Correct.
However, the Founders knew that simply arming the population (all the militia) was insufficient. Training was required. And training everyone to the proficiency required for battle was impossible.
So they settled on a select group of "well regulated" Militia -- trained, disciplined, organized, armed and accoutered, with officers appointed by each state. It was this "well regulated Militia" that was necessary to the security of a free state, not an armed populace.
Their RKBA was protected by the second amendment.
Robert that is utter BS, they did not “settle on a select group” of well regulated militia. The second part of that amendment says that the right of the people shall not be infringed regardless of whom the “militia” happens to be.
So, let me make something perfectly clear to you, gun-grabber... I am a “well trained” militia person - I spent 26 years in the military to defend our country, and your rights to make idiotic statements, but I promise that people like you will NOT take the guns of the people of this country.
You’re what we call a “domestic enemy”.... you’re someone who lives in this country that wants to impose YOUR will on everyone else, because you don’t like that they have guns.
Tough, RobertPaulsen, you’re a TROLL now and that’s all you’ve been in all these threads.
Here, you’re an enemy of the people of the United States.
So they settled on a select group of "well regulated" Militia -- trained, disciplined, organized, armed and accoutered, with officers appointed by each state. It was this "well regulated Militia" that was necessary to the security of a free state, not an armed populace.
Their RKBA was protected by the second amendment.
Here you go again. Do you have a brain Mr. Dellinger?
If you had actually listened to what the justices were telling you with their questions you would know that you lost yesterday and you would know that a majority of the justices disagree with your theory.
They were clear that if your theory were true the amendment would have read "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Why don't you stop spreading your bravo sierra and admit that you are, and have been, wrong in your contention that the second amendment only protects the militia.
The justices clearly believe it protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms, regardless of association with a militia. That's how they will rule in June wrt the specific question presented to them.
If that was what those who passed it truly meant, then why didn't they write it that way?
It seems odd that they would choose to say something they didn't mean, if they didn't mean that The People have the right to keep and bear arms. If they meant that "members of the militia have the right to keep and bear arms" or "The People have the right to keep and bear militia arms" or whatever, then I think they could have written that.
Thanks, I've never come across your hypothesis concerning the role of militias but I am only an amateur (very)scholar when it comes to the constitution and more specifically the 2nd amendment.
If what you say is correct about militias, then the general populace would be dependent upon their respective state governments to “do the right thing” and call out their respective state militias to take action against the U.S. military. In my opinion, it is very improbable that would ever happen as there is a very strong relationship between the NG units and the US military. So, it seems to me that responsibility for taking action would still fall upon individual citizens banding together.
Btw, what does RKBA stand for? Just curious.