When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 the phrase, “well regulated militia,” underlined the importance of the words, “shall not be infringed.”
Yet today, due to the breakdown in education wrought by leftist academicians and media talking heads, many Americans presume a “well regulated militia” and “shall not be infringed” are polar opposites; that the former represents a collective right viewpoint while the latter presents the right as an individual one. Such presumptions create a false dichotomy that pits one phrase against another in an amendment where both phrases were meant to be of mutual benefit.
Consider the Second Amendment: “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.”
At the outset we must understand that the individual right to keep and bear arms is not in spite of the mention of a militia but because of it. In other words, because the militia played a key role in the Founders’ minds, and is intended to play a key role even now, the right to possess arms, with which to gather in militia, “shall not be infringed.”
Think about what is conveyed by the term “militia.”
by AWR Hawkins