"The fact that militia members are no longer required to supply their own arms when reporting for service has depleted the Second Amendment of most of its vitality," the Brady Center stated. "And, in fact, the Second Amendment remains relevant today because the rights it protects are held by the National Guard."
IDIOT!!! That is PRECISELY why the National Guard is NOT the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, but just another reserve component of the US Army or Air Force that is USUALLY available for state service, but not always. (in WWII most NG units were in FEDERAL service and NOT available for state missions since many were overseas) Here in Illinois the state formed the Illinois Reserve Militia to compensate for the loss of the guard to state service. Those people mainly supplied their OWN military pattern weapons when summoned for duty.
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
The militia was those heros in a hijacked plane over Pennsylvania. They did not have "guns".
The red berets of Curis Sliwa are the "militia". The founders knew two things. #1 It was financially and physically impossible for any government to protect its citizens all of the time. #2 If a government did try to protect everybody all the time, then the government would become the criminal because power corrupts.
Thus, what is needed is for the "militia", which means you and me, to take actions (with or without arms) to protect ourselves, our families and our neighbors.
(Central Highlands Bob)
I might also add that everyone who owns a firearm needs training to use that firearm. A well-regulated militia means a well maintained militia. If we have firearms but do not have adequate training to use them, they will be of little use to us when we need them. Worst we could end up killing ourselves or a loved one if we do not train.
I believe we all need to get correct training with firearms even if we end up needing to pay several hundred dollars to get that training.