The term doesn't refer to being under the control of a government.
latest media meme: why should civilians be able to own assualt weapons?
followed by: if they can be armed like the military, why not tanks and bazookas...?
The Second Amendment was written to prevent another King George in America (like now in the WH.) We had just defeated the totalitarian British. As stated, it was not about hunting. Hunting was a necessity for getting food, as well as protection from Indians and outlaws. A shotgun or single-shot rifle would do for most hunting back then.
A semi-automatic well-filled clip is necessary when defending rights from intrusive government. As usual the dictator-like Democrat Party is determined to ban any rifle they determine to be “war-like.” Assault rifles can be fired on automatic. Those require a special license from ATF. A patriot who voted for Obama is not one.
bunkerhill7 to Jeff Winston
Actually it means more than that:
1887 Webster`s Dictionary:
“to bear, bear v.t., “
“1. to support and move; or carry
2. To be equipped, furnished, or marked with;
to have as belonging, distinguishing, identifying, or characterizing; as to bear a sword, an inscription,, a title, a good reputation or an evil look,
7. To be directed; to be pointed; as, to plant guns to bear upon a trench”
I think the redefining will be around common and general Welfare of the United States
You redefine both of those and it's a game changer. Does anyone here think that those at the DUmp or anybody @ the Soros group defines general Welfare the same as we do?
How I see it (FWIW)
States maintain a Militia
States appoint the Officers of the Militia
Congress prescribes a training discipline by which the States are to train the Militia
Congress provides for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
Congress shall govern such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States - that part which is not employed in the service of the United States is not governed by Congress but by the State
Congress shall call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
When called into the actual Service of the United States the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States
Amendment II
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.
Conclusion:
The people keep and bear Arms.
The people are to be trained by the State according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
The people are to be armed by Congress
The Militia may be called upon for service by their Governor
The Militia may be called upon for service by Congress.
States are to train the Militia according to the discipline presecribed by Congress.
Congress shall arm the Militia - the people.
BTW whatever happened to State Armories? I am not speaking of National Guard posts, but State Armories. Congress shall arm the Militia... which houses the arms in the State Armory. Where have those arms gone? Heavy arms. Where are they? The militia has not been provided for. The States do not train the militia... the whole of the people. States can not repel Invasions, hello Arizona!
Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment made by both sides revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms. What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!
The Constitution identifies what powers that ‘’We the people’’grant to the government. This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the government what it can and cannot do.
That is why Marxists Democrats like Obama hate our Constitution because it is a limitation on Government not a limitation on We The People.....
Read the Second Amendment closely, it doesn’t say the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the
government cannot infringe on that right.
Amendment II
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.
That’s it, that is the whole 2nd Amendment...where does it say that the government gives us any right? It doesn’t, it only says that the government cannot infringe on our rights.
The framers of our Constitution considered our rights to be “natural’ rights, “fundamental” rights. Basic rights that all free people possess.
Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government. — Ayn Rand
The supreme court made a clear distinction between Article 1; Section 8 “ Defense” and the 2nd amendment in Houston v Moore in 1820.
You should also add in the Pre-amble to the Bill of Rights that clearly states it's purpose.
RKBA is an Individual Right and is not dependent upon militia service.
5.56mm
..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Constitution was written by intelligent people for mostly uneducated citizens. It was written in plain language so the average citizen could understand it.
It lays out our rights as citizens.
It doesn’t specify what arms we can keep, but it also doesn’t exclude any.
The Constitution is not a cafeteria plan.