Right wing 2A nuts immediately called the guy who tried to “stop a tyrant” by exercising his rights to bear arms against Trump a “Democrat terrorist”. If he hadn’t been fatally shot, they would have demanded he be executed.

There is no consistent logic here to debate.

> strictly regulate this 2a nonsense once for all

Best of luck getting 34/50 state legislatures to agree!

Was there some previous interpretation that was utopian?

Even if that clause was tied to it, how would that affect things given US Title 10 ss 246? I've always wondered if they would enforce those restrictions - disarming disabled people, disarming people over 45, and disarming most women (not in the national guard). Likewise, would that mean I'm then able to own the same weapons individually that the organized militia uses for their duties? It makes for an interesting thought experiment.

It's interesting to me that people who make a big deal about that clause don't ever seem to know much about how the militia system actually worked. It was based fundamentally on arms and ammunition that were privately owned, widespread and extremely ubiquitous in society.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't make this tired, poorly-designed argument: the prefatory clause isn't a limitation, merely a justification. The jurisprudence surrounding the "militia" prefatory clause is long-since settled.

Even if you do the mental gymnastics to rework the English language to make this mean what you want it to mean, the militia is composed of all able-bodied men between 17-45 per 10 U.S. Code § 246.

At the time of this country's founding, private individuals owned cannonry, ships, and ordnance far beyond small arms.

What purpose would letters of marque and reprisal serve without weapons?