View Single Post
Old 09-05-2019, 08:19 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The militia clause isnt there to limit the rights of individuals to bears arms it's to limit the Federal governments right to a standing army by allowing the states to have militias.
And yet we somehow do have both a standing army and the Guard. How can that be, except that you're wrong?

Now of course since every man was in the militia
Cite? And not that "unorganized" (and certainly not well-regulated, even if existent) militia nonsense.
the assumption was that they'd use those guns also in the militia.
To the extent that's true (and I agree), only militia use is covered by the Second, other uses simply not being addressed and left to statute. That's how it was seen, without serious argument, until the individual-right misinterpretation was manufactured just a few decades ago.

Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In fact they'd be horrified.
They themselves reversed their decision on having a standing army very shortly after ratification. They'd be horrified at some things, sure, but hardly that.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
how does anyone really know what somebody else was thinking?
By reading what they actually wrote, all of it and in context, and not by denial or handwaving if we don't like what it says or doesn't say.
And the text of the Second Amendment does not have a single clear meaning.
It was accepted as clear for most of our history. What changed, and why?