subgenius wrote:Nope, clearly the language of the 2nd makes a clear and obvious distinction between "regulated militia" as being a right of the State and then uses "The People" with regards to "keep arms". The 2nd does not specify "Only the people in the militia".
If you had read the
study I linked you'd see that the second clause is dependent on the first.
English common law had long acknowledged the importance of effective arms control, and the meaning of the Second Amendment seemed clear to the framers and their contemporaries: that the people have a right to possess arms when serving in the militia.Over the years, this “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment was upheld in three Supreme Court decisions, in 1876, 1886, and most recently, in 1939 (Bogus 2000). The meaning of the Second Amendment remained uncontroversial until 1960, when a law review article using sources like American Rifleman asserted an additional, individual, right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense (Hays 1960)
Conclusions:
In our amicus brief in the Heller case we attempted to demonstrate,
• that the Second Amendment must be read in its entirety, and that its initial absolute functions as a subordinate adverbial that establishes a cause-and-effect connection with the amendment’s main clause;
• that the vast preponderance of examples show that the phrase bear arms refers specifically to carrying weapons in the context of a well regulated militia;
• that the word militia itself refers to a federally-authorized, collective fighting force, drawn only from the subgroup of citizens eligible for service in such a body;
• and that as the linguistic evidence makes clear, the militia clause is inextricably bound to the right to bear arms clause.
18th-century readers, grammarians, and lexicographers understood the Second Amendment in this way, and it is how linguists have understood it as well.
"We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago." -
Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Burger is on video here calling the NRA's interpretation
one of the greatest pieces of fraud. Oh yeah, and Burger was a Conservative judge, not a Liberal.
If the 2nd amendment meant what the NRA tells you it means then why did George Washington
disarm American citizens who, in the name of "Liberty," rebelled against tax collectors because they felt the government was treading on them? Why did James Madison call Shay's rebellion treasonous?