"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."
Many authoritarians spread a collective rights theory of the Second Amendment which is a belief that citizens do not have an individual right to possess arms, that local, state, and federal legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. They point to the language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the founders intended to only restrict congress from legislating away the state's right to self-defense.
I'll keep this short and sweet. Those who spread the collective rights theory are wrong, and only use this construed interpretation as a tool to violate the rights of the people in order to gain power and institute their preferred brand of authoritarianism, instead of being for true classical liberalism. Our founders didn't like a large standing Army. They knew it was in the people's interest to be able to form a militia in times of need, be it for protection of foreign invasion, or the more than likely scenario of protection from a corrupt government.
There is confusion with the term a “well regulated militia”. Our founders believed that a militia is formed by individual volunteers. In order to form a militia, individuals must posses the right to bear arms. The term "well regulated" in the time of our founders meant properly functioning. For example, the clock was well regulated, meaning the clock was precise and properly functioning. So in order to have a well regulated, (properly functioning militia), it is “the right of the people”, (this asserts an individual right), “to keep and bear arms”. For any militia to function properly, be "well regulated", it must have arms. “The security of a free state”, is protected by individuals, “the people”, who form a “well regulated militia”. We the individuals are the militia. The collective theory which they use to say the state has the right to regulate firearms for individual purposes, because they say the second amendment refers to it being a collective right, ( the states right to a militia) when it says a “well regulated militia', supposedly meaning only the government has the right to arms, is not of a “free state” that itself is mentioned in the amendment, as in a "free state" one has individual rights, not collectivism where government regulates our rights. Their intentional misinterpretation is asinine. Our founders were not communists. It's clear the purpose was as an individual right, as it should be, based on natural rights.
Rogue_One
Many authoritarians spread a collective rights theory of the Second Amendment which is a belief that citizens do not have an individual right to possess arms, that local, state, and federal legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. They point to the language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the founders intended to only restrict congress from legislating away the state's right to self-defense.
I'll keep this short and sweet. Those who spread the collective rights theory are wrong, and only use this construed interpretation as a tool to violate the rights of the people in order to gain power and institute their preferred brand of authoritarianism, instead of being for true classical liberalism. Our founders didn't like a large standing Army. They knew it was in the people's interest to be able to form a militia in times of need, be it for protection of foreign invasion, or the more than likely scenario of protection from a corrupt government.
There is confusion with the term a “well regulated militia”. Our founders believed that a militia is formed by individual volunteers. In order to form a militia, individuals must posses the right to bear arms. The term "well regulated" in the time of our founders meant properly functioning. For example, the clock was well regulated, meaning the clock was precise and properly functioning. So in order to have a well regulated, (properly functioning militia), it is “the right of the people”, (this asserts an individual right), “to keep and bear arms”. For any militia to function properly, be "well regulated", it must have arms. “The security of a free state”, is protected by individuals, “the people”, who form a “well regulated militia”. We the individuals are the militia. The collective theory which they use to say the state has the right to regulate firearms for individual purposes, because they say the second amendment refers to it being a collective right, ( the states right to a militia) when it says a “well regulated militia', supposedly meaning only the government has the right to arms, is not of a “free state” that itself is mentioned in the amendment, as in a "free state" one has individual rights, not collectivism where government regulates our rights. Their intentional misinterpretation is asinine. Our founders were not communists. It's clear the purpose was as an individual right, as it should be, based on natural rights.
Rogue_One
