Don't you just love the Orwellian twist of calling strict-constructionist judges "activists?"

It's frightening how smoothly they construct this drivel.

"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."

As others have noted, that first clause is only there to provide framework and justification for the main idea, that the people have the right to bear arms. It makes no sense to look at this sentence structure and see the first clause as some kind of qualifier, limiting those rights.

A well regulated militia is necessary... THEREFORE the people have the right to bear arms.

I was on a business trip a couple years back. My colleague invited another person from the office to join us for lunch. The guy was a liberal who loved the "living document" approach to the Constitution. I drove the point home by telling him that the lunch menu is a living document too. You entree has been re-priced to $100. If you fail to pay, you will be arrested for theft of services. I asked if he thought that was fair or should the price charged be what was printed at the time he ordered. I'm not sure it made any difference. Liberalism is sometimes a consequence of illiteracy that can be changed with education. Sometimes it is a deep seated mental illness that is unmovable.

This “interpretation” requires one to believe that having just won a revolution from tyranny, the founders were first concerned that the new government might not be able to arm itself, and so created the Second Amendment to ensure that the government was able to arm itself.

I don’t think so!

I’m glad this guy wasn’t my history professor, his thinking is very muddled.

Thanks for posting that. I couldn't find my copy, now it's saved.

How long before the left starts demanding "proportional representation". The left does not like the fact that after years and years of unopposed advancing leftist issues across the political debate spectrum, they are finally starting to loose ground.

The left will not be satisfied by going quietly into the night.

The word militia was a term-of-art back then, meaning the population-at-large. Why not go straight to the source and include a Founding Father in the debate.

In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army.

quote:
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.

A militia of the people, or Posse Comitatus would be a counter-balance to a standing army. In The Federalist #29, Hamilton states the need for a militia to be regulated by the States, not the Federal government:

quote:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming.

quote:
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

Hamilton now argues that it is impractical to expect a militia to act as a standing army.

quote:
``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Hamilton then reasons that if there should be a need for a standing army, there should at least also be a disciplined militia to offset the power of the army.

quote:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Finally, Hamilton supposes that a militia under the control of the States would resist the temptation of a Federal authority using it for it's own purposes.

quote:
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

Here is a link to the entire set of Federalist Papers. Even though these were written in 1788, the principles still hold true today.

-PJ

Amazing how they hide behind their beloved First Amendment to trash the Second Amendment. Maybe we should counter with the idea that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals, only the government.

Your RIGHT and they will only get my guns from MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

The keyword choice should be used in every debate concerning the right to keep and bear arms. We have a natural right to defend ourselves from harm, just as the mother bear would defend her cubs. Just as the expression about choice is misconstrued when the subject is life in the womb, it should always be our choice to use whatever means is available to defend ourselves from harm. Take away the right to keep and bear arms and you remove from us the right of choice. In this matter, choice is decidedly pro-life.

the preamble, which states the purpose of the amendment, to create a "well regulated Militia."

"Because for this militia thingy to work properly, people really need to have guns when they are called, so we don't want anything to prevent them having guns."

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.

Just consider that the founders of our nation had just finished defeating the greatest military power on the planet, thanks in no small part to a citizen militia, armed with military weapons such as the smooth bore Brown Bess musket, and often technologically superior rifled muskets. It is the height of absurdity to think that the second amendment in the Bill of Rights is primarily concerned with shooting bunny rabbits.

If we don't constantly emphasize the constitutional reasons for the Second Amendment than we shall surely lose it, because hunting, while a worthy enterprise, is too trivial a reason to maintain it has a constitutional protection. We need to emphasize to our hunting bretheren that maintenance of the second amendment's constitutional rationale serves to protect their rights to continue to own firearms for hunting. The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny. We need to constantly remind the people what the militia in the 2nd amendment is REALLY for..... A citizen body organized for military purposes and by extension, logically equipped with weapons of military utility. If we don't constantly emphasize the constitutional reasons for the Second Amendment than we shall surely lose it, because hunting, while a worthy enterprise, is too trivial a reason to maintain it has a constitutional protection. We need to emphasize to our hunting bretheren that maintenance of the second amendment's constitutional rationale serves to protect their rights to continue to own firearms for hunting.

RE: "The individual right of the People to keep and bear arms is protected so that we may be able to form our OWN militias as the last resort in a system of checks and balances that restrict those who would abuse the power of government office."

