many of our 'well regulated' militia types would be called terrorists.

Which US citizens do you think are terrorists?

The Bundy clan and armed associates in crime come to mind first, the Idaho 3%ers, and some others whose names I don't know correctly so I won't include but there are several groups, many driven by religious dogma, who are out here... right down the road from me, some of them.

McVeigh certainly was a terrorist. The Bundy idiots meet the definition of terrorist as well. I don't know enough (or anything really) about the Idaho folks to opine. But yeah, I agree that there are US citizens who could/should be called terrorists.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the Bundy's were "terrorists." Yeah, they probably meet the definition, but they certainly aren't terrorists in the same sense as McVeigh or the individuals who set off the bombs in Belgium or committed the attacks in France.

The second one, I would put them in the same category as people who blocked traffic in St Louis after Mr. Brown was shot, and Arizona recently. That no way indicates my opinion of any of these causes, which I don't agree with any of these causes. Preventing or disrupting the free speech of others is always wrong, even people I don't like, like Trump.
The first Bundy case, I would put it in the same category as the guy who barricades himself in the foreclosed house when the sheriff and lien holder shows up.
McVeigh, Ayers, and ISIS are terrorists.

and harassing people who had nothing to do with it. There have been threats and in one case in MO of someone getting the "Reginald Denny treatment".
The methods and cause of both were equally repugnant, but I do not regard either as terrorist.

Tim McVey

You could cite statistics that could...

1. Make any endeavor fit your profile... such as driving a car for instance.

2. Make our uniformed military or law enforcement seem unworthy of carrying weapons.

The picture you paint uses colors from a diverse palate... these are societal problems as well, not just firearms.

Protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes and that there is absolutely zero requirement that a person have any association with a militia.

Setting that aside, if you want to require to minimum licensing requirements like a course on gun safety, operation, etc. then I'm not completely opposed. The fact that some idiot doesn't properly store his or her gun or can't clean it without shooting themselves doesn't really have anything to do with the militia. And are you seriously claiming that suicide is something that just started happening?

I don't look to right wing court decisions for "clarity".

I look at them as challenges to human decency.

That the Second Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense and guarantees each person the right to keep and bear arms. Did you see the Caetano decision the Supreme Court issued earlier this week? I like this quote from Alito's concurrence -- "It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States."

I'd recommend working to repeal the Amendment if it bothers you that much.

the regulation of the militia is irrelevant.

That being said, I have no problem with the government providing adults instruction, range time and ammo to become better regulated.

who have the same opinion as your OP, that the militia is not well regulation and is indeed a danger, but continue to sell arms to the same folks they believe are unfit to operate them?

Everyone would be regular.

That is the reason I carry....safety first, being a willing victim later.

...and more likely to collapse.

National Guard, i would say they are fairly well-regulated already. A few of the authors envisioned such a select militia, though they may balk at their actually being so much a part of and so dependent on the federal govt.

As for the 'unorganized militia', the people seem to be ok with it as it goes. After all it was their representatives that passed the laws organzing things as they now are, and left the people open to be called to service, no matter how unlikely or how ill-prepared they are.

What they DON'T understand is that before the Revolutionary War, we didn't have a regular Standing Army. We did, however, AFTER the Revolutionary War. Our forefathers had the insight to keep the PEOPLE armed, to protect themselves and be able to fight back in case someone tried to take over the Government in an armed military coup.

Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

ghost: The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

British scholars: ... reconstructing the historical meaning of the right to “have arms” deserves better than Petitioners’ selective reading and mischaracterization of Blackstone’s reference to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” the 1768 Boston Town Council’s militia resolve, and the grievance against Thomas Gage http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_RespondentAmCuEnglishHistoriansnew.authcheckdam.pdf

Perhaps you've never seen the amici curiae which a consortium of 21 british scholars sent to the scalia led heller court, telling him how wrong he was regarding the british 'have arms' decree. So much so that scalia left out mentioning his 1689 'have arms' decree argument in 2011 McDonald.
I think this consortium of british scholars knows more about the have arms decree than ghost in the machine and wiki's pro gun spin & whatever rightwing blogs he cites; blackstone's remarks above were militia centric, and on English game laws were misunderstood since remarks occurred after ~1671 game laws had changed.

