Heller and the 2nd Explained in great detail

An excellent speech on the 2nd and Heller that goes into great detail.

Halbrook is the author who wrote “That Every Man Be Armed” and his work is very well researched.

It’s about 20 minutes long but well worth the time to listen if you’re interested at all in 2nd Amendment Rights.


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.


I dont necessarily disagree with the holding in Heller.

But in context, Heller and other decisions is to the anti-gun lobby as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is to the pro-life lobby.

Scalia’s opinion on prefatory clauses is garbage.

Then why is it there?

Well no, Abortion isn’t mentioned anywhere in our constitution.

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.


I don’t think you got the point of my SAT question example.

You could read it again, if you want.

As many times as it’s explained for you obviously no amount of further explanation is going to leave you any better informed.

I don’t need to read it again, there is no equating the two.

It is “settled law”, and yet people still disagree with it.

Reminds me of some other cases.

You do need to read my posts again. You missed the point.

I do not.

Because there is no reasonable explanation.

Of course there is, you just refuse to accept it.

1 Like

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.

It doesn’t matter. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

You can disagree until the cows come home, it doesn’t change the ruling.

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.