Comments by "Tim Trewyn" (@timtrewyn453) on "Jamie Raskin issues brilliant Second Amendment debunking" video.

  1. I think Scalia missed what well-regulated militias practice, that is, the qualification of those it would issue what arms to. A militia that issues weapons to anyone who insists they have a right to them is not well-regulated. This qualification process continues today. Not everybody gets qualified to launch nuclear weapons, or be a sniper, or operate HIMARS systems. While "not be infringed" at least means one has the right to present themselves for qualification by the militia, the necessity of State security described in the Second Amendment should empower the State to regulate to say a particular person is not qualified to possess a firearm. I can agree militia membership does not need to be a requirement to keep and bear arms, although early State constitutions declared all able-bodied resident men to be in the militia and subject to muster, but the qualification process by the militia (today's police, sheriffs, and National Guard units) is consistent with the Second Amendments language "being necessary to the security of a free State". States with school children and assembly attendees being shot by deranged persons are not secure.
    2