Is the Second Amendment only for conservatives?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69013312 Daniel Perry shot a BLM protester who was carrying a rifle. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has pardoned him. On YouTube, the Right is out in force demanding why Perry was arrested in the first place, and saying that the protester never should have approached the car.

It's really insane. A world where everyone can open carry is a world where you aren't justified in responding with force to someone carrying a gun. They're not doing anything out of the ordinary, anything they aren't perfectly legally justified to do. How is it that people who advocate for Second Amendment rights and open carry are so caviler when people with guns are shot?

>1 prosfilaes:
It's not about justice, the law or the Constitution. It's certainty not about creating a consistent moral/ethical philosophy. It's about us versus them and Perry is on their side. They're taking their guy back because they can.

The MISINTERPRETATION of the 2nd Amendment is only for hyper-conservatives — I don't want to blast all conservatives. If you can read it logically without putting a political spin on it, the 2nd Amendment is logical and it does NOT say that all Americans should own guns to randomly carry around on the street and shoot people when they feel uncomfortable. Sigh…

Had to get that out of my head.

The part of the US 2nd amendment which mentions a "well regulated militia" is usually glossed over by proponents of the civilian ownership of small arms and light weapons. Has it never been argued that the US National Guard in fact constitutes that "well regulated militia"?

>4 John5918:

Yes, but there are some troubles with the technical language. viz.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter...

>5 davidgn: Sorry but what is the problem with the language? Curious as I have never looked at this before. Thank you.

>6 krazy4katz: The counterargument is that the "militia" is already defined as all able-bodied males from 17-45 who are or intend to become citizens, and all females serving in the National Guard. This is subdivided into the organized militia, consisting of the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia, consisting of the remainder of those categories. The "unorganized militia" is therefore -- equally to the organized militia -- a body which was meant to be armed and which was meant to have been "regulated." Or so I understand the argument.
It's taken to task here by a USAF author:
"The 1792 National Militia Act, the Second Amendment, and Individual Militia Rights: A Legal and Historical Perspective"
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705564

>7 davidgn: Right, I've heard that. I'm not sure how anyone keeps a straight face when making this argument. They seem to have forgotten about the "well-regulated" part.

I mean, even the text you cite refers to those outside the National Guard as the "unorganized militia". Are they both "unorganized" and "well-regulated"?

Well there are certainly LOTs of people in this country who have guns who are NOT well-regulated whether or not they are in a militia. Guns should definitely be well regulated in my personal opinion. No one had semi-automatic weapons when the 2nd Amendment was written and they didn't live to see guns being the major cause of death for children. I support as much gun control as we can get. After a shooting that killed a faculty member on my campus, someone in our state legislature suggested that teachers be armed! As if I should carry a gun when I teach class?! How is that remotely a realistic solution?!

>9 krazy4katz: they didn't live to see guns being the major cause of death for children
You seem to be under the impression that children matter after they've been born. What on earth gave you that idea?

I imagine the idea of arming teachers doesn't go far enough: the citizenry, already constituting the well-regulated militia, should also comprise the police force. So, if someone breaks a law, anyone nearby instantly takes out their weapon and apprehends them. What could possibly go wrong?

(presumably, if nobody else is around, the lawbreaker should arrest themselves...)

>10 kiparsky: Fair points on everything.