> so violent retribution is fully legitimate.

Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself, your family, or your home. So far as I (as a fairly well-educated citizen) know, this is only voided when the invader is an officer of the police. And there are stiff laws prohibiting the impersonation of a police officer.

If someone other than a police officer attempted to force their way into my home and attempted to take myself, my wife, and my son prisoner, I don't think I would believe them if they claimed to have some kind of civil search warrant. Now I know that "Anton Piller orders" are a thing that exists, but I still have my doubts.

> Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself

If Person A violently attacks Person B, then Person B has a right to defend themselves on the legal theory that Person A instigated the violence. "Credible threat" clauses muddy the line, but continue to rest on the pedestal of reaction versus action [1].

Here a court gave a company the right to instigate violence against the defendant. At least to this American, that's absurd.

[1] http://cji.edu/site/assets/files/1921/actionversusreaction.p...

Yes, and to this American, I assume I'm person B and in my rights to resist if they instigate and are not carrying a badge.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but doesn't a bail bondsman do something similar in how extreme it is in the US too?

Note that self-defence is a defense, not a justification. It doesn't stop you from being taken to court, because you still were involved in something the law considers a crime. Your actions being self-defence just mean that the judge will likely find that there is reasonable doubt whether you were, in fact, committing murder. You might still have been committing murder! You might have set the other guy up to attack you so you could kill him, like with the old custom of professional "hired gun" duelists. But, since the other guy did attacked you first, it's (usually) impossible to prove that that's why you did it, rather than it just being because you were, in fact, trying to save your own life. (Unless you left written documentation of your nefarious plots somewhere.)

Fun fact: this is also true of "Fair Use" in copyright suits—it's also a defence, not a justification. If you put a 30-second sample of someone else's song in your song, they can still sue you, and waste your time and money in court! They just probably won't win, in the end. But if they have a lot more money than you, you might plea anyway.

Retribution and self defense are distinct motives. The former is about justice and the latter is about protection.

There is a reason for the second amendment.

Yes there is, to ensure a well regulated militia is possible.

To note, "well-regulated" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was authored than what a contemporary reader may interpret the term to mean. Some context is available here[1].

[1] http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

That just leaves the question of what a well regulated militia in this sense is, how it being well regulated is determined, etc open to legitimate further legislation.

To put it another way, is there constitutional justification for citizens to bear arms for purposes which have nothing to do with a well regulated militia? If so the well regulayed militia qualification has no meaning, right? So what's it there for?

Just curious, fair disclosure I'm a Brit so I have no standing in this.

American here. I just don't understand the line of reasoning used above you.

>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.

If the intent is only a well regulated militia is to own arms why does it specifically call out the people in that way? Isn't "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Its worded very oddly, if the intent actually was "the right of the government to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." why not say that?

Also, if the intent is to allow only governmental actors to own arms why does that right have to be specifically called out? The purpose of the constitution was to protect the people from government over reach has there ever been a nation where a totalitarian regime prevented his own army and police from having guns against the wishes of his people?

Yes. The second amendment is using the comma as an "and". It means that we have the right to both a well regulated militia and for the citizenry to own and bear arms. It is not for the purposes of conscripting the citizenry into some militia. It is intended for the citizenry to defend themselves, against tyrants and assailants.

If the second amendment was just about having a well regulated militia, then they would not have mentioned the second part about citizens bearing arms.

The comma is "just an 'and'"?

> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's a garbage sentence.

Also, there isn't a 'first part' and a 'second part', because "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not a complete sentence.

The sentence means this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

The comma acts as an "and", to combine two different but similar rights

But how do you infringe on a militia? Only one right is actually mentioned here; nothing is said about a right to a militia.

And that meaning of 'well-regulated' is also missing from the armed citizens of today. 'Well-regulated' did not mean the chaos of every-man-for-himself and zero oversight.

Not to mention that the definition of 'militia' as 'all adult men' came from the 1900s, not the 1780s.

I don't know much about America (not from there): do you guys actually have those? I know you have a National Guard, but that's state-run, right? Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist?

Odd thought: would private paramilitary security contractors technically be a "well-regulated militia" in this sense? If the US were attacked in a land war (somehow), would employees of Academi et al be expected to come out to defend their local areas?

The Unorganized Militia as defined in 10 U.S. Code Section 311 is effectively all able-bodied fighting-age male citizens:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 The classes of the militia are--

 the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

 the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sec...

That definition came in well over a century after the Second Amendment was written (1956, as far as I can tell), and so should have no bearing on interpretation of the founders' intent.

> Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist?

"The Southern Poverty Law Center identified 334 militia groups at their peak in 2011. It identified 276 in 2015, up from 202 in 2014" [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_U...

Are those the same, or indexed because they have a high probability to cause trouble?

All National Guard units were federalized immediately after World War 2 (meaning that yes, they are "state-run" both literally and figuratively).

Yeah, because righteous revenge works so well for maintaining a civil society.

I'm not saying it would work well, I'm saying it would be justified.

And I wouldn't call what happened here 'civil' - at best, the civility was one-sided: they get to raid his home, hold him captive, and force him to answer, but he doesn't get to do anything.