The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.
Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.
But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.
Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place? That’s not strict constructionism, it’s just wishful thinking with the force of law. The militia clause disappears only when inconvenient, and reappears when needed.
I’m not wholly convinced by the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions but I do think there are many ways to implement gun control anyhow. Big question how effective proposed gun control laws will be, which is generally what I look at in these debates.
Yep, agreed. Mostly I’m distressed at how incredible ineffective most proposals would be, and they’re still not mild enough to pass. Moderately effective gun control is generations away at best I’m afraid.
I’d also like to figure out how to do something when there are big warning signs that people don’t seem to do anything about. I don’t think it’s just because there is some right to firearms.
Agreed, people go on knife rampages from time to time in China. The fact that all of the victims usually survive is certainly significant, as is the fact that there are fewer of them, but they are often maimed and scarred in many ways nevertheless. It’s worth stopping such things in advance whenever possible. Still, after the fact, you can’t help someone overcome trauma if they’re dead.
EDIT: I should add that my personal opinion is that I like guns. Guns are a lot of fun. Mechanically, entertainingly neat ingenious creations of mankind. And most of them should be banned as soon as possible.