[diamond6]

I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard.

[Black Agnes]

Why would this be an 'group' right when the rest of the BOR were individual rights? Even Ashcroft disagrees with you.

[Dan from Michigan]

I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard.

Where's your source to back that up? That's not true BTW. Both by Federalist 46 and US code.

[ApesForEvolution]

What comprised the militia when the Constitution was written? Individuals, just as the rest of our inalienable rights. RKBA is for the individual for the protection of the collective perpetuation of a free people.

You don't know Jack...

[OOPisforLiberals]

Retarded.

The first 2 amendments close with the exact same wording :

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


So, is "the right of the people" different between the 2 amendments right at the top of the BOR? You're deluded if you think that's the case.

[ez]

Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia?

You are 100 percent wrong. You need to read the Federalist Papers regarding the Second Amendment.

[frostbit]

"Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard."

Nope.

The 2nd was several years before the laws organizing the militias. And as defined in the Federalist papers, 'militia' was defined as every able bodied man that could be called up.

The National Guard analogy wouldn't be accurate here. Any organized force, being enlisted and duly sworn in, would have fallen under the definition of the Continental Army. The 'militia' refered to the general non-sworn public.

[Kadric]

Not quite accurate. The State's role was in training and unit structure, the people were to supply their own equipment. As for the National Guard, it was formed due to the fact that the States themselves would not meet their requirements. Would you agree that a member of the State Milita should have weapons on par with those normally carried by the average Military person?

[B Knotts]

I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard.

ROFL

Tell it to the Founding Fathers. They seem to have a different view.

[wardaddy]

Where are you?

[wardaddy]

Read Madison's many letters and written comments on the second amendment.

You absolutely must.

[Centurion2000]

I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard.

Actually you don't ...

2nd Amendment : 1783 Constitution
Militia Act : 1793
National Guard : 1916

Shall not be infringed means just that. Well regulated in the 1700's meant well-functioning.

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.

Another observation is that the militia component is in the subordinate clause of of this sentence.

[dcwusmc]

Apparently you fell asleep in your Constitution classes. Methinks you need to go back and study a WHOLE lot more. When did "people" change meanings from "the individual" to "the collective?" Also read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founding Dads. If you read for comprehension, I'm sure you might learn something. Otherwise, I'd suggest a change of profession immediately! A lawyer who doesn't know the Constitution is like a doctor who doesn't know anatomy... Both useless and DANGEROUS... but the lawyer is MORE dangerous, as the doctor only kills one patient at a time. Your ilk does it wholesale.

[Technogeeb]

I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia?

Clearly, you don't know anywhere near as much about the Consitution, or our country's history, as you think you do. The militia is the body of citizenry at arms. Under the U.S. Constitution, it has NEVER been a state matter; the militia is an agent of the federal government (delegated to it by the people), the only power reserved to the states under the Constitution was the appointing of officers.

That would now fall to our National Guard

It would seem you are as clueless about current law as you are about Constitutional law. The federal code (title 10, section 311 of chapter 13) defines the militia; it is NOT the National Guard, although members of the national guard do make up part of its composition. Under the law:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..., (plus it includes females who are members of the national guard).

Of course, this ignores the fact that the 2nd amendment does not secure the right to bear arms to the militia, it secures "the right of the people", the same phrase used in elsewhere in the Constitution (1st amendment, etc) when refering to the citizenry at large. The writings of the founders are extremely clear on the matter; the right to bear arms is an individual right. The collective right (as if such a thing actually existed) argument is an invention of the 20th century, just like the national guard itself.