Which part of “well-regulated” is ambiguous or hard to understand?
And you know the Second Amendment rights people, forget about the 2nd and 3rd words in that Amendment: "well regulated."
The Second Amendment begins with a conditional clause: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ... .”
No, really. War. These people think they are part of the “militia” referred to in the Second Amendment. (They conveniently forget the “well regulated” wording in front of the word militia.) They are arming themselves to shoot American police officers, soldiers or other civilians in a future war over what they describe as government “tyranny.” [...]
Which part of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" do these unregulated militia advocates, find ambiguous or hard to understand?
Which part of “well-regulated” is ambiguous or hard to understand?Apparently even Supreme Court Judge Scalia understands what the words “well-regulated” mean -- as he spelled out what "regulations" that the 2nd Amendment allows, back in 2008.
District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) -- supreme.justia.com
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
In those two Scalia-authored paragraphs, the Strict-Constructionist-Conservative outlined several "legal exceptions" where gun ownership could be "constitutionally" constrained:
1) limits the type of weapon;
2) concealed weapons prohibitions;
3) prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill;
4) forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings;
5) laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms;
[Shorter: Bazooka Bans; Licensing; Competence; Locality; Gun-sale Registration & Supplier constraints.]
That is what "well-regulated" means to Conservative-icon Antonin Scalia.
Right are granted us. But those right are NOT Absolute.
My right to free speech ends, where your nose begins.
And your right to own the weapons of war ends, where the safety of the public begins.
The public does still possess its inalienable right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
And so your right to own the weapons of war ends, where the public's right to "Life and Liberty and the Pursuit" begins. Victims of gun violence find it kind of hard to pursue those ... by the way.
Some rights maybe "un-infringable," but those same rights have ALSO been ruled to very "well-regulatable" too.
Just ask Antonin, what "well-regulated" means to him. Or just read how he ruled on those Limits to Gun Rights, when the case was before him -- for him to make un-infringablly, unambiguously clear.