[Doctor 2Brains]

Takes my breath away.

[Gaffer]

IMO, the “Well-regulated militia” argument by gun grabbers trying to take the INDIVIDUAL’s right to arm himself is just a diversion tactic.

To me the “well-regulated militia” statement merely says that “yes, we need militias” “AND, militias are made up of free individuals who MUST have an unfettered right to arms.”

For this to be true, before a militia can be stood up, free individuals have to have free rights to guns, uninfringed by government.

[Buffalo Head]

Far simpler to explain that the Supreme Court recently ruled in the Heller decision that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not address deer hunting or sports shooting. It was written so that the citizens have the means to protect themselves and the country from both external and internal enemies - with the same kind weapons that potential enemies possesses.

[skinkinthegrass]

!

[BuffaloJack]

Hmmmmmm!
Change the name of the National Rifle Association to the National Rifle Militia and we might actually have it.

[palmer]

The authors fall into a common trap. “Well regulated” does not have anything to do with “regulating” a militia. The militia is the people. Well-regulated means that the people are well-trained and well-equipped period. The people keep their arms at home and bear them when needed.

[onedoug]

I've always read it that because a well regulated militia (armed Army, National Guard, police forces) is necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms to attempt to keep them at bay is necessary too.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Taken together, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments simply codify the objections of the Federalists to the Antifederalist demand for a bill of rights - that any such bill would inevitably fail to articulate all of the rights which, not being restricted by the Constitution, were intended to be retained by the people. Which means that the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights are intended as a floor under, rather than a ceiling above, the rights of the people.

Two other constitutional citations are IMHO germane to this topic:

Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .

and

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 1 Section 8 codifies the belief in, and expectation of, progress. Progress, one of

"the Blessings of Liberty [expected to be secured by the Constitution] to ourselves and our Posterity”

is the default assumption of the Constitution. So in principle, if not in detail, the repeating rifle and the machine gun were anticipated by the framers of the constitution - and, if experience revealed the necessity, the framers provided for adjustments to be made to adapt to the ramifications of freedom and progress.

[polymuser]

Under the National Defense Act of 1916,1674 the militia, which hitherto had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the National Government. The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.

(http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/47-militia.html)

(The age 45 limit is obviously outdated, as life expectancy is much higher now.)

[MtnMan101]

[BreezyDog]

Reference ping

[Wurlitzer]

Well we could fall into their failed logic trap and argue all day long what a Militia or Well Regulated Militia means and it would not change a thing. The way the sentence is structured, in English, means we have a right to keep and bear arms”

What these self proclaimed enlightened ignoramuses never dare expose is that the first part of the statement never contradicts the second part. In fact the 2nd part could stand alone and the meaning would be exactly the same.

Even if the 2nd Amendment read: “Guns are very dangerous to any government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” would still mean the US Constitution is simply restating our rights as citizens to be armed.

There is nothing which contradicts or limits, “shall not be infringed” yet we have allowed the most dishonest people on the planet, lawyers and politicians, to infringe on those rights and IMO we have allowed them to invalidate the vast majority of the Constitution.

Anyone but me think all the 5-4 decisions from the less than Supreme Court are simply political crap with no grounding in the Constitution? Tell me how 9 brilliant Constitutional scholars could possibly spew forth constant 5-4 decisions unless they are traitors to the Constitution hiding behind black robes.

[DNME]

The wording of the Second isn’t the issue right now. (It is for us, but we’re on the defensive and mapping out our trenches!)

Progressives are HOWLING for a complete disarmament of the people. That will never happen, of course, but it doesn’t stop them from howling. Obummer loves to hear their howls, which does not work to our advantage.

It’s going to be a rough couple of months. We all know they’re going to try and pass some stupid and ineffective new gun laws, which we of course will fight tooth and nail.

Just hang tough, folks. They might jam through another pointless ban on “assault weapons” but it won’t change a thing. Just be ready to howl even louder if they try for the whole enchilada, which Obummer just might.

We know what the Second means. They need to know too.

[csmusaret]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals. Any discussion of militias is redundant.