I'm beginning to realize that the 2nd amendment debate is dysfunctional. I've always assumed that the debate is one side accusing the other of only reading one of the two clauses and ignoring the other. Certainly there's an ocean of commentary on the gun control side pointing out the omission of the 1st clause when RKBA'ers argue their 2nd amendment rights.
The Holy Word is below the toke exhalation, followed by some new thoughts on the matter.
[this diary is based on a comment posted last night that raised some flak, notably this comment:
instead of parsing and re-parsing the ancient riddle, we need to think of what we should do nowIt's not the intention of this diary to take focus from the gun control debate, but rather to see if there's some side of the 2nd amendment debate that needs looking at as we work towards gun control.]
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 know I've accused the RBKA'ers of dropping the first clause in their constitutional argument. And I'm sure the other side would accuse me of ignoring the second part.
But now I'm beginning to see, they do include the first part. Their perceived right also extends to militia formation they feel they are entitled to, (the "regulating" done by themselves, of course - "We know how to do it well."), as well as to their rights to armaments of the 2nd clause. In other words, the right to form highly armed military units functioning outside official governance. The security of this "free state" to them means their right to unofficially protect their freedoms by forming these well-armed militias.
I never thought of the debate that way.
We need a national conversation on THAT perception of the 2nd amendment, if that's what they're thinking.!