Coronavirus - are we all doomed? (4 Viewers)

[AccessBlaster]

Defund the police" will last until an armed conflict between looters and vigilantes leads to massive deaths.

if Biden we're to be elected all the riots would magically stop and everything would be right in the universe.

 

[Steve R.]

if Biden we're to be elected all the riots would magically stop and everything would be right in the universe.

You gave me the segue for a comment that I was contemplating. Yes the riots will stop. But the "police" will be reconstituted as "agents" (Committee of Public Safety) of the Democratic party to ensure compliance with COVID-19 restrictions, weed out hate speech, enforce social justice, uphold the green new deal, etc. Inklings of this possibility can already be seen through the decrees of some Democratic District Attorneys, Governors, and Mayors.

Since posting I've heard that the police officer (Rolfe) who killed Brooks in Atlanta and was subsequently fired (immediately) by the the Mayor of Atlanta (Bottoms) has filed a lawsuit for unlawful termination (failure to follow due process). This lawsuit has evidently not made it to some papers, but did make it to the NPR: "Former Atlanta Police Officer Who Shot Rayshard Brooks Sues City Over Firing". What is disheartening about this article is that it presents cherry picked facts to inflame the racial divide.
The article is in the section "Live Updates: Protests For Racial Justice". It identifies Rolf as being White and Brooks as being Black, but never mentions that the Mayor (Bottoms), or that the Fulton County District Attorney (Howard) are Black. So the purpose of mentioning that Rolf is White and Brooks was Black was to imply that Black's are victims of White abuse. The article also claims that Rolph's actions further escalated racial tensions. What the article does not disclose is that there is no evidence of racial animosity by Rolfe. The increase in supposed racial tensions can be blamed on the race baiters, which NPR is allowing, through its silence to happen.

 

[Isaac]

This is a valid cross-cultural question, Tera, and deserves a decent answer. Let's hope that I can give one that somehow evades my own cultural biases.

The USA is a relatively young country, though by far not the youngest. As a culture ages, some of its formative pressures become lost to history. Only the more important factors remain part of the culture. This is just human nature. We remember what is important and we tend to forget what is not so important. I'm sure that older cultures do not always remember why they chose one direction over another in every part of their history. Here is a rhetorical question for you... when did your people stop carrying swords or big knives? Do you know when - and why?

For us, the initial colonists to the USA from Europe needed their guns to survive by hunting because hunter-gatherer societies need less infrastructure than agrarian societies. In the earliest days, we had little or no infrastructure. So guns (and axes) were necessary during our earliest days. The infrastructure for agrarian societies adds the requirement to be able to protect the farm from predators. It would only take a few wolves to decimate your sheep or cattle. It would only take a few bison or deer or wild hogs to decimate your corn crop. We don't even need to bring in protection from marauding native Americans. Even without the human predators, guns were still necessary. As communities grew to villages, towns, and eventually cities, many people still needed their guns because they were guards against marauders of all kinds, this time including humans.

However, as the colonies progressed, the USA came to a feeling of being oppressed, which led to the Revolutionary War. There, those who had guns became part of the militia. Anyone who had a gun and knew how to use it was forced to take sides. I make no claims of exclusivity, because I'm sure the colonists were not saints, but a number of British atrocities brought about by overzealous officers - or those trying to set an example - led to strong emotions among those citizen-soldiers. It is a dramatization and not to be considered widespread, but the behavior depicted for Colonel Tavington in the movie The Patriot was not unknown.

Here is where the heritage became central to your question. After the war but before the U.S. Constitution was finalized, the colonies debated with much anger and much fervor. There was a vow that was the equivalent of "Never again will we be unarmed in the face of aggression." (Paraphrasing, you understand, 'cause I wasn't there.) In order to get some of the colonies to agree to join the nation, we had to draft the first ten amendments to the constitution, what we now call the "Bill of Rights." These amendments provided added rules and enumerated rights that eventually persuaded the stragglers to join the USA.

And now, the point of historical perspective: That happened less than 250 years ago. These events occured from 1776 to 1789, which means that 2020 is only 244 years back. That is not long enough for the stories to have faded from our culture. When I was in grade school, the USA had not yet celebrated its Bicentennial. We still heard stories about the rugged explorers, hunters, and trappers of our pioneering days. Our most recent states to join the union in the confines of the continental USA were New Mexico and Arizona in 1912, Oklahoma was 1907. Utah was 1896. When we talk of the "Wild West" we are talking about a time when current states were still territories with less law enforcement and military protection than we have now. Guns were still needed to tame those lands due to four-legged predators and two-legged varmints (who also carried guns). We are now talking about times within the familial memories of people who passed down stories from their living grandparents!

