Yes, it does.
The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.
This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.
Actually, it really might in this case.
A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.
Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Download the paper, read pages 10 and 11 for context.
There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.
One questioned 'Why doesn't this include the president?'.
Another senator replied 'It does under the section of anyone who holds an office'.
The response was 'Ok, I was unclear on that'. And the debate carried on.
So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.
Which is the core reason why there is no peaceful solution.
Israel was founded as a Jewish ethnostate. Imagine if the same was done but it was a white ethnostate. Who would be the first to move there?
White nationalists who want a pure white ethnostate, that's who. That's what happened in Israel. Those who wanted àto separate themselves from 'the other'. It's why there is such a strong radical ethnic based faction of Jews in Israel whose views aren't reflected in most of the Jewish populations elsewhere.
Conversely, those who haven't found a way to flee Gaza over the decades are more likely to believe that they, as an ethnicity, are the rightful owners of the various holy sites and land in the area and the only solution is the removal or subjegation of the Jewish people from the region.
With both sides having significant and loud sections of their populations calling for the destruction of the other, how can peace ever happen?
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.
All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.
It's a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.
You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).
Joke pivots on the interpretation of the word 'address'. In this context it would mean 'how do you handle this problem'.
However, it can also mean 'what is the proper way to refer to something (Ms, Mrs, Your Majesty, etc).
The joke is instead of addressing meaning handle the dangerous situation it means what is the proper way to refer to the elephant.
If she were trying to have children, sure then I can believe medical science could make that happen.
But menopause happens in part because the body runs out of viable eggs. The body doesn't produce more over a life; you are born with your supply.
Why would medical science have given her more eggs at some point?
Good. Embrace me technology.
I just want to say that this comment was a rollercoaster of emotions and I enjoyed the ride.