Replies

I'd be curious which law you are citing…

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

(I don't know why that's not coming up as a live link. I didn't do anything different.)

§246. Militia: composition and classes

(a) 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.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

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

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (Emphasis added.)

An "organized" militia is not the same as a "well-regulated" militia where "regulated" has the meaning in use at the time the 2nd Amendment was approved.

You previously wrote "Well-regulated" meant "smoothly and efficiently operating.". Perhaps I’m giving them to much of the benefit of the doubt, but I thought that applied to the National Guard.

You previously wrote "Well-regulated" meant "smoothly and efficiently operating.". Perhaps I’m giving them to much of the benefit of the doubt, but I thought that applied to the National Guard.

Just because the National Guard can operate smoothly and efficiently does not mean that a militia comprised of private citizens cannot also operate smoothly and efficiently. In fact, as I referenced in the LA riots, there have been times when the private citizens militia was more effective than the National Guard - not because the Guard was inherently less capable as individuals, but because their orders were from a government with objectives other than safeguarding the lives and property of law-abiding private citizens.

My key premise is that our founders wrote into the Constitution a guarantee that private citizens could 'keep and bear arms' so that at least some of them would be able to use their own weapons and the skills that develop from continuous familiarity with those weapons (from, among other things, hunting, sport, and self-defense) to form an effective counter against even organized forces and thus secure a 'free state'. I think that is still the most direct and applicable interpretation of the words of the Second Amendment.