> Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause.

The full wording of the 2nd amendment is:

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.

The phrase "well regulated" means "well supplied", as in lots of guns and ammo, i.e. ready for battle, It does not mean "lots of government regulations" to restrict the rights of individuals to bear arms. The mention of the militia is an additional reason for the people to bear arms beyond their intrinsic individual right.

That's an, ahhh, "interesting" reinterpretation of the phrase. I'm sure it's an attractive understanding if it suits your political stance, but I don't see any support for it in the dictionary...

The Supreme Court of the United States agrees[1] with that definition:

> Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

[1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

You originally said "The phrase 'well regulated' means 'well supplied', as in lots of guns and ammo", but your quote says it means "the imposition of proper discipline and training".

It doesn't seem like they agree with you?

I'd be much more comfortable with gun ownership requiring "proper discipline and training".

Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote.

> Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote.

That's neither relevant nor true.

The case, D.C. v. Heller[1], was decided 5-4 with Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, representing the majority.

Scalia (1986) and Kennedy (1987) were nominated by President Reagan who had won the 1984 election with 58.8% of the vote (v.s. 40.6% for Mondale).

Thomas (1991) was nominated by President Bush who had won the 1988 election with 53.4% of the vote (vs. 45.6% for Dukakis).

Roberts (2005) and Alito (2005) were nominated by President Bush who had won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the vote (v.s. 48.3% for Kerry).

Not some, __all__, of the justices that decided that case were appointed by Presidents who had won both the popular vote and the electoral college.

Not that it matters though. A justice appointed by a President who only wins the electoral college is just as much as a justice.

And none of that is relevant to the point that your quote from the Supreme Court doesn't even remotely support the interpretation you claimed.

I was responding to the nonsensical and incorrect argument about the makeup of the court that decided Heller.

A militia is made up of ordinary citizens. It’s armaments are those of its members. It’s not a separate body. For it to be in working order, the populace are the ones that need to be armed and their right to bear those arms must not be infringed.

Note that the militia angle is merely an additional reasoning for why those rights exist. It’s an example, not a precondition.

Surely judicial decisions shouldn't be dictated by "the popular vote" anyway.

But then, one of the tragedies of modern America is that the Supreme Court seems to have become as much a political entity as a judicial one.