"Therefore, I'm saying that the original intent of "well regulated" was to have minimal training to act as a unit, and "militia" was the population-at-large."
Well, according to the Militia Act of 1792, "militia" was "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".
As far as an individual right to keep and bear arms, that was (and still is) up to each state. If a state wishes for arms to be kept at home, fine. If they want the arms kept in an armory, fine also. If a state wishes to limit its citizen's access to arms, that's up to them (assuming the state constitution allows it).
How does that contrast with the 2nd amendment phrase "the right of the people to keep" arms?
If "people" doesn't mean individual people, but a collective militia, does "keep" not really mean keep at home with the person? I get worried when I'm told that the plain language doesn't mean what it plainly says.
I interpret the right of the people to keep arms to mean that individual people have the right to own (and keep) arms with themselves. I do not interpret it to mean that they must be locked away in an armory only to be gotten by somebody else' permission. That doesn't sound like "keeping" to me.
-PJ
You contradicted yourself.
The Militia Act of 1792 was a FEDERAL law REQUIRING militia participants be armed (and have quick access thereto). That overrode whatever limitations the states wanted, if any.
You wrote,
"I'm simply stating what the second amendment protects from federal infringement.
We should all be able to agree on this point, the second amendment protects the "right to keep and bear arms" from infringement. However, the word "federal" is not included in that, or the first or any other amendments. A critical addition that would, I am sure you agree, dramatically alter the meaning of this and other amendments in the BOR. However, the word "federal" does not appear in the second amendment.
"Therefore, I'm saying that the original intent of "well regulated" was to have minimal training to act as a unit, and "militia" was the population-at-large."
The author of the second amendment, I believe George Mason is important here, was like others of the time familiar with the experience of fighting the well-trained, regulated, and coordinated British infantry. von Steuben came to the aid of Washington and put regulation into the rough and ill-coordinated ways of the Continentals. The need to have Americans ready and well-regulated in the ways of military action was viewed as important if the young nation was to survive in a world of big European military powers. The federal government had too few resources to properly train Americans then, however. It can be argued that the federal government has neglected the supply and training of citizens ever since.
Well, according to the Militia Act of 1792, "militia" was "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".
As far as an individual right to keep and bear arms, that was (and still is) up to each state. If a state wishes for arms to be kept at home, fine. If they want the arms kept in an armory, fine also. If a state wishes to limit its citizen's access to arms, that's up to them (assuming the state constitution allows it)."
The "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not by the federal government, the state, the county, your town council, or your nosy neighbor. "...shall not be infringed." The state is welcome to supply the citizenry with arms and with training. However, it can not infringe the right to "keep and bear arms." My protection is not to be subject to infringement by government bodies.
Once again, "...shall not be infringed."