During all that time, the gun was the tool of taming a violent environment. Gun ownership in the USA has indeed diminished, but there are those who have that ancestral heritage that showed that the gun was the tool of personal protection. With us, that is still an echo reverberating through our families. Perhaps we are moving towards a time when guns will not be required. But thanks to my genealogy research, I can tell you of my great-great-grandparents who fought in the Civil War (on either side) and can tell you where some of my Confederate ancestors are buried in mass grave sites set aside for Civil War prisoners of war. The Confederacy lost that one - and probably should have lost - but it reinforced the idea that we needed guns in case the current government became oppressive enough to cause a true revolt.

That was one of the tremendous fears of our Founding Fathers - that the government of the USA would become equally as tyrannical as the remote governance of King George III had been. I will leave it to you to consider whether the current situation in the USA is one where you could successfully persuade anyone that we need to turn in our guns and trust the government. Given that factor in our culture, do you think we would?

I don't know if you are familiar with the work of graphic novelist Alan Moore or the movie V for Vendetta, but there is a significant line that has a lot of believers. "People should not fear their government; a government should fear its people." In the USA, we believe that our government derives its power from our continued permission as evidenced by our voting. We try to use the voting booth as a peaceful way to to assure that they remember that fact. You can use that general idea to see why Donald Trump got elected. With Hillary, a lot of us (including me) felt that she was "more of the same" and we had come to distrust that "sameness." The election of Donald Trump was essentially a "revolution in a ballot box."

Tera, I hope this helps you to understand better why we do at least some of what we do and why we remain adamant about having guns.

This was a great piece of writing, @The_Doc_Man
Somehow whenever this issue comes up, where we admittedly have to reach back to "a different time" in order to explain the original reasons (maybe) for the 2nd Amendment, I always feel the need to explain the reason why I choose to believe it's still relevant - not as much to argue or try to persuade the point itself, but simply to assert that "this is why some people interpret the 2nd Amendment the way they do, even today, despite a changed environment".
So we know for a fact that the founders wished to preserve the right to own arms. And admittedly, most people can agree that at least a part of that "wish" was probably borne out of a desire to avoid the need to resist a tyrannical government while having had arms prohibited. But some people basically "stop there". They say alright, since both of those are true, and since today most people don't fear that same brand of tyranny--or if they do, they likely don't see citizens owning semi automatic handguns as any kind of a real deterrent to the will of a US military, then they conclude OK--times are different, context is no longer there, thus 2nd Amendment should no longer be interpreted like it used to, OR, it should be repealed.
But I don't see any requirement for that interpretation. Sure, it's possible that the founders mostly had "tyrannical government" on their minds when they devised the 2nd Amendment. But that does not at all mean we should conclude that "tyrannical government" is the only basis for the 2nd Amendment. To me, the founding fathers had been stung from a recent example of one of the many forms of "harm" that can come to citizens, and consequently additional harm, if they are left powerless to defend themselves. I do not think it's rational to assume that the founders believed tyrannical government to be the only, limited, basis for this fear. Common sense makes it more likely that they were creating a basic rule: Risk of harm exists for all citizens for many reasons - as an example, a tyrannical government and local militias needed. Therefore, as a fundamental right, citizens should never be systematically deprived of whatever is the then-current, commonly attainable individual form of protection.

I see a principle that can be fairly applied to any technological advances--past, present and future. When mankind's best form of defense was a sword, the reasonable interpretation would have been to include swords. Now that mankind's best common form of individual defense is a firearm, then that ought to be the standard.

I'd say the majority of the current-day disagreement about the right to bear arms is that we all, with our opinions, have to fall somewhere on the spectrum, ranging from allowing nothing but slingshots, to allowing nuclear missiles, to be possessed by citizenry. I admit there are a lot of nuances and things to consider along those lines. The principle that I appreciate the founders made clear is that, While allowing people to possess lethal weaponry creates risks & challenges, the right to have a chance to defend yourself is fundamental to fairness and must be preserved.

Now we'll spend the next 200 years trying to agree on fully automatic weapons--when we finally agree, Walmart will be carrying armor-piercing lasers for $100. The law will never keep up with technology.

