For the last time, no it doesn't. The second amendment doesn't say "an armed citizenry being necessary to the security ...".
It's very specific. It says not only "Militia", but a "well regulated Militia". The U.S. Constitution itself says that officers of those Militias are to be appointed by the state and that arms will be provided by the federal government. In 1792, Congress wrote the Militia Act specifying exactly the organization of that Militia.
Now you come along and tell me that the second amendment is simply referring to a bunch of people arming themselves? Wrong.
This in contrast with your apparent opinion, which starts with "EVERYONE is excluded, except for whom gov't officials specificially invite/order in".
you come along and tell me that the second amendment is simply referring to a bunch of people arming themselves?
Yes. That's exactly what we, many Freepers, the DC Circuit Court, the 5th Circuit court, the Superior Court of New Jersey, the Supreme Court of Vermont, and an otherwise large and growing number of high courts are telling you; those who tell you otherwise indicate they either don't like what the 2nd Amendment says, or just want to stay out of that argument.
The point of broadly permitting "the people" RKBA is precisely so an already self-armed-and-trained militia can be drawn from the general population on short notice. And it's not "permitting", it's "recognizing the pre-existing right of".
My question concerns only the sentence structure and grammar of the statement.
Who can read books? Please answer. It's not that difficult.
If you would stop replying to this thread and finish reading the decision, you would finally find out how wrong you are. The decision goes into all the particulars regarding the Militia Acts, of which there were two, IIRC, according to the decision.
bobby, the prefatory statement could say "The Cat in the Hat being a complete idiot" and it would not change the meaning of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed" one whit. Using a prefatory statement such as the one in the Second Amendment, in the common usage of the English language at the time of the Founders AND TODAY, does NOT modify the underlying meaning of the main sentence at all. The main phrase does NOT depend on the prefatory statement for one jot or tittle of its meaning. Ask any COMPETENT English teacher. And the Founding Dads were VERY competent in their use of language. Your tortured posturings reflect almost exactly the positions of the Brady Bunch and their nefarious ilk.
No it doesn't, it says that Congress shall have the power to *provide for* the arming of the militia. It doesn't say that they must. Because they might not, the second amendment was needed to ensure that the militia, that is the body of the people able to bear arms, would be able to be armed wether Congress "provided" those arms or not.
In the event, the very next Congress after the one that passed the second amendment passed the Militia Act of 1792. That act provided:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes..
IOW they did not chose to provide any arms, but rather to "provide for" the arming of the militia, by having it's remembers (all free white male citizens 18-45) provide themselves with a proper arm or arms.