[robertpaulsen]

"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

Be careful with the language. Note that it does NOT say, "All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense comprise the Militia." Big difference.

Secondly, the Militia has been redefined over the years by Acts of Congress -- the Militia Act of 1792, the Militia Act of 1862 (actually an amendment to the Militia Act of 1792), the Militia Act of 1903 -- the latter establishing the National Guard.

Essentially, the Militia referred to in the second amendment no longer exists. The second amendment, therefore, must be read as to its intent -- the federal government shall not infringe the ability of the states to arm themselves for their protection and the protection of the nation.

The Spanish-American War of 1898 demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and it was determined that the best way to accomplish this protection was the formation of the National Guard. That is today's "Militia", if you will.

[tpaine]

"-- 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. --"

paulsen:
Essentially, the Militia referred to in the second amendment no longer exists.

Inane comment.
It has never mattered if "the militia referred to" ever did exist, as the status of our militia force does not effect the fact that: "- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. -"

The second amendment, therefore, must be read as to its intent -- the federal government shall not infringe the ability of the states to arm themselves for their protection and the protection of the nation.

No, the words clear intent is that "people" cannot be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms for their own protection and the protection of "a free State". -- Thus, a State cannot infringe on the "right of the people", -- any more than Congress or the nation.

As usual paulsen, you've twisted the words of the constitution to conform to your own anti-constitutional agenda.

[publiusF27]

Be careful with the language. Note that it does NOT say, "All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense comprise the Militia." Big difference.

OK, please explain the difference.

Secondly, the Militia has been redefined over the years by Acts of Congress -- the Militia Act of 1792, the Militia Act of 1862 (actually an amendment to the Militia Act of 1792), the Militia Act of 1903 -- the latter establishing the National Guard.

Sounds to me like the colonists allowing King George to determine who may be in the militia. I'm guessing a King-approved militia would not have engaged in revolution.

The second amendment, therefore, must be read as to its intent -- the federal government shall not infringe the ability of the states to arm themselves for their protection and the protection of the nation.

The States were absolutely NOT to maintain any standing army, and the intent of the 2nd was to preserve the ability of the PEOPLE to arm themselves.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - -- Thomas Jefferson

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." -Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

etc, etc