 

[deletedT]

@The_Doc_Man @Isaac
I think I'm going too much off topic, but I will ask it.

I'm sitting here thinking about your replies and try to understand what was explained. But there are too many questions that bother me.

1. What does tyrannical government means at all? I know the meaning of the phrase, but I fail to understand how you judge a government is tyrannical or not? Is it a per person judgement? Is there a line for this judgement? Is the limits of this phrase is defined in your constitution?
   Rephrasing from Doc's post :
   but it reinforced the idea that we needed guns in case the current government became oppressive enough to cause a true revolt.
   If an american citizen really thinks the government has become oppressive, is he allowed to use his arm against police or government?
   
   
2. All countries in America continent had the same situation. People had to protect themselves against nature and all other things that Doc explained. Did they reach the same conclusion? I mean is possessing firearms is allowed in other countries too? Canada, Mexico, or others?
   
   
3. I've seen this phrase so many times:
   The United States Constitution is often referred to as a "living document" that grows and changes as society moves forward. And no matter a person's view on constitutional interpretation, there's no doubt that amendments to the Constitution have changed the course of the American legal system.
   If it's true, don't you think that someday (in the past or in the future) second amendment should be changed? I mean even if I accept all what Doc explained and I understand why it was necessary at the time to be armed to secure yourself, I will come to this conclusion that maybe second amendment was necessary for that era in your history, but do you really need to keep it all the way to the far future? Will it be a point in future that you may say : We are secure and safe now. Let's delete second amendment...?

 

[deletedT]

on topic:

The first US COVID-19 app built on Apple and Google tracking tech is here

The Virginia Department of Health has launched COVIDWISE, an app that uses Apple and Google’s COVID-19 contact tracing technology to track coronavirus cases and notify users when they may have been exposed. State officials had been beta testing the app, which is the first to fully use Apple and...

www.engadget.com

Virginia's COVIDWISE app is out of beta and available on both mobile platforms.
The Virginia Department of Health has launched COVIDWISE, an app that uses Apple and Google’s COVID-19 contact tracing technology to track coronavirus cases and notify users when they may have been exposed. State officials had been beta testing the app, which is the first to fully use Apple and Google’s exposure notification API. As of today, the app is free to download in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store.

COVIDWISE doesn’t employ GPS to monitor a user’s location, but instead uses Bluetooth to communicate between devices. After downloading the app and opting in to the Exposure Notifications System, it will generate random, anonymous beacons for your device. Other phones in the area receive and store those beacons, and emit their own. “No location data or personal information is ever collected, stored or transmitted to VDH as part of the app,”VDH spokeswoman Julie Grimes told Virginia Public Media. “You can delete the app or turn off exposure notifications at any time.”

Virginia Department of Health
If an app user tests positive for COVID-19, a VDH official will give them a personal identification number that will be used to report the positive result to the app. Each day, phones with the app download a list of all the anonymous beacons associated with positive COVID-19 cases, and checks them against the list of beacons it has encountered in the previous two weeks. If there is a match, the user is notified and given steps to keep themselves and those around them safe.
Participation in the app is voluntary. The more that people download the app, the more effective it will be, Virginia health official Dr. Danny Avila told VPM. While the app could be helpful in letting people know whether they’ve encountered a COVID-19 case, it’s not a replacement for more rigorous forms of contact tracing that involve government officials obtaining an infected person’s information.
Virginia is the first state to use the exposure notification API. North Dakota, Alabama and South Carolina have signed on to use it, but haven’t launched public apps yet, according to 9to5 Mac.

Virginia becomes first US state to debut COVID-19 tracing app using Apple and Google API - 9to5Mac

The Exposure Notification API developed by Apple and Google is officially being put to use in the United States. Virginia...

9to5mac.com

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Three fair questions, Tera.

1. Tyrannical government is one that does not seem to respond to the needs of the people. A properly functioning constitutional representative democracy (as opposed to "true" democracy) as defined for the USA tries to represent everyone's needs as much as possible. One could easily argue that until we got rid of legalized slavery, we were failing in that regard. (No opposition here.) One could argue that until we enabled women to vote, that we were failing in that regard. (Again, no opposition here.) The "Black Lives Matter" movement, as far as I can tell from what I have seen, heard, and read, is NOT about USA governmental oppression of blacks, but of SOCIETAL oppression.

