Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_Gun_Control.htm

The good Justice Ginsburg was arguing from the legal principle that when the reason for a law ceases to exist, then the law also ceases to exist. However, her reading of the 2nd Amendment was entirely wrong, and that principle cannot be applied in this matter.

She thinks the sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a militia to the government, in lieu of an unaffordable "standing army", and points to the "Militia clause" as proof of that opinion.

First, she ignores entirely the main clause of the sentence, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If RBG thinks the right is only for militia purposes, then why does it not read "The right of the Militia ..."? The militia was only a sub-set of the people, far less than half the total "people".

Second, she fails to realize that "nominative absolute" known as "the Militia clause" states A reason, and not necessarily THE reason for the statement of the pre-existing right of the people now set down and guaranteed.

Third, she mistakes entirely the meaning of the reason for the 2nd Amendment's existence, thinking it was, somehow, a "right" granted by the Federal Government to the people, so they could serve the need of that government for a militia. Consequently, since that governmental need no longer exists, the right has also ceased to exist.

Fourth, she does not comprehend that the "Militia clause" is not THE REASON the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, to serve the needs of the government. It is A REASON why the Federal Government would not want to infringe on the people's RKBA --- they would "cut their own throats" by disarming the people from whom the vital militia was drawn.