"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."
I'm no legal expert, I wish I was but I'm not, so honestly I have no idea what's being said here and I'm willing to bet that I don't think the majority of people REALLY understand what it's saying. So I'm going to break it down despite of my lack of knowledge (granted to me by the powers of free speech).
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
The first issue here is the definition of Militia, to my understanding it's just about everyone who can pick up arms when required by the governing body (not necessarily the State) to conduct martial activities.
What of the term "well regulated"? would it be safe to assume that it means an organized regularly trained group? if so "A well regulated Militia" could mean any able bodied individual who are part of a regularly trained militaristic group. In modern terms this could fall into several categories; the military, civil defense groups and police force* amongst others, basically paramilitary.
So as a whole the first part could read as "In the interest of State security, a regularly trained force are necessary"
Now for the second part,
*The Police force while not a military body conducts the role of the guardian as defined by Plato though on a different scale.
The first issue here is the definition of Militia, to my understanding it's just about everyone who can pick up arms when required by the governing body (not necessarily the State) to conduct martial activities.
What of the term "well regulated"? would it be safe to assume that it means an organized regularly trained group? if so "A well regulated Militia" could mean any able bodied individual who are part of a regularly trained militaristic group. In modern terms this could fall into several categories; the military, civil defense groups and police force* amongst others, basically paramilitary.
So as a whole the first part could read as "In the interest of State security, a regularly trained force are necessary"
Now for the second part,
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Well, taken out off context this reads exactly like what it says, that "the people have the right and shall continue to have the right to have and bear arms" (but not arm bears which I don't think is very fair). Now since they separate "Keep" and "bear" I would assume keep means own and bear means to carry and the rest should basically be quite clear.
When the whole passage is read it would read as "In the interest of State security, a regularly trained force are necessary and that the people have the right to own and carry arms"
Or should it be read as "Every member of a professionally trained military or paramilitary group are allowed to own and carry weapons in the interest of State security"?
Like I said I'm not a legal expert, heck I'm not even American so why should I care right? I don't, really, I just have too much time on my hand.
When the whole passage is read it would read as "In the interest of State security, a regularly trained force are necessary and that the people have the right to own and carry arms"
Or should it be read as "Every member of a professionally trained military or paramilitary group are allowed to own and carry weapons in the interest of State security"?
Like I said I'm not a legal expert, heck I'm not even American so why should I care right? I don't, really, I just have too much time on my hand.
*The Police force while not a military body conducts the role of the guardian as defined by Plato though on a different scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment