I hate to say this because I believe all Americans should be allowed to keep and bear arms.... But even using an older Websters, there is still enough grey area in the second to suggest that you must be a member of a well regulated militia in order to have the right. On the other hand you could argue that a well regulated militia could be formed from the armed citizenry. The problem is the vague and pointless militia comment which was inserted. The constitution is imperfect because it was based on linguistic compromise, which deprived us of the clairity which should have been there. I’m pretty sure that the Democrats did it... @ssmunches.. LOL
U.S. law recognizes unorganized militia. Do you need the statute?
It is only “vague” if you let it be so....
We must argue on the plain basis of fact, not allowing the injection of “vagueness” or any other such nonsense.
The foregone conlusion to any reasonably educated, thinking person should be quite obvious:
A nation (free state) requires a force to protect (secure ) it (both the state and the free conditions it enjoys); the means being a militia (a non-government force made up of stakeholders). Therefore the citizens (the people) who established it (the “free state) have the right to keep and carry thier OWN arms to do the former.
Never let the anti’s allow you to defend the 2A it self-it says what it means; no legalese required.
Note that the 2A does not grant the right, it merely puts it into words.
The right being spoken of reflects back clearly on the “inalienable, self-evident” rights God bestowed on (all) men (declared in the Preamble). Nothing less, nothing more (as if there could be).
God Bless, Keep it simple.
(The other side gets worked up over simple, so let’s keep making the argument-maybe they’ll all have a stroke....)
Oh, also, Under the Militia Act of 1792 (IIRC) all able bodied men were (maybe still ARE?) members of the unorganzied militia. The ARNG is not the militia that clashed the redcoats at Lexington-Concord. It was created as an arm of the US Army (FED GOV) by the Dick Act (IIRC) in 1915 (IIRC).
There currently is no “well regulated militia” in the form referenced by the 2A and many other aspects of of our early nation.... They were all federalized by the above Act-stripping away the states ability to field a force w/o interference of the FEDGOV. Imagine a Governor activating his NG for a state purpose, to counter the act, the Army (FEDGOV) simply activates them and make the US ARMY on thier uniforms a reality-with a new chain of command.... Who do you think pays and equips the ARNG? States? NOT!
“Regulation” in military terms denote practised, trained, NOT “controlled” as in common usage of today.
Once again, God Bless
“I’m pretty sure that the Democrats did it... @ssmunches.. LOL”
Funny thing, Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party. How far they have strayed from his vison...
That assumes the government has the authority to allow you to exercise your rights. That is a contradiction. The government didn't grant me that right, and hence cannot take it away.
Spend some time reading the "bills of rights" of the "Articles of Confederation" STATE Constitutions. The best exposition was "The PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, for defense of themselves and their own state, and the taking of game." I "believe" that was from Connecticut's BOR, but am not absolutely sure.