BRIEF FOR ENGLISH/EARLY AMERICAN HISTORIANS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS [city of chicago]
http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/briefs/pdf/brief__08-1521__22.pdf
Amici simply urge that the Court base its decision on a well informed study of historical facts, which demonstrates that armed self-defense of the home by individuals acting for private interests was not the right enshrined in the Second Amendment

In {DC} v. Heller (2008), the {US Supreme} Court examined the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, correctly finding that the right to “have arms” in Article VII is the basis of the right enshrined in the Second Amendment.
The Court also correctly recognized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right to have and use arms for “self preservation and defense” as in its English predecessor.
However, contrary to discredited scholarship {to wit Joyce Malcolm} upon which Heller relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm. Accordingly, the right to own or use arms for private purposes is not a right deeply rooted in our nation’s tradition, and should not be incorporated as against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The “have arms” provision in the English Declaration of Rights, which was later codified as the Bill of Rights, provided two protections to the individual.
First, the right to “have arms” gave certain persons (qualified Protestants) the right to possess arms to take part in defending the realm against enemies within (i.e., Catholics) as well as foreign invaders.
Second, the grant of a right to “have arms” was a compromise of a dispute over control of the militia that gave Parliament concurrent power (with the sovereign) over arming the landed gentry. It allowed Parliament to invoke its right of “self-preservation” and “resistance” should the sovereign usurp the laws, liberties, estates, and Protestant religion of the nation.

In no part of his Commentaries does Blackstone link the right of personal security with the possession of arms, nor does he cite the Declaration of Rights’ “have arms” provision in his discussion of personal security.
... In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point. ...Amici, based on a wealth of scholarship, disagree with Malcolm’s conclusions. Contrary to Malcolm’s view, the “have arms” provision was the result of a political dispute over whether ultimate control over the militia

The {supreme} Court “throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the [historical] basis of constitutional decisions.” That the Heller decision is recent only weighs in favor of quick action by the Court to correct its error of historical interpretation

Amici Curiae are scholars and professional historians whose collective expertise covers the following areas: the history of Stuart England, the Restoration, the 1689 Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Early Republic, American legal history, American Constitutional history, and Anglo-American history. Each has earned one or more advanced degrees in history, political science and/or law.

ghost: I STILL don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about 4 simple words... "the right of the people", especially when everyone seems to understand it when used in "We, the People".....

The people was synonymous with the militia in the 2ndA, as demonstrated by scotus justice joseph story here. Story claims the 'people' can be duly armed, only by a well regulated militia:

jos story early 1800's: And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.
How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html

Your argument did not reference to the 1939 Miller supreme court case, which clearly noted 2ndA was militia based, and a followup dept of justice (DOJ) brief to the very 1939 court declaring the DOJ's opinion of 2ndA:

1939 Miller scotus case: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

doj brief, 1938: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearm Act have been assailed as being in violation of the 2nd Amendment (US v. Adams {1935}, the contention was summarily rejected as follows: The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights.

Heller explained the obvious deficiencies in that decision, like the fact that only one party bothered to show up for the litigation. So you are citing a brief filed by the DOJ without any opposing argument. And why is there any need for anyone to even reference Miller -- that case has little (if any) import following Heller.

I may be misreading your post - are you actually arguing that "the people" in the Second Amendment doesn't really mean "the people" as used in the First and Fourth Amendments? Instead, "the people" means "the Militia"? That argument is frivolous. "The people" in the Second Amendment is the same "people" in the First and Fourth Amendments. If the right to keep and bear arms was limited to "the Militia" then the Second Amendment would read "the right of members of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do you really think that the individuals who drafted the Bill of Rights are using "the Militia" and "the people" interchangeably?

I like this quote from Story, which really says all you need to know about the Second Amendment: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms had justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if those are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

teddy: Do you really think that the individuals who drafted the Bill of Rights are using "the Militia" and "the people" interchangeably

Yep, in the 2ndA they were used synonymously.

teddy: I like this quote from Story, which really says all you need to know about the Second Amendment: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms had justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if those are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

You simply quote the opening sentences of the very quote which I cited, where he equates the people with the militia - since he is in militia context when he writes it - thanks:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html

And, from the very same quote from justice Story, is this; and note how similiar it is to what you like so much above. In fact, it makes it clear enough that you misinterpret; Story is speaking synonymously again, of the citizens & the militia:

The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms had justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if those are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them

He praises citizens for essentially the same thing he praises the militia for.
An individual right to bear arms could not accomplish what Story is speaking about, it takes a militia.

