Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: 2nd Amendment showerthought... [View all]TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I was pointing out your selective quotations, but if you prefer to classify it as whining that's fine, though not particularly conducive to a reasoned discussion.
So Story first noted the important fact that the right to keep and bear arms is considered "the palladium of the liberties of a republic." In other words, an armed citizenry protects the liberties of a republic.
I'm not sure what you are equating "militia" to. It looks like "the people," which means all citizens of the US, which is the same meaning that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they approved the Second Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So I guess we agree!
Your last argument seems to be that the Second Amendment someone requires service in a militia. That's simply historically inaccurate. The Second Amendment protects one thing - the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't protect the right to serve in a militia and it doesn't require service in a militia. In fact, as we agreed above, the "militia" is "the people." If you don't believe me, ask George Mason - "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." Or look at Virginia's 1776 constitution - "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people . . ."
Ultimately, the Second Amendment protects the right of "the people" to "keep and bear arms" and states that right "shall not be infringed." So, just as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech (with reasonable limitations) the Second protects the right to keep and bear arms (with reasonable limitations).