[Political Junkie Too]

The militia was the general citizenry, but organized by a local officer in times of need.

The added words would not change the original expectation, but it would give today's liberals more fodder for reinterpreting the amendment.

Where Stevens' idea fails is where those "serving" in the militia will get their arms, if they are not allowed to keep them when not formally organized. Is he suggesting that each locality keep a public armory where the citizens go to get their arms when called up to serve?

-PJ

[Campion]

Stevens’ hatchet job turns the meaning of the Amendment on its head. The whole point was that citizens would provide their own arms and ammmunition (and be experienced in using them); that was what made the militia “well-regulated”.

[Sivad]

“The militia was the general citizenry,................”

Might I add that the citizenry was ALREADY ARMED, militia or
no militia. I recommend James Madison’s ‘Federalist 46’ for
details.

[Sola Veritas]

“Where Stevens’ idea fails is where those “serving” in the militia will get their arms, if they are not allowed to keep them when not formally organized. Is he suggesting that each locality keep a public armory where the citizens go to get their arms when called up to serve?”

Yes, they would be in an armory because what Stevens obviously believes the “militia” to be today is the various National Guard Units - not the general citizenry. Of course, this is not, IMO, what the COTUS writers intended. Fortunately, there is no movement to amend the 2nd amendment. Also, since the Heller decision, it is finally being seen as an individual right instead of merely a collective one.