Fortunately, the Supreme Court chose not to solicit (much less give weight to) your opinion on the matter.
Well, they didn’t originally put it in. It was put in for a variety of reasons while the amendment was discussed and debated, but the real reason was that some of the southern states wanted assurances about WHO would have the right (and, more specifically not the right) to keep and bear arms, and under what conditions. Also, there is the thing that’s been pointed out to you multiple times, which is that the use of the terms in the amendment have changed over time, and you are using a modern use of the words that wasn’t used then, mainly what ‘well regulated’ actually meant then, as opposed to now. You just want to read the thing (with zero context as to how it got to the final state, what the authors actually thought about the subject and why it changed multiple times) with a modern use of the words as if the terms are exactly the same today as they were then. It’s been your thing in these threads throughout time, and basically it’s the general stance of all folks who hold your interpretation…we don’t need context, we don’t need history, we just read it exactly as it’s written (and sort of squint a bit, especially about the implications of a right in the Constitution for all citizens that is only for a special group) with the words meaning what we know them to mean today, 200+ years later.
It would be more honest if you guys would just say something like ‘who gives a shit what the original authors meant?’ and go from there, especially since we kind of know what they meant, as they wrote about this in more detail than just the amendment. Of course, then you’d be forced to the realization that you can’t just reinterpret the thing away by fiat and have to do some actual work using the process we have. Which really sucks, to be sure.
Fortunately, we’ve still made good progress since 2015: replacing Kennedy with Justice Kavanaugh and seeing California’s “freedom week” with Duncan v. Beccera. I expect more progress in the future.
Thank you.
They still don’t necessarily mean what you *want *them to, no matter how frantically you handwave. That’s been pointed out to *you *multiple times. You’re telling us that you don’t want the clause to mean anything, so it doesn’t. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
If you want there to be a Constitutional right to own your own personal machine guns arsenal, get that amendment going to allow it. Otherwise, go find a recruiter and raise your right hand, okay?
If you’re declaring the rights of slaveholders to suppress insurrections, you’re welcome to. Are you really?
Who are you including in “we”?
Nope. I can’t find anything in there that would support the claim “No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That’s much more firepower than you’ll ever need for home defense…”
Americans.
There are plausible arguments in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, though I personally would not support doing so. Various of these arguments have been made in the thread, repeating innumerable other threads here and everyplace else.
But the arguments that the 2nd amendment can be ignored by the legislative and executive branches because ‘it’s obsolete’ or ‘it means the National Guard’ are much, much weaker. Not really serious ones IMO.
Likewise that what the drafters of the document meant is irrelevant. The left side of mainstream jurisprudence (like actual judges) doesn’t really think that. ‘Originalism’ is a matter of degree but ‘the Federalist Papers are irrelevant where they directly explain intent’ is again not a serious argument IMO.
Again if you set out to repeal the amendment (good luck and be well!) it’s perfectly fair to explain you do so because the provision no longer meets the times, isn’t in the common interest, etc. But the gambit of pretending it just says the government can have military organizations below the federal level when the amendment says the people can bear arms…weak. A return to ‘non political judges’, and I wonder who that is, RBG? 
but even 9 justices like her are not going to write a decision saying ‘it means the National Guard and otherwise it refers to nothing’.
Also as in every other tired debate about ‘2nd amendment’, the US federal legislature doesn’t have to votes to reinstate a limited ‘ban’ (just a ban on new sales) on box magazine semi automatic rifles (aka ‘assault weapons’). Which was never found unconstitutional when previously in force. It’s just not the will of the legislature, and I don’t think it would be if the Democrats gained a majority in the Senate (the House might now vote for such a ban but because they knew the Senate would never take it up). Democratic majorities depend on states/districts where voting for that is how you lose that state/district. Why is it so important what the 2nd amendment says when you can actually highly restrict firearms without violating it (or not yet ruled it violates, say NYC’s gun laws) without it, yet don’t have the votes to even do that? Which also makes repeal of course a ridiculous conversation practically speaking. But ‘let’s just ignore it and/or pretend it says something other than what it obviously does’ doesn’t look any better as argument even after considering those practicalities.
And if the 2A had said “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” you would have a point. Since it doesn’t, you don’t.
You had to change the wording to make my post say something different. Because you recognized the absurdity of “interpreting” it the same way you want to “interpret” the 2A.
You don’t get to change the wording of the 2A without amending the Constitution. So your “interpretation” of the 2A doesn’t hold water, and you seem to recognize that.
