The Second Amendment Comes Before the Supreme Court: The Issues and the Arguments

The Heritage Foundation ^ | March 14, 2008 | Nelson Lund, Ph.D.

[robertpaulsen]

"At minimum, “the people” included at least some non-able-bodied and elderly citizens, and includes other individuals who are not actively serving members of the militia"

But of course. I'm a rational guy. I concede there were some.

"Nowhere are the two equated as literally the same group."

Literally the same? Meaning a one-for-one match? Of course not.

"but they are not literally the same group."

Literally? Again, no.

One group consists of adult, white, male citizens while the other group consists of adult, white, male citizens. What was I thinking when I foolishly attempted to compare them?

[ctdonath2]

You weren’t comparing, you were equating.

You acknowledge that “the militia” is not “the people”, however small the difference? Yes? Good.

You’ve acknowledged that “the people” has been legislatively, judicially and socially expanded from exclusively adult, white, male citizens to (at minimum) adult, non-felon/insane/etc. citizens (non-whites and non-males included)? Yes? Good.

So now, presumably, you acknowledge that “the militia” is not exactly the same as, and in fact is a distinctly smaller group today, than “the people”? Yes? Wonderful. Glad to hear it.

Now let’s get back to the operative clause: “the right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms” - it doesn’t say “militia”, it says “people”, which you acknowledge is a significantly larger group encompassing at least a majority of the US population. Those “people” are not necessarily active members of the militia, yet they retain an enunciated right “to keep and bear arms” which “shall not be infringed”. On top of that, you contend that SCOTUS has effectively declared (as of last week) and will formally declare (in June) that the right is “individual”.

The meaning of “the people”, as being distinct (though overlapping) from “the militia”, has been clarified as what the Founding Fathers intended, though imperfectly enunciated and implemented. ...surely you don’t think SCOTUS just made stuff up along the way to get to this point (which you agree with) do you?