“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.”

People tend to ignore the first part of this.

Several of my classmates who graduated at the bottom of our law school class and couldn't hack it as lawyers are alive and well as senators, representatives and government leeches at our State Capital.

Sadly, a great many people incorrectly interpret that as the State National Guard and have lost sight of what a true "Militia" is.

What is your interpretation of "Well Regulated". ?

The constitution refers to individual rights, not groups not sub groups of another group. But that of individual liberties bestowed upon all. So with that in mind we all need to do better about minding your own and allowing difference of opinions… and to call bs out when it is bs and not worry about getting silenced, cancelled or whatever.. that is if you are really interested in the constitution…

That is not for me to decide. It is for a judge to decide. It seem to allow for somebody to regulate militias?

Scalia has opined on the "well regulated" text in the Heller decision.
Well regulated refers to "disciplined"............according to him.

You said you haven't been able to vote for a candidate that supports the constitution. You would have of you voted I. Primaries. Those tend to not get through without going third party/independent

At the time it was written militias elected officers and NCO's. Militia was every male16 or older. Well regulated I believe refers to electing officers and sergeants rather than a free for all when the militia was called up.

Because by the rules of grammar, it's irrelevant.

It doesn't as anyone that read the constitution and the first amendment would know.

True, Paul's site Paul's rules.

But what if he gets an offer he can't refuse such as a specific tax break, govt contract, or gun to head to apply his rules in certain ways?

I trust Paul to tell them to pound sand or take the site down rather than knuckle under but I'm quite sure he's already experienced some sort of concern over what us knotheads get up to on his site.

But why not look at the sheer amount of interconnectivity between the big tech and corporate interests and the govt? It's not a healthy situation for free speech.

Besides thanks to Musk we now know from the Twitter files that the line was crossed long ago and no one has yet to be held accountable.

Now we get to interpret what the word "disciplined" means. If it were a dog, following basic commands such as "Come, sit or stay" would be disciplined. I am not sure how you could apply that to an armed group of men.

Any of us who learned D&C in basic and had it explained understand the meaning of well regulated.

The simple is well trained but it's more than just knowing how to fire a rifle. It's how to organize a mass of citizens into a formation of rifleman. How to move that formation into line of battle. It's all the little things that make up the whole and the many moving and functioning as one.

BTW D&C is Drill and Ceremony aka marching in formation. Today it's ceremony, at the time of writing it was a mobile human machine gun capable of crossing almost any terrain and closing with the enemy in good order.

No.

Scalia's opinion interpreted the militia clause as meaning that the processes for training, activating, and deploying the militia should be efficient and orderly.

I have been Von Steubened. But it wasn't in a militia. RA.

P.S. We called it GFT. Discipline was UCMJ.

I wonder if Scalia was a vet?

BTW I loved Scalia, but he was still a slimy lawyer.

My take is well regulated means access to and ability to train in all weapons of war.

The Bill of Rights until 1868 only restricted the power of the Federal Government to infringe on the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. If you had no right to keep and bear arms in your State Constitution the State or local governments could do whatever they wanted.

So the Framers did not want the Federal Government to infringe on peoples right to keep and bear arms. I believe Militias at the time were State and local and were supposed to supply their own arms,

"United States v. Cruikshank (1876)"

"In United States v. Cruikshank, one of the Court's holdings was that the Second Amendment only prevented the federal government from infringing on a person's right to bear arms. In other words, the Second Amendment's guarantees do not protect people from private actors or state governments that may try to prevent them from bearing arms."

I didn't say anything about the first amendment. This is about free speech. The free flow of ideas and a fair discourse. Google is not owned or controlled by the government.

Are they though? They have kowtowed to pretty much every government in the world. Remember google owns youtube and if you say something on there that violates laws in a country youve never even been to, you could get shut down.