I have heard too many liberal Democrats kowtow to the Republican frame, and now the conservative activist Justices on the Supreme Court, that the Second Amendment somehow has nothing to do with a well regulated malitia. Somewhere in the language is hidden a much deeper meaning, than Second Amendment scholars and the courts over a century have determined, that guarantees the right of citizens to own guns in their homes.
It really doesn’t have to be like this. “A Well Regulated Militia” is often ignored when arguing for gun laws or restrictions. Gun possession is fast becoming a liability free right.
According to the Freedom States Alliance, Gun Guys: There is no question that the Supreme Court violated its own standards by ignoring longstanding precedent in stripping DC of its handgun ban. And legal experts have rightfully chastised Justice Scalia's legal doctrine of "originalism" as a sham in light of his parsing of words and ignoring his own theory that Courts should not create laws and invent new legal interpretations, which is exactly what Justice Scalia did.
In a September 4th, 2006 BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW Professor Saul Cornell, author of "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control In America" said this:
“The Founding Fathers were not opposed to the idea of regulation. In fact, their view of liberty was something that they would have described as “well-regulated liberty.” The idea of regulation, the idea of reasonable government regulation, was absolutely essential to the way they understood liberty.
Once technology changes, and the market revolution engulfs America, then cheap handguns become readily available. Handguns were not a big problem in the founding era. They were relatively expensive and not very reliable.
Once you get this new change with handguns, and once you get this problem of interpersonal violence, then the question becomes: Can we get rid of this problem? Can you regulate, and quite strenuously regulate, handguns? Can you even ban handguns? And of course, the conclusion I found, generally speaking, is yes. The state can do whatever it thinks appropriate with regard to handguns. The one thing they can’t do is pass laws which would, in effect, make it impossible for the militia to be armed.”
Thanks Dems, for your weak kneed support of the NRA. Maybe you really are hopeless?
I've included two opinions that also make the point. Maybe there's hope.