> It also seems clear to me that "well-regulated" is not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment.
Well, it's critical to the point in that a working militia can serve a purpose, and a broken militia can't.
Contemporary documents make the point of the Second Amendment very explicit - its purpose is to prevent the United States from maintaining a standing army. But that's not what it does or what it claims to do; that's just the reason it exists.
> Contemporary documents make the point of the Second Amendment very explicit - its purpose is to prevent the United States from maintaining a standing army.
It's worth noting here that this is frequently cited and correct, but misses a critical point: this was before permanent paramilitary police forces, and one of the main reasons for fearing the establishment of a standing army is that this armed force with a distinct and insular culture from the citizenry would inevitably be used for internal security as well as against external enemies; the fear of standing armies is perhaps most accurately understood as a fear of permanent, insular domestic security services extending so far as to fearing permanent defense forces that could be turned to that purpose.
I mean, you don't have to tell me. I'm on the record stating that the police are, by all definitions that do not refer to the actual word "police", a military body. Calling a soldier an "officer" doesn't mean he's not a soldier.
Well, it's critical to the point in that a working militia can serve a purpose, and a broken militia can't.
Contemporary documents make the point of the Second Amendment very explicit - its purpose is to prevent the United States from maintaining a standing army. But that's not what it does or what it claims to do; that's just the reason it exists.