View Single Post
Old 09-01-2019, 10:37 PM
Jay Z is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 32
If the militia part of the clause is essentially meaningless... then it would not have been included in the Constitution. Since it is included in the Constitution, the (heavy) burden of proof is on others to provide reasons to discard it.

Had it NOT been included, it would be much more difficult to believe that ANY regulations against arms were allowed. But they have been. You are not allowed to have a warhead in your backyard. You are not allowed to collect enough arms to overthrow the government, then proceed to do so. Et cetera.

Suppose "well regulated" was interpreted to mean that citizens were allowed to keep one rifle and one pistol, in good working order. If yours broke down, you could replace them with new ones. You were even expected to do so. Perhaps they were issued you, along with free training in how to use them and shooting practice. But no more than one rifle and one pistol per citizens. More advanced weapons are kept in the armory.

Is this infringement on the right to keep and bear arms? Without it, yes. With it, likely not. The citizens have a right to the arms, because of the well regulated militia, but not in excess of what is required, or weaponry that would be poorly regulated in the hands of every person.