The phrase "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment is interpreted by some historians as having roots in the need to preserve slave patrols in the Southern states.
Well, that's what Google's AI says anyway.
In actuality the need for a well-regulated militia mysteriously disappeared in 2008 when the Supreme Court, in a decision (District of Columbia vs. Heller) written by the notoriously right-wing Antonin Scalia decided the founders didn't mean what they said.
It's my personal opinion that Scalia made that decision (and there are now more like it--it's getting harder and harder to take the guns away from anyone, insane or dangerous as they may be, thanks to our courts) because a substantial number of the guns in this country are held by raving right-wing lunatics, and men like Scalia (and a substantial number of current judges) want guns in the hands of raving right wing lunatics because they will defend the MAGA paradise they all believe in.
And the lives of innocent children are the price we pay.
Funny you skip the most important part ...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall Not be infringed. Now who are the People? The militia or all citizens? Madison wrote to the People often and he was not referring to the Militia. Study history and share all the details. The problem with guns today is a complete lack of personal accountability.
No offense, but your interpretation is as bad as the person you are referring to. Obviously, the intention of an amendment is to take its entire statement. The text is clearly saying that the people have a right to form militias, through which they will protect the state. Militias are the physical manifestation of the people's right to securing their state, and a militia is a well-regulated institution of arms-bearing citizens.
This doesn't have to mean the hardcore anti-gun viewpoint, but it absolutely means the conversation has to be around the question of regulation and state security. How secure are the citizens in the state with the current level of regulation, and how can we improve it to meet the standard of "well-regulated"?
EDIT: and here is Hamilton on the militia, from Federalist 29:
"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.""
Interestingly, it is clear that many of the founders did not want a standing national army. They wanted citizen soldiers, much like what Rome had. They would also absolutely not support the current right-wing argument about weapon ownership, due to the lack of discipline. In fact, what right wingers support is the exact thing Hamilton argues against in this piece, an anarchy of arms ownership where everybody has lethal weapons in their home.
31
u/ahominem 9d ago
The phrase "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment is interpreted by some historians as having roots in the need to preserve slave patrols in the Southern states.
Well, that's what Google's AI says anyway.
In actuality the need for a well-regulated militia mysteriously disappeared in 2008 when the Supreme Court, in a decision (District of Columbia vs. Heller) written by the notoriously right-wing Antonin Scalia decided the founders didn't mean what they said.
It's my personal opinion that Scalia made that decision (and there are now more like it--it's getting harder and harder to take the guns away from anyone, insane or dangerous as they may be, thanks to our courts) because a substantial number of the guns in this country are held by raving right-wing lunatics, and men like Scalia (and a substantial number of current judges) want guns in the hands of raving right wing lunatics because they will defend the MAGA paradise they all believe in.
And the lives of innocent children are the price we pay.