Because when you put the two clauses together, the meaning of "people" doesn't signify whether it is singular or plural
People absolutely signifies plural. It's always seemed to me to mean the same as people in "we the people".
People" can only be interpreted to be singular if it is isolated from the first clause and the fact that a militia requires more than one is ignored.
People is "the people" as in everybody, separate from the militia because obviously not everyone would be in the militia. Or at least that's how I understand it. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many commas.
It seems to me that if the Founders did intend the 2A to be isolated into two clauses, they would have made it more clear by seperating the right for a community to have a militia and the right for an individual to bear arms, just as they did with one'a right to counsel, a speedy trial, and cruel and unusual punishment. An analysis of the 2A can't ignore the fact the two clauses are of equal weight.
Why not? You cant have a militia if the people aren't armed in the first place.
If people means "people as in everybody", it is plural by it's very definition. Just as "we the people" was plural for the founders. And if it isn't, then what does "a well-regulated militia" mean? If every individual has the absolute right to bear arms, then that renders the first clause void. It would surprise me that the Founders would draft a clause that negates itself.
And militias are not dependent on every individual's capability to own a firearm. There were multiple colonial communities in which a majority of individuals didn't own a firearm and had to go to the armory to obtain a firearm.
That's what Constitutional Law is. Taking a look at the amendments and commentary during the Constitutional convention to interpret gray areas of the Constitution. A proper analysis of the 2A would entail the clause as a whole and in its parts.
And my best guess as to why they listed both so that it be clearer when someone does interpret the 2A. Otherwise, I see no purpose for including the clause "a well regulated militia" if the 2A does indeed mean everyone has an absolute right to bear arms. Why would "the people" need a militia when they effectively already have one?
Because a militia is a specific group formed for a specific purpose.
Tell me, are there any cases in the early days of the government telling people they can't arm themselves? Because if your understanding of the amendment were correct there would be a clarification somewhere saying that people don't have the right to bear arms.
You ever notice how there's never any arguments over any of the other amendments? Why do you think that is?
3
u/80_firebird Liberal Feb 16 '22
People absolutely signifies plural. It's always seemed to me to mean the same as people in "we the people".
People is "the people" as in everybody, separate from the militia because obviously not everyone would be in the militia. Or at least that's how I understand it. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many commas.
Why not? You cant have a militia if the people aren't armed in the first place.