People advocating for gun control aren't necessarily opponents of the 2nd amendment, but people talking about well-regulated militias usually are. What's the point of bringing up that strange phrase unless you don't think that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms applies to everyone regardless of membership in some sort of militia?

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, the way it's written and how some people frame the argument, yeah they should have to be in a militia.

2nd amendment doesn't talk about private ownership of weapons.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

That's not an unreasonable reading of the text, but if you're going to look at the Constitution that way, you'll see that it doesn't talk about abortion or gay marriage either. I'm in favor of abortion rights and gay marriage, and that's why I don't start "but the Constitution doesn't literally say..." arguments with conservatives.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

Actually the way that it is written, "the militia" is the reason that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Put it another way:

A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

From this it is clear, "a well balanced breakfast" doesn't have the right to "keep and eat food," "the people" do, because "breakfast is important."