If 8.1 billion people marched on a government, even with a full array of advanced and nuclear weapons in their arsenal, would they still definitely lose? What about one billion? A hundred million? Ten million? Where do you think the line is?
Caveat: The government does want to be able to live on earth again within their lifetimes, but can spend up to a year in bunkers, and the military doesn’t revolt- given that nuclear weapons can be deployed by one person, the worst option doesn’t even really require the military’s cooperation.
No, it’s completely right. At the time of writing, it did literally mean all able men of fighting age. This was determined by the supreme court in 2008. That’s not to say there weren’t specific militia organizations, but it’s not what the amendment is specifically referring to.
I’ll admit, I didn’t know the Supreme Court had said that.
It’s an insane interpretation - and I see that many justices said so at the time.
I guess whether or not the writers of the amendment actually meant every able-bodied man when they wrote “well-regulated militia”, or whether they meant a militia, is impossible to know for sure.
But to say that the word meant something different at the time is patently untrue. Around the English speaking world at that time, local militias - with that specific word used - were used to keep order. It was a common word for an actual thing people would have been familiar with.