You judge a government to be tyrannical when enough people have had enough and successfully overthrow the tyrannical government. You are quite right that it is a relative, not absolute, viewpoint as to where tyranny starts. You would need a history expert or a good review article to enumerate the actions of George III of England with regard to the colonies, but he apparently crossed the line 'cause we fought - and won - the war.

2. Not all countries in the Americas had the same situation because some learned from our examples. Not only that, but we had multiple countries populating the colonies. Canada didn't fight a war of independence from France or England and many people stayed allegiant to the European founders. Many of the Spanish colonies in North America split from Spain. Mexico did too, eventually. But (with due respect, Tera), other people's experience in the colonies is irrelevant. We experienced what we experienced, or to paraphrase President Trump, "It was what it was." But to answer the question about gun laws in other countries, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

3. The U.S. Constitution is indeed a living document and might one day be amended regarding gun laws. However, it takes a lot of societal pressure to do that, and we have had experience with changes that don't work so well. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment extended the "Due Process of Law" concept. The 15th amendment established certain voting rights. So yes, it changes from time to time. But we also saw what happened when some people tried to legislate morality with the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) in 1919, and by 1933 the country ratified its repeal.

The question remains, will the USA ever feel safe enough to not keep guns? But if you look at world events, where thugs from Boko Haram kidnap children to keep them from getting a secular education, that would scare parents. You look at terrorists using IEDs and bomb vests in some areas. We have been attacked by terrorists ourselves. When you see riots in the streets of your own home town, as has happened in Detroit, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston (we are talking over the last several DECADES), you see police stretched to their limit and unable to respond quickly (or at all, in the case of the Seattle "CHOP" area). You see rioters tearing apart businesses. And you want to tell people "Sorry but we can't protect you ... and oh, by the way, we are going to take away your guns so that YOU cannot protect yourself either." All I can say is "NO." That just isn't going to work here.

I don't know if I have adequately expressed your questions, Tera, and I would be happy to explore the situation further. However, I must admit that past a certain point, I am no better a source than a good web browser would be. It has been 55 years since I studied US History in school.

 

[Isaac]

Three fair questions, Tera.

1. Tyrannical government is one that does not seem to respond to the needs of the people. A properly functioning constitutional representative democracy (as opposed to "true" democracy) as defined for the USA tries to represent everyone's as much as possible. One could easily argue that until we got rid of legalized slavery, we were failing in that regard. (No opposition here.) One could argue that until we enabled women to vote, that we were failing in that regard. (Again, no opposition here.) The "Black Lives Matter" movement, as far as I can tell from what I have seen, heard, and read, is NOT about USA governmental oppression of blacks, but of SOCIETAL oppression.

You judge a government to by tyrannical when enough people have had enough and successfully overthrow the tyrannical government. You are quite right that it is a relative, not absolute, viewpoint as to where tyranny starts. You would need a history expert or a good review article to enumerate the actions of George III of England with regard to the colonies, but he apparently crossed the line 'cause we fought - and won - the war.

2. Not all countries in the Americas had the same situation because some learned from our examples. Not only that, but we had multiple countries populating the colonies. Canada didn't fight a war of independence from France or England and many people stayed allegiant to the European founders. Many of the Spanish colonies in North America split from Spain. Mexico did too, eventually. But (with due respect, Tera), other people's experience in the colonies is irrelevant. We experienced what we experienced, or to paraphrase President Trump, "It was what it was." But to answer the question about gun laws in other countries, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

3. The U.S. Constitution is indeed a living document and might one day be amended regarding gun laws. However, it takes a lot of societal pressure to do that, and we have had experience with changes that don't work so well. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment extended the "Due Process of Law" concept. The 15th amendment established certain voting rights. So yes, it changes from time to time. But we also saw what happened when some people tried to legislate morality with the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) in 1919, and by 1933 the country ratified its repeal.

The question remains, will the USA ever feel safe enough to not keep guns? But if you look at world events, where thugs from Boko Haram kidnap children to keep them from getting a secular education, that would scare parents. You look at terrorists using IEDs and bomb vests in some areas. We have been attacked by terrorists ourselves. When you see riots in the streets of your own home town, as has happened in Detroit, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston (we are talking over the last several DECADES), you see police stretched to their limit and unable to respond quickly (or at all, in the case of the Seattle "CHOP" area). You see rioters tearing apart businesses. And you want to tell people "Sorry but we can't protect you ... and oh, by the way, we are going to take away your guns so that YOU cannot protect yourself either." All I can say is "NO." That just isn't going to work here.