This bears repeating, over and over again if necessary until gun control-nuts understand it. When a populace is unarmed, they are ultimately at the mercy of their leaders (elected or not) and whatever armies/militias said leaders control; and THAT is why the Framers (who had great foresight on this issue, seeing as what happened in the 20th Century to a Disarmed Germany and China)) provided us with a fundamentally important right to keep and bear arms for ourselves in America.

Sometimes the only thing that prevents the spread of tyranny is a well-armed civilian population who are ready to use those arms when necessary to DEMAND their human rights and liberties from their leaders. The 2nd Amendment also makes for a grand protection of our national security: the deterrance it provides was crucial to our victory during the cold war, and many ex-Soviet agents have gone on record in the last decade as saying that one of the main reasons the U.S.S.R. never attempted an invasion of American soil was the fear that millions of armed American citizens would make any such occupation an impossible quagmire for the Soviets.

Although gun rights advocates have tried to claim that bearing arms did not have a military connotation at the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, they have never been able to provide a body of evidence to support their claims.

The very next year, the Founding Fathers passed a federal law - the Militia Act of 1792 - requiring all males 18-45 arm themselves with muskets at their own expense.

That, plus a host of laws, writings, discussion and quotations provide overwhelming body of evidence the Founding Fathers intended the military might of the USA should come from the self-armed citizens themselves. To say there is no such body of evidence is to be wilfully ignorant.

A well regulated militia, ...

in the context of the individual right to self defense, should not have anything to do with the state or the fed controlling said militia, though there should be an organized state method to use them... but more so "a well regulated militia"... refers to the training and efficient use of the tools to preserve an individual's "State of being free." or the right to self protection.

So... in other words, in order to guarantee individuals will be able to become accustomed to use their weapons well, being the best guarantee that they will not be ensloved by a tyrannical government, state or federal, the right of said individual's right to carry his weapons about cannot be condemned by elected officials...

your interpretation takes too much from the individual.

imho.

teeman

No, they never stop their distortions. Gun control is a religion for certain extreme portions of the population. Frankly, I read a paragraph or so of commentaries like this and skip reading. It isn't worth my time and effort. It's time I could be spending cleaning up that waxy, yellow buildup on the kitchen floor.

Sorry to not get back with you sooner. It's hell month for me; the General Assembly is in session and life, liberty and property are in danger like they are every year. I'm busy as a rented mule with my gunnies.

The good news is we're doing pretty well in the VA General Assembly so far; no gawdawful gun control laws have made it through. Only one gun control has passed the more anti-gun Senate, but it will hopefully/probably die in the House.

All in all it's been a good year for Virginia. No tax hikes so far and lots of good gun legislation still in the hopper. I don't think Alaska carry will pass this year, but you never know. Alaska carry....it's an important first step.

Take Care!

keep up the skeer!

but more so "a well regulated militia"... refers to the training and efficient use of the tools to preserve an individual's "State of being free." or the right to self protection.

Couldn't be more wrong unless you can post a law [written in the period] I've never seen. (or I musunderstood you)
Militia has nothing to do with an individual's personal protection, but rather the protection of the State as well as the country.

From the start, the regulations were just what I posted before. The State's legislature was to provide a system to coordinate the militia. The governor is to share the responsibility of running the militia.
However, they are trumped by the US Congress as well as the President in time of need.

In the 90's, we saw some groups emerge who called themselves 'militias'. What the average person didn't know is these guys were NOT an official militia. They were more or less exercising their right to assemble (paint their faces, wear camo, and run around the woods pounding their chests)

Real militia is directly run by the State government with requirements [regulations] set by the Feds.

Something good to read is the Militia Act of 1792.
Description found here is:

The Militia Act of 1792 subsequently expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures.

There have been other acts\laws regarding the militias. They're easy to find on the net.

your interpretation takes too much from the individual.

It's not the individual's militia. Your right to own a firearm is written in the Second Amendment to give States the ability to protect themselves from a [pinko communist] federal government as well as other foreign and domestic threats.

This ALL relies on individual citizens to own firearms.

Now, IMHO, we all have the right to own a firearm because it does not harm anyone, nor does it trample on someone else's rights. [That's a(nother) God given right]

Many State constitutions do include an individual's right to own a firearm for self defense. This protects those citizens from nazi-wannabes like Sarah 'Lungs' Brady who have worked to repeal and\or rewrite the Second amendment and destroy certain civil rights like the Australians suffer with.

...Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the "Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."...

IGNORANT OR INTENTIONALLY REVISIONIST JUDGES!

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

ken

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

End the deception.