Lasted 10 seconds and the dude could not even state the second amendment in its entirety because he knows gun nuts choke when trying to explain what a “well regulated militia’ is.
It doesn’t matter what a well regulated militia is. The Heller ruling clearly stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of the existence of a militia.
Now that that hurdle is out of your way, go ahead, watch the rest of it. You might learn something else besides what I just taught you.
No, it’s “settled law”. There was never any connection between serving in any organized militia and gun rights anywhere in the history of the founding.
Regardless of your personality opinion, unless overturned (which is extremely unlikely) it stands. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of the existence of the Militia.
To regulate in this sense is to manage the equipping (arming) of the militia so that it may function to serve it’s purpose in proper manner. An unarmed militia is unable to function. And before you opine on the National Guard, remember the National Guard did not exist under Federal law until 1903, referred to as the “organized militia” under federal law. The “unorganized militia” also still exists under federal law. The unorganized militia receives no equipment, facilities or training from the government, existing as it always has from colonial times. The citizen, providing his own arms and equipment, called up on a volunteer basis in times of need.
Now while we haven’t been involved in a situation were our standing armed forces and organized reserves have required activation of the unorganized militia in recent memory, it still exists and is the militia embodied in the 2d amendment.