21 Feb 2023 1:48 pm
Unfortunately for you (and others) "most historians" aren't on The Supreme Court and don't get to decide that question.U
jack
Your link is a bit unhelpful to your argument. This is the expert conclusion:
"While there is a common law right to self-defense, most historians think that it would be remarkable news to the framers of the Second Amendment that they were actually constitutionalizing a personal right to self-defense as opposed to trying to say something significant about the militia," he says
The main points in the link were the definitions of militia and well-regulated and the context of looking at the writing style commonly accepted at the time. From the link; "...we can see the Court considered the awkward phrasing of the Amendment. The Justices divided the Amendment into an operative clause: "right of the people to keep and bear arms," and a prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The court determined the relationship between these phrases, as well as the historical context of the Constutition's creation, clearly provided an individual right."
As you should know, assuming you took an English course above 6th grade level, an operative clause identifies the actions made in the resolution...while a prefatory clause states why something should be done.
I wish I could remember where I saw this so I could give proper credit, but...In a more modern writing style (and using the in context definitions of militia and well-regulated) the 2nd could be...without changing the purpose...re-written something like "Because we need a well armed and well trained pool of civilians from which to pull a group to support our established military in their efforts to preserve our freedoms, the right of of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."