No. of Recommendations: 1
I think I'm more of an "originalist" than Scalia, or at least more of a literalist. It says "well-regulated militia" right in the 2A. That means what it means. If one doesn't like it, change it through the amendment process. Don't just ignore it like Scalia did.
And that appears to be in line with the collectivist view of the 2A, which I like too. When I look at the Constitution, I see that Congress and the individual States have control over the militia. That there are no self appointed militias, and that Congress, who has the power, has in the US code designated the National Guard and a Navy group as the organized militia. The unorganized militia is the draft pool of men.
In the collective rights view, the prefatory clause modifies that operative clause, and the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right, not an individual one. So the 2A gave the State power over militia, and there is no individual right to keep an bear arms. I thought of it as a Heisenberg 2A principle - the more you want military weapons, the more you want the prefatory clause to mean something, the less individual right you have to keep and bear arms. The more you want an individual right to bear arms, the less meaning to the prefatory clause, the less military style weapons are available.
Now it appears some people think there can be a hybrid between individual and collective rights.
