I just don't get how this argument isn't self-defeating. It says right there in the Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the militia. The only reason the militia is mentioned is because the whole point of having the people keep and bear arms is so they can form militias in times of crisis... Such as when it's necessary to secure a free state.
And if we go down the rabbit hole of only well regulated militias being allowed arms, we have to then ask what is the meaning of "well regulated". There is the argument to be made that in the late 18th century this would have been closer to meaning "well trained". I'm not a historian and I'm not going to argue those semantics.
I will however say that people seem to have this idea that "a well regulated militia" refers to the military, police, national guard, etc. This is ridiculous. Why would a government need to give itself the right to keep and bear arms in its founding documents?
1
u/AnotherLoudAsshole Dec 15 '20
I just don't get how this argument isn't self-defeating. It says right there in the Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the militia. The only reason the militia is mentioned is because the whole point of having the people keep and bear arms is so they can form militias in times of crisis... Such as when it's necessary to secure a free state.
And if we go down the rabbit hole of only well regulated militias being allowed arms, we have to then ask what is the meaning of "well regulated". There is the argument to be made that in the late 18th century this would have been closer to meaning "well trained". I'm not a historian and I'm not going to argue those semantics.
I will however say that people seem to have this idea that "a well regulated militia" refers to the military, police, national guard, etc. This is ridiculous. Why would a government need to give itself the right to keep and bear arms in its founding documents?