wack wack wrote:Just to be clear for you and Meade and anyone else here inclined to repeatedly clip just what is convenient from the Second Amendment, as well as those who may be misinformed by such selective quoting, here is the entire Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I would point out that most people who insist that 2nd be taken as a whole, seem to miss the fact that the first half of the sentence doesn't actually grant or limit any rights, while the second half doesn't apply any limitations to the rights it grants. It takes a pretty twisted view of the English language to read the first part as anything other than a reason why the rights are being granted.
Unless of course you happen to have a 18th century understanding of what a militia is (which presumable the writers did).
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed, a well regulated militia was considered every able bodied free white male between the ages of 18 and 45 in a defined area. Membership wasn't really optional and some group training was expected. In fact the year after the Bill of Rights were ratified, they codified that definition into law and defined the training militia members were expected to attend and organization of militia companies. Militia Acts of 1792
So basically the Second Amendment grants everyone (who is free, white and male) the right to bear arms, because every person (who is free, white and male), is expected serve in the local militia in times of danger. Seeing as the Militia Act of 1903
pretty much killed the idea of regulated militias in favor of a far more organized and better trained National Guard, we're left with a sentence that gives an archaic justification for arming citizens who are no longer required to be armed as part of their civic duties.