Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
It seems pretty clear, and has stood at least three court challanges in the last 20 years.
I suspect those decisions have more weight than your opinion.  |
The very problem is that the clause is routinely misquoted as you have done.
The original meaning in its 18th century context is pretty clear. Local militia regiments which augmented the regular army were common in Great Britain at the time. They were raised at county level and relied on local landowners for their officer class and other county men for the rank and file.
The security of the new Republic, and more pertinently its continued independence from the British Crown, relied on precisely the same military structure as was employed in the old country. A regular army acting as an expeditionary force in foreign wars, and an extensive local militia for territorial defence. This was established in the constitution of the federal republic and therefore stood as an obligation upon all States.
Individuals keeping and bearing arms in the context of a well-regulated local militia dedicated to the defence of the territory from insurrection or foreign invasion, is quite a different prospect than what the US now has, which is people armed to the teeth as an expression of their national identity and with little in the way of effective regulation in many places.
This however is a key weakness of the US system. The constitutional clause stands supposedly unamended, but because there is a Supreme Court charged with interpreting it, that interpretation has changed through time, according to the arguments of lawyers and the political views of the judges that at sit there for life once appointed. It’s not especially democratic.