General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't care what anyone thinks about their right to own guns [View all]Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)I've seen dozens of interpretations of the 2nd. Many believe the modern language interpretation makes the 'militia' the subect and the 'shall not be infringed the predicate', as in 'A Well-Regulated Militia ... shall not be infringed.' The preamble may serve as a guide, but with far from pinpoint accuracy. The states wanting to clarify to avoid abuse of power and extend confidence does not automatically convey true intent perfectly, especially with modern vs colonial language differences. The term 'people' then was often used to differentiate the general populace from nobles. In the 2nd it has come to mean individuals, though they used the term 'persons' often back then to distinguish individual from the populace in general. Why not in 2A?
You wrote "The right of the people (the body from which the militia is drawn) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" still implies that the sole reason to KBA is in service of an eventual militia, not as protection of self, family and property. The non-response to my first part also implies that you don't think RKBA was intended as the people's right to defend themselves from the government.
Article 1 Section 8 offers the purpose of the militia. The term militia was clarified in a later Act as men age 17-45 and any former member of the Armed Forces. If we go with that definition, which, IIRC, is the last US government decree on the matter, then all women and non-vets over age 45 have no right to KBA. Sorry Mr Nugent.
I appreciate the civility. Many DU discussions would have been off the rails into insult-town by now.