It has always been widely accepted since the inception of the country that one has the right to self defense, the right to defend their person and family within their domicile, and the right to use a firearm to do so. Prior to the formation of the union, this was even reflected in the british common law that is the foundation of our legal system. It continues to this day.
The second amendment would essentially be a fallback provision here because you couldn't serve in the citizen militia without a firearm. You'd be useless. So it would be correct to state that the government could not prevent you from firearm ownership nor keeping one in the home based upon the second amendment. But no such right to self defense with a firearm is inherent in the second amendment. This faulty reasoning waters down the second amendment and enables further restrictions on firearms ownership. We should not accept this reasoning.
Only the people can authorize the government to make any restrictions on gun ownership on their behalf. It is ultimately the responsibility of the people to make decisions on who can be armed through the function of a militia.
You would think the militia would only allow those that have good gun control, can keep a cool head under pressure, and can take orders well. I was thinking of the militia sometime ago that showed up at an event and one of them shot themselves in the foot. They locked down the group and made them sit in the grass until they got their weapons under control. They were ceasing to be a well regulated militia. It was a great embarrassment for them.
That's BS, yes the state can form militia to defend it's sovereignty and protect it citizenry...
But the ultimate sovereignty lies in the individual / the people...
The federal government can prohibit neither the state nor the individual from the right to keep and bear arms, as clearly articulate in the 2nd.
No litmus tests, no exceptions, no secret handshakes, no special memberships.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Every gun control law after that ink had dried is:
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
I'm 100% with you there. The people have the responsibility to make sure the militia is properly trained, is made regular, and is well-armed.
Where we go astray is to stupidly leave that responsibility to the government.
"government", the everlasting spring of woe.
Keep your powder dry fren
You missed the ligma clause
...being necessary to the security of a free State...
It's well and good to say that only folks who are able to function in a militia should own a gun, but if the criteria for that is up to the government, then you'll lose out on the "free State" part.
Good God Almighty... you've been at this for FOUR FUCKING DAYS?