I wasn’t going to comment on it because I only saw it a couple times since the Sandy Hook shooting and I thought it was just a fluke, but apparently people think this a real argument for gun control. Let’s put this to rest once and for all.
Just for future reference; the line “well regulated militia” doesn’t condone nor condemn regulation of personal gun ownership. This example was posted on a video comparing ‘reasonable regulations’ on free speech to illustrate a point about gun ownership regulations.
“A [b]well regulated[/b] militia being necessary to the security of a free state,”
Note the part of it being regulated. Point out to similar wording in the first amendment.
Firstly, A militia is not a gun or several guns; it’s a collection of people. Like how a company is not a building, just the people who run shit in the building. I can have a well regulated software industry without having laws governing what programs you can operate on your PC.
Secondly, The word “regulated” doesn’t mean government regulation; it means trained and disciplined. You see, words have this strange phenomenon in the English language where they can have several meanings and can be deciphered given their context. Like my computer can ‘run’ a program but actually physically travel with an hastened gate. See; Heller v. DC ruling.
And last of all; the ‘militia’ is separate from ‘the people,’ It doesn’t say the right of ‘the militia’ it says ‘the people.’ The militia is the explanation why the people should be allowed to bear arms.
I know it’s a cute game to try and tinker with language to push an ideology, but it’s not going to get you anywhere.
The more you know =☆