I don't know if I have adequately expressed your questions, Tera, and I would be happy to explore the situation further. However, I must admit that past a certain point, I am no better a source than a good web browser would be. It has been 55 years since I studied US History in school.

I have to laugh at myself, I keep coming along and, totally unwanted by anyone, adding little personal clips to what Doc says. LOL. I hope no one minds?
Tera, I appreciated that in your response you raised a question which, inherent in the question itself, caused me to challenge myself on the tyrannical issue. It made me say Isaac? What exactly is the legitimacy of this "right to resist tyranny", if it is unable to be defined and essentially could be used in name for any end? My answer to myself was this: Yeah, it's basically unable to be defined. That's the downside. But if the right to resist tyranny is eliminated, then there is no chance of resisting tyranny. If the possibility of doing so is supported as a fundamental right, then there is a chance at resisting tyranny. All that being true, whatever tyranny may be. People here are comfortable with that ambiguity, it seems better than the alternative.

 

[deletedT]

I don't know if I have adequately expressed your questions, Tera, and I would be happy to explore the situation further. However, I must admit that past a certain point, I am no better a source than a good web browser would be. It has been 55 years since I studied US History in school.

Doc, you were and are excellent in answering my questions. If I insist and go round a circle and insist on my own beliefs, It's not because of your insufficient reply, but simply because of our cultural difference and it takes a little time for me to be able to stand in your shoes and see the world through your eyes.
I really appreciate every single word you address me.

 

[deletedT]

@The_Doc_Man

In case of the link you posted about gun laws in different countries, there was something I want to add to Japan's section in that article.

1- Most of our policemen/policewomen doesn't carry guns at all. Most of the rest who carry guns, their weapons are not loaded. It means they don't have shells. Only a rare part of them have loaded guns, and nobody can recognize who is carrying a loaded gun.
2- It's true that when they go to arrest a criminal, they put their guns in the station. It gives the one who is going to be arrested some kind of peace of mind.

 

[deletedT]

totally unwanted by anyone, adding little personal clips to what Doc says.

@Isaac I can't judge for others. But for me, I appreciate any reply you post. Not only your replies help me understand the situation, but the way I see you, you are one of those rare members here that sees (or tries to see) both sides (Rep, Dem) fairly and judge according to what you feel, not based on your political stand points.

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac I can't judge for others. But for me, I appreciate any reply you post. Not only your replies help me understand the situation, but the way I see you, you are one of those rare members here that sees (or tries to see) both sides (Rep, Dem) fairly and judge according to what you feel, not based on your political stand points.

Thanks for the kind words. That is my stated ideal, although I'm still guilty of getting caught up in some of my favorite "beliefs" and becoming closed on the issue, but I guess the best place to start is to make it at least be our goal.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Its all good to be balanced in your politics, as long as the people who are judging you are also balanced in their approach.

 

[Isaac]

Well, I agree with the implication that from the high view of things, unfortunately, if the existence of extreme viewpoints without balance is going to be a fact, sometimes the most effective antidote is the same thing on the other side. But I'm pretty sure with human nature the way it is, we'll always have plenty of both. However, even that strategy is the result of a careful, calculating viewpoint whose end desired outcome is....balance.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Since this thread has talked about balanced and unbalanced treatments, I guess I'll have to admit to being unbalanced. Oh, wait, we were talking politics?...

The concept of balance applies in politics like it does in other parts of life, and even in the Yin/Yang symbol. (And would you believe that the smilies on this forum don't include that symbol?)

The whole point of the government laid out by the USA Founding Fathers was that EVERYTHING was seen as compromise in a world which was guaranteed to be impermanent in its characteristics, with what we call "checks and balances" to prevent a runaway government. We don't have a king or a royal family with power. England's monarchy is symbolic because they are governed through Parliament. We don't have a permanent dictator like North Korea. Our leader potentially gets changed out every four years. Our members of Congress change out potentially every two years for the House and six years for the Senate.

For a long time, Congress did what was called "logrolling" - originally a big balancing act by a lumberjack rolling a log in a lake and trying to stay afloat / above water on a constantly moving, slippery surface that bobbed up and down, tilted, and rolled. The government found many compromises and kept the country going, trying to find a balance point that offered at least some care of poor people but allowed people who could do it to not stay poor. Welfare and Medicare and Social Security are some examples of offering help to poor people.

