[fastpat]

Originally posted by MRM
So how do you well regulate a milita without restricting its right to keep and bear arms?

To regulate a militia is to standardize it, including insuring that it was itself armed. The meaning of regulate does not mean a restriction of any kind. Further the right to be protected is fully grounded in the independent clause of the Amendment. But for a fully parsed Second Amendment, I'd recommend The Unabridged Second Amendment by L. Neil Schulman.

The sentence is almost nonsensical when you break it down using rules of gramar. The basic comon law rule of statutory interpretation is that words are to be given their ordinary meaning and you use standard rules of gramar to devine the meaning of the statute. Or amendment to the constitution in this case.

No, it's actually easily understood by almost anyone. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". "A well read electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" in no way limits books to the electorate.

What does a well regulated militia have to do with the right to bear arms? The 2nd amendment doesn't really say. Is it a split infinitive that is just sloppy drafting? Or is it a guide that we are to use in measuring whether the right to keep and bear arms is being restricted. Or....is the well regulated militia the thing that is being mandated, and the right to bear arms is just how the founding fathers thought you regulated the militia?

None of those things.

If we agree that the militia is the group of free men of a certain age who can be called upon to defend the country and their communities, then who regulates them? Is it permissible to regulate them by restricting the use of their arms?

No, it is not.

A final rule of stautory interpretation is to read the statute (yes I know this is part of the constitution, the rules are the same) to avoid absurd results. Do you think the founding fathers really meant that there could be no restriction at all on the right to bear arms?

Yes, absolutely, and in fact there were no restrictions on what arms could be born in America for all of the 18th and 19th centuries. The notion that certain arms could be made unavailable to anyone would have been considered absurd. Many private shipping concerns had the latest cannon on board their vessels.

Does that mean no restrictions on owning them or is it permissible to put reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on where you can carry them? Do you think the founding fathers meant "no restrictions" literally, in which case fully automatic 50 cals are as protected as a hunting rifle? That 12 year olds can carry Mac 10s? I mean outside the hood.

Ignoring your use of the specious arguments about children, the answer is yes, any weapon should be available to anyone. It is a right, not a privilege.

I think the founding fathers meant for us to debate these issues. I think they wanted push back from the masses, attempts at regulation from the elites, and a healthy debate in the process.

No, they did not. Rights are intrinsic to the human existence, they do not depend on arguments of utility, nor the democratic process. There are no debates to be held on these rights. Only the speed with which we can remove restrictions imposed by the enemies of freedom and liberty, that's the debate.