Replies

Good point!

Call me crazy, but maybe they meant the people, who are part of a well regulated state militia, have their right to keep and bear arms protected from federal infringement. I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.

Yes the militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Absolutely. A continental army can be defeated, a militia can never be defeated.

Sadaams army was defeated.

The Taliban militias haven’t been defeated, yet. I like Hunters plan, stand Iraqi army up to proportionally displace Americans. I know what Hunter is thinking.

Good point!

It is indeed! Maybe the Founding Fathers didn't spend time writing the 2nd Amendment just to assure a militia could do that which makes a militia a militia!

if they simply meant the people have the right they would have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gosh.

Gosh - THEY DID!

Why did they add all that Militia clutter?

Uh...maybe to make it clear that it's GOOD for the state to have armed citizens, so that a well-regulated militia could be raised on short notice? Ya know, make sure everyone who shows up to fight for the security of their free state would have arms when they arrived, instead of "I'm here ... hey, anyone got a musket I can borrow? no? so what am I supposed to do?" Having armed militia members is kinda a pre-requisiste to organizing them and marching 'em out.

Call me crazy

You're crazy.

but maybe they meant the people,

Ya THINK?

who are part of a well regulated state militia

How about the people before they're actively involved? Ya know, defending the state may need more people (and arms) than the officers planned, and it would be nice to be able to call on anyone - and I mean anyone - to pitch in on short notice (which they can't if they're not armed). Maybe not everyone had to be active participants, but could at least still be armed, familiar therewith, and not completely useless if called up.

I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.

Here's a really wild notion: they're really pretty much the same thing!

Then again .... if they simply meant the people have the right they would have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gosh. Why did they add all that Militia clutter?

Call me crazy, but maybe they meant the people, who are part of a well regulated state militia, have their right to keep and bear arms protected from federal infringement. I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.

Looks like an armed public is necessary to the ability to form a militia. Robertpaulsen, if he were around would admit it without all the bizarre distortions, as he said elsewhere in this thread:

If the Supreme Court rules the 2nd Amendment is an “individual right” that extends beyond the limits of active participation in a state militia, I, robertpaulsen, promise to stop harping on my much-disputed premise.

There's one for your page, if you want it, Mojave. ;-)