I'm not sure I can put a date on it, but a long time ago we started slipping away from the compromises that kept us going reasonably well. Here is the thing about compromises - NOBODY likes everything about them but EVERYBODY likes something about them. "Every dog gets a bone." Well, a lot of people decided that wasn't enough and wanted more. But a funny thing called reality stepped in. Sometimes there IS no more. Witness Greece from several years ago. Witness the City of Detroit within the last few years. I believe Chicago isn't far behind. When too many people demand too much and claim it as rightfully theirs, they ignore the fact that they didn't earn it.

The "entitlement" mind-set is largely to blame for the problems here. Poor people have lost track of the fact that taking stuff from someone else is theft or robbery. People (particularly prominent Democrats) bemoan the loss of Democracy, forgetting that we never had it. There was a phrase that was popular a few years ago speaking of the "tyranny of democracy." A "true" democracy can reinstate slavery against a minority and make it law. This is what the Founding Fathers desperately wanted to avoid. That is why we have TWO chambers in our legislature and why their representation is not handled identically. One is by population, the other by geo-political boundaries. Thus, in the Senate, Wyoming and Vermont (the two least populous states) have equal footing with California and Texas (the two MOST populous states.) The House is based on population alone, with a rough average of one Representative for every 700,000 persons (give or take a few percent due to rounding).

This bizarre dichotomy means that the tyranny of the majority has to get through the Senate where all states are equal. You can't easily ram-rod a bad piece of legislation through Congress except in rare moments when the "election pendulum" has swung too far, leading to serious imbalance in the Senate. Recent case in point: The Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare.

Since the 2nd Amendment to the constitution defines the right to keep and bear arms, it will take a constitutional amendment to revoke that right. Which means that amendment would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states (rounded up). That's 34 states. So back to Tera's question on whether we would be able to do something about gun rights - surely we can. But we have to get 2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of the Senate to agree and then we would have to get the president to sign it. We CAN make changes; we have done so in the past; but I do not see this one coming any time soon.

 

[moke123]

Since the 2nd Amendment to the constitution defines the right to keep and bear arms, it will take a constitutional amendment to revoke that right.

In addition to Docs explanation, we have a third branch of government, the judiciary. In theory, they could interpret (define) the 2nd amendment to only encompass a well regulated militia therefore precluding gun ownership by private citizens.

 

[Jon]

It depends on what you mean by balanced. If someone has a different view to someone else, the average of these views isn't necessary a balance. It is just another view somewhere on the political continuum. It does not mean the average view is any more rational than the other view. It does not mean that they see the other point of view clearer than the person who is not in the centre.

And some issues are binary. One says we need X, the other says we need not-X. The "balanced" person can't make up their mind.

 

[Steve R.]

In addition to Docs explanation, we have a third branch of government, the judiciary. In theory, they could interpret (define) the 2nd amendment to only encompass a well regulated militia therefore precluding gun ownership by private citizens.

The "militia" consists of private citizens. The terms "militia" and "well regulated militia" have been subject to extreme debate as to their meaning.

On the word "militia", Wikipedia: "During colonial America, all able-bodied white men of all ages were members of the militia, depending on the respective state's rule." So the simple fact that you were a white male between certain ages made you a member of the "militia". This simple "simple" interpretation and concept appears to have died out over the years in favor of a more "formal" structure (organizations), such as a State's National Guard. Nevertheless it seems that even today private citizens are members of the "militia". Today, there is a more formal definition, the "militia" is now divided into two classes: organized and unorganized. The unorganized "militia", being anyone not in an organized "militia".

As to "well regulated militia", from a short CNN paper: "27 Words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment

One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.

"In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In theory, they could interpret (define) the 2nd amendment to only encompass a well regulated militia therefore precluding gun ownership by private citizens.

@moke123 - yes, they could - except that I believe that has already been tested and found to not be the correct interpretation. By the Supreme Court's principle of stare decisis, they would not revisit that decision soon. For those not up on their Latin, that is "let the decision stand" - meaning "don't go revisiting cases or hearing new cases when we've already resolved this question.

 

[moke123]

Until a new question comes up and the court agrees to hear it. 30 years ago who would have thought the court would have to define the word "Sex"

 

[AccessBlaster]

"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."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia, instead it says the people. This is why the founding fathers are under attack along with the Constitution. These were very smart people.