For the argument that "the people" and "the Militia" mean the same thing. I mean, support from legal authority would be nice, other than your misreading of Story. That is simply a silly proposition that is contrary to every tenet of statutory/constitutional construction. Courts give the same words the same meaning when interpreting statutes/constitutions, they don't say "people" means one thing in one section and another thing in a different section, and they don't say two completely different words with different meanings -- like "people" and "Militia" mean the same thing. Do you think "the people" in the Fourth Amendment are only the militia? And if the authors of the Second Amendment mean to protect the right of "the Militia" why didn't they limit the protection provided by the Second Amendment to "the Militia"? Do you think they didn't know how to do that, or maybe were confused?

With respect to the Story quote, yes, I added the piece you left out. And he is not equating the people with the militia. He is saying an armed populace can prevent despotism, he doesn't say a "militia" prevents despotism. But that doesn't really matter, since Heller established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one completely divorced from militia service.

teddyR: I'd like to see some support For the argument that "the people" and "the Militia" mean the same thing. I mean, support from legal authority would be nice, other than your misreading of Story.

Sure, I can do that, from a former supreme court justice; tho I'm not misreading Justice Story, you are, perhaps following Scalia's heller misinterpretations.

From the very quote from Justice Jos Story we've been using. It's what I've been trying to get across.
Here is Justice Story's full quote, and note the emboldened parts. I've spaced the quote for clarity:

Justice Story on the 2ndAmendment: {year}1833 The importance of this {2ndA} article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject.
The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.
It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.
How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html

Right after extolling the virtues of the MILITIA as the natural defense of a free country, Story notes that is was "..against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies..", then he immediately invokes "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms...". Story was pretty clearly speaking of the citizens militia established by the militia act of 1792. To think Story was speaking of an individual rkba disconnected from militia service is ABSURD, after leading in with the importance of a well regulated militia.

Story then goes on to further link the 'People' with the militia: "How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see."
Nowhere in Story's entire quote does he mention or even hint unambiguously at an individual right to keep & bear arms. He is clearly in militia context start to finish, & uses 'the people', 'citizens', and 'militia' synonymously.

The sentence you admire so much, starting with 'The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms..', is immediately followed by Story with: "And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable,"

What do you think Story is referring back to? the right of the citizens to keep & bear arms, of course.

The 'citizens' Justice Story mentions, who had the right to keep & bear arms, comprised generally free white males of militia age, perhaps older white males as well. Free blacks could but likely didn't want to risk gun ownership back then. In other words, it wasn't ALL the citizens who had the right to keep & bear arms, only militia aged ones.

Story's final sentence expresses his concern that militia indifference may lead to disgust, and undermine the protection of the 2nd amendment, most probably the protection of the well regulated militia (since militia mentioned in previous sentence): "There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights".

I'll take a look at follow up tomorrow - trying to get some work done today. But just so I know what I'm responding to, you contend that the above supports the argument that militia and the people mean the same in the Second?

By arguing that he would be so sloppy and imprecise as to use "citizens," "the people" and "the Militia" to all mean "the Militia."

Your entire argument falls apart when you dissect the following sentence: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

This is the only place where Story refers to "the citizens," and he refers to them as the "citizens" of a "republic." The citizens of a republic are all those eligible to vote, regardless of fitness for militia duty, and "citizens" simply cannot mean the same thing as "militia." "Citizens" might mean the same thing in this sentence as "the people," but you would have to suspend disbelief to think that "citizens" and "militia" are both terms for "militia."

Setting the foregoing aside, it appears to me that you concede that the Second Amendment at the least protects the right of every able bodied male of militia age (assuming the Amendment is restricted to males) to keep and bear arms. Is that correct?

Justice Story, circa 1830: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

TeddyR, 2016: This is the only place where Story refers to "the citizens," and he refers to them as the "citizens" of a "republic." The citizens of a republic are all those eligible to vote, regardless of fitness for militia duty, and "citizens" simply cannot mean the same thing as "militia." "Citizens" might mean the same thing in this sentence as "the people," but you would have to suspend disbelief to think that "citizens" and "militia" are both terms for "militia."

