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.

Poll - Total Votes: 33

State Militias

Personal Protection

Show Results

You may vote on multiple answers.

Is it about protecting regulated state militias or personal protection?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

The right isn't guaranteed to the militia, it is a right guaranteed to the People. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state(comma) this is a statement, the comma separates this idea from the next sentence because they are not the same thing. We as a nation need an army, this is a danger to the people and the government as history has shown us in many cases when a military coup takes place. That is the reason for the right of the people to be armed.

The Bill of Rights does not "give" the people any rights, it just affirms these rights endowed by our creator and limits government from reducing them.

The militia being necessary isn't important because the right isn't for the militia, it is for the people.

BizSuitStacy · M

@Roadsterrider Yes! It's nice to see a comment from someone that can read. Scalia's majority opinion was also clear. Nowhere in the 2A does it state that rhe right to keep and bear arms is not contigent upon being in the militia.

Even the late chief justice and gun hater, John Stevens, knew it. He actially wanted to change the language in the 2nd Amendment to make gun ownership dependent upon militia membership.

I can see from other comments, that these facts and logic fall on several deaf ears.

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@BizSuitStacy Thank you. I learned what a comma meant in grade school. Some have more trouble with reading comprehension than others.