Regards,
Shodan
So your argument against “The facts and history of the past two centuries manifestly and without exception show that the FF and the Constitution are incorrect about the need for a militia, and thus (according to the amendment itself) the inclusion of the amendment was incorrect” is “But the FF and the Constitution say the things they say and cannot be wrong”.
That may be the weakest argument I have ever seen. And I’ve been in religion threads!
The way it is punctuated, it looks like there are two subordinate clauses between “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … shall not be infringed.” The key issue appears to be the importance of a militia, the part about keeping and bearing arms being a lateral component of that.
Also, I would note the part where it firmly protects the right to manufacture and trade weapons.
Except that we know it does because, again, the folks who wrote the thing also wrote extensively on the subject. That’s always been the flaw in your argument because you have never bothered to really read what their thoughts were, instead just wanting to use a modern interpretation of a jumbled mashup of concepts that eventually got voted on…by a committee. In a hot room. With politicians with various goals and desires…one of which was to finish the vote and go somewhere else.
I didn’t say the clause means nothing. Again, not like this should surprise you as we’ve discussed this before, so your feigned ignorance of this aspect is probably really convincing to everyone who hasn’t seen these ridiculous debates with you in them for the last decade. 
If you REALLY don’t recall I can go over it once again, but I think you know the answer…and why it DOES work that way.
Am I? Why no, I’m not. But clearly you DO know why it was worded the way it was, and who it applied too (namely…white folks). Of course, a lot of rights were set out with that exact same premise. The fact that the US was a slave holding state and that such accommodations were made in the past is distasteful, but I don’t see you using a similar argument to get rid of the other rights that were intended for exactly the same set of people. Doing so would basically toss the entire Constitution out, which I doubt anyone really wants. Today, there aren’t any slave holders…and, happily enough (though this still has massive flaws), nearly every citizen, regardless of race or religion can own a gun. Definitely not what the original authors wanted, to be sure…but not in the way that you are trying to make it. As the concept of who could and did have the franchise has expanded, so have the folks who are protected by the various rights.
Looking at the timestamp on that post, you saw my post, then read that entire detailed and comprehensive article, and composed and posted your reply – all in less than five minutes. The thoroughness with which you analyze challenges to your preconceived notions is … less than impressive. Perhaps this is why you – and so many American gun supporters – can’t see things that are glaringly obvious to the rest of the world.
I’m not going to participate further in this thread, but let me just say that if the Founders could have anticipated the future, if they could have foreseen the Second Amendment quickly degenerating into irrelevant obsolescence, while its unintended consequences gradually mutated into a curse of violence on the whole nation – literally an epidemic that is widely studied as a compelling subject in epidemiology – they would have recognized it as the single biggest mistake they ever made.
Doubtful. And predicated on flawed data, namely that today things are so much more violent than in the past. Or the the founders would care, considering the relative numbers (300+ million citizens, nearly 100 million gun owners and…12k deaths a year? They would definitely be like 'man, as a percentage of the population more folks die of bad water or cuts each year, you bunch of pussies!). What they probably WOULD care about is that minorities are also now full citizens, and that all the rights fully pertain to them. THAT would be a major mental disconnect for even the most liberal (using that term the way they would understand it) of the founding fathers to try and wrap their heads around. But that they would think that the 2nd is the biggest mistake they ever made? Not a chance. For one thing, they would be puzzled…I mean, they knew they weren’t perfect, so they gave us a way to change the thing if it REALLY was as archaic and out of step as you make it out to be. Of course, the fact that the public itself isn’t wanting to do so kind of puts your own comments in perspective, I’d say.
So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.
Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.
What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states?
<insert commerce clause bullshit here>
Heh, I was toying with the idea of tossing out a joke relating to that.
The obvious approach for a federal government sufficiently annoyed by gun owners to take is to just draft you all. That’s legal, right? Militia, army, tomato, potato.
“Supremacy clause” would have been a better answer.
And if such arms had been completely manufactured in such states, using only raw materials found in those states?
My point is the repeal or reinterpretation of the 2nd would not have the effect some fantasize it would have.
Also, “Security of a free state” is not limited to invasion or tyranny. Being secure in ones own home and person, being present during times of emergency (such as living in a disaster area or areas of unrest) etc. are all justified reasons for the individual right to arms and part of being necessary for the security of a free state.
Including this:
As anyone who has actually *read *the entire Constitution would know, but that you obviously do not. Please do yourself a favor and rectify that deficiency.