Which citizens could VOTE circa 1789: only white Protestant males who owned property could vote. Not women, not poor people, not indentured servants, not Catholics and Jews, not slaves from Africa or Native Americans.
"Women, like slaves and servants, were defined by their dependence," says historian Michael Schudson. "Citizenship belonged only to those who were masters of their own lives." Because of these restrictions, only about 6 percent of the population of the brand-new United States chose George Washington to be the country's first president in...
In 1789, only white, land owning men had the ability to vote in most states. Since the Civil War, we have amended the Constitution to prohibit limiting voting rights based on gender, race, age... http://countrystudies.us/united-states/government-18.htm

Yeah, citizens & people & militia were often used synonymously, as well as in the 2nd amendment. I don't have to suspend disbelief that 'the people' was used in the 2ndA differently than in the other amendments {also cause I don't disbelieve it}

teddy: it appears to me that you concede that the Second Amendment at the least protects the right of every able bodied male of militia age (assuming the Amendment is restricted to males) to keep and bear arms. Is that correct?

No, not anymore. It used to apply to only some or most of them white able bodied males (not sure about catholics & jews). Only about 20% of the 3 million population circa 1790 were white males of militia age. Ergo only about 600,000 had rkba, if that.
And evidently only about 180,000 white protestant males voted for George Washington for president.

Geez, not even that accd' wiki; election held dec 15 1787-jan 10, 1788, over 25 days:
Federalist electors {for GWashington} 39,624 90.5%
Anti-Federalist electors 4,158 9.5%
Total 43,782 100.0%

That above should demonstrate how {un}popular the anti-fed movement was, which supported including in state's right to bear arms provisions, 'in defense of themselves as well as the state'.

(a) Only 6 of the 10 states casting electoral votes chose electors by any form of popular vote.
(b) Less than 1.3% of the population voted: the 1790 Census would count a total population of 3.0 million with a free population of 2.4 million and 600,000 slaves in those states casting electoral votes in this election.
(c) Those states that did choose electors by popular vote had varying restrictions on suffrage via property requirements.

..you would have to suspend disbelief to think that "citizens" and "militia" are both terms for "militia."

They were used synonymously as we have just seen, yes? You are imputing to today's vernacular.

Joseph Story did NOT consider the militia to be the only way to arm the people, but instead an outgrowth from the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Here is the full paragraph:

1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html
Anyone who can argue that "citizens" in this paragraph actually means "militia" is not interested in facts that conflict with his beliefs. Story is stating that without the individual right, the militia can't exist. In other words, "Militia" is a subset of "citizens", not the other way around. The "duly armed" clause ties to his worry about whether or not the militia itself would be of much use without good regulations, and has no bearing at all on the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Without the militia, the individual right still exists.

As for your reference in another post to Blackstone not equating "having arms" to an individual right, here is a copy from Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", book 1, chapter 1:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon it is founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other. And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. so long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliaments be supported in its full vigor; and limits certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints. Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon farther inquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened. For all of us have it in our choice to do everything that a good man would desire to do; and are restrained from nothing, but what would be pernicious either to ourselves or our fellow citizens. So that this review of our situation may fully justify the observation of a learned French author, who indeed generally both thought and wrote in the spirit of genuine freedom;48 and who has not scrupled to profess, even in the very bosom of his native country, that the English is the only nation in the world, where political or civil liberty is direct end of its constitution. Recommending therefore to the student in our laws a farther and more accurate search into this extensive and important title, I shall close my remarks upon it with the expiring
wish of the famous father Paul to his country, “ESTO PERPETUA!” [“ENDURE FOREVER!”]

http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-101/
Since you depended upon others for the part about Blackstone and having arms, it wouldn't be fair to call you on it. However, in the future you might want to research your POV before posting to ensure that it will stand up to scrutiny.

I'm still recovering from surgery, so I'll leave it for now. Back to my generic Vicodin...

tortoise: Story is stating that without the individual right, the militia can't exist. In other words, "Militia" is a subset of "citizens", not the other way around. The "duly armed" clause ties to his worry about whether or not the militia itself would be of much use without good regulations, and has no bearing at all on the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Without the militia, the individual right still exists.

