What I'm saying is that I can read English.
How about you?
. . .
How do YOU interpret what they said?
Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-10-28 01:55 PM
As I said earlier, it is entirely unimportant what my opinion is regarding this.
It is completely natural for everyone to have their own opinions - the judicial branch was created to settle the arguments and define the law.
There would be absolute chaos if the law were based on the opinions of random people.
As far as your questions go, this is what the U.S. Supreme Court said about the first part of the sentence you seem to think they ignored (obviously because you didn't read the case):
a. "Well-Regulated Militia."
In United States v. Miller, ... we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That definition comports with founding-era sources. See ... Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ("[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms").
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that "[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, 8, cls. 15-16)." Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise ... Armies"; "to provide ... a Navy," Art. I, 8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," 8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it-and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights 13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms").
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2799-2800 (2008).
