Lord of Our Vice.

The four words that open the 2nd Amendment. A battle wages still, over the true meaning, however no one can argue that they are words supporting the lack of gun laws throughout the USA.

Militia is a word commonly defined as “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” But in the US is it used to describe all ‘able-bodied’ citizens who are eligible by law for military service. In the US, you have to be 17, with parental consent, or 18 to volunteer for the Army lawfully- and fit the required status above.

However, in six states you don’t even have to be legally applicable to the word ‘militia’ in order to buy a gun; with laws stating the minimum age is 16, to buy some form of firearm- except in Montana, where you can be 14. Similarly, in more than 36 states you can be legally eligible to buy some form of firearm, before you can be legally eligible to go into a bar and order a drink; with the age minimum for firearms is 18, and the age minimum for buying alcohol is 21. This is not what I’d call “well-regulated”.

“Well regulated” suggests that the law keeps its ‘militia’ in check. It does not suggest that in 2015, 13,286 people were killed using firearms- and that number excludes suicides. It does not suggest that in 2013, the average homicide by firearm rate was 4.7% per 100,000 people in metropolitan countries- whereas in the US is was 12.1% per 100,000 people. And I’m not even going to start to get into the fact that 55% of gun homicides were African Americans, despite them being only 13% of the population (2010).

The Supreme Court has also done a wonderful job of ending the battle over the meaning of “a well regulated militia” and you can easily research this as all of their decisions are online.

I’m happy to help though.

United States v. Miller - “The historical sources show plainly that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense…And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use today.” Source

From The Second Amendment Primer - “Indeed, the version of the Amendment that initially passed in the House, only to be stylistically shortened in the Senate, explicitly defined the “militia” as composed of the body of the People”. This is clearly the sense in which “the militia” is used in clause 16 and throughout The Federalist Papers, in keeping with standard usage confirmed by contemporaneous dictionaries, legal and otherwise.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey - “It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments of the Constitution.” Source

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez - A decision handed down by the court and an opinion penned by Justice Rehnquist had this to say. “The people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments… refer to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” In essence if you’re an American you’re a part of the community and as a part of the community you’re deemed the “people” as defined in the Amendments. Source

Freedman’s Bureau Act of 1866 - “full…benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and [property], including the constitutional right to bear arms.” Sourced via: Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L.J. 1245 (1992), n. 228.

DC v. Heller - “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53. …Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32-47.”-  Source

US v. Emerson - “We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.” - Source

“Well I’m from Texas, so I’ll use a gun.”

“It’s my right to have a gun.”

Really?? Would you be able to say that in front of families and friends who lost their loved ones to shootings from home, school, clubs, mall, movie theater, etc.?

You may support for your right to bear arms, but I’m fighting for someone’s right to life.

You do not stand for the “right to life”. In actuality, you are merely against the right to preservation of life via self defense by individuals.

It’s not something I need to “reconsider” because I fully recognize and respect the lethality of firearms, it’s part of their utility in some particular situations as a last resort.  It’s also part of the reason why I own them.