Thanks for the scalia far right wing revisionist history regarding Story's quote. I think it's pretty plain forward what story is saying; your spin made me ill. You, not I, are the right wingster spinning justice story's words, in a quote where he is focused on the militia.
Below is Story's 'duly armed' clause, and as we can plainly see, justice story is equating 'the people' with 'the militia', and, despite your importunings, it's NOT his worry that the militia would be of much use without regs in this sentence (only in others), but whether the people would even constitute a competent armed force WITHOUT a militia. He is worried about what would happen if the people abandoned the militia system of discipline & regs, and became simply 'individuals with guns'. That you attempt to spin this into some backing of an individual rkba is appalling:

Story: How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.
Some 'militia' organization.

tort: Anyone who can argue that "citizens" in this paragraph actually means "militia" is not interested in facts that conflict with his beliefs.

See my same day reply to teddyR on same thread. Only 1% to 6% of american people could vote in 1787, for G Washington.

tortoise: As for your reference in another post to Blackstone not equating "having arms" to an individual right, here is a copy from Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", book 1, chapter 1:
then tortoise emboldened this from Blackstone: ..and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.

Right, as explained by the 21 british scholars (my above post 30), the english 'right' was militia related. Self preservation under a militia auspices. I didn't see anywhere that Blackstone unequivocally wrote of an individual rkba, you rely on ambiguity in what 21 british scholars clarifed in my post 30..

{21 british scholars} In no part of his Commentaries does Blackstone link the right of personal security with the possession of arms, nor does he cite the Declaration of Rights’ “have arms” provision in his discussion of personal security.
The “have arms” provision in the English Declaration of Rights, which was later codified as the Bill of Rights, provided two protections to the individual.
First, the right to “have arms” gave certain persons (qualified Protestants) the right to possess arms to take part in defending the realm against enemies within (i.e., Catholics) as well as foreign invaders.
Second, the grant of a right to “have arms” was a compromise of a dispute over control of the militia that gave Parliament concurrent power (with the sovereign) over arming the landed gentry. It allowed Parliament to invoke its right of “self-preservation” and “resistance” should the sovereign usurp the laws, liberties, estates, and Protestant religion of the nation.
... In doing so, the {US Supreme} Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point. ...Amici, based on a wealth of scholarship, disagree with Malcolm’s conclusions. Contrary to Malcolm’s view, the “have arms” provision was the result of a political dispute over whether ultimate control over the militia
.. The {supreme} Court “throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of constitutional decisions.” That the Heller decision is recent only weighs in favor of quick action by the Court to correct its error of historical interpretation

Congress had power To raise and support Armies, To provide and maintain a Navy, To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; AND...to provide for calling forth the Militia, and To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.

Clearly the State militias are not the same as the traditional military (Army, Navy, Troops).


Washington was urging congress for "a uniform and effective system for the Militia of the United States".

Which makes sense as the Militias had very vital roles to play, when called forth in federal service, in securing our liberties (execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion).

An effective militia system would reduce the need for large standing Armies, and so reduce the possibility of "a military coup".

Disarmed states militias, or ones that were not well-regulated, would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the Militia system, the recourse being a greater need of a large standing army, and so a greater threat to our liberties.

Although the importance of the State militias was recognized in the Constitution, provisions for exactly how the people would be called forth, and regulated AND ARMED - to be provided for BY Congress - still needed to be sorted out.

The 2nd amendment ensures of that happening, i.e. well-regulated Militias ARE NECESSARY, and the people who would serve in the Militias c/would not be DISarmed by the new Congress (or the States for that matter).



The proposed articles which became the Bill of Rights were sent to the states in March of 1789, so not sure where you are going that it took so long to ratify 10 of the 12. Anyway, the Uniform Militia Bill wasn't signed into law until 1792

Back during that time, a LOT of "the People" relied on firearms to feed their families, and for protection while they were still "discovering" this new land that they "found". I, personally, don't think that the fledgling new Government would disallow "the People" the right to eat and/or defend themselves while "settling and/or pioneering". If so, I would think the amendment would read "....the right of the 'members of the Militia' to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".


As for the time frame on getting ratified, yes it took some time to first make sure that we WON our freedom, then had to get a Government set up to read, ratify and pass or deny any laws and rights.

I can agree with this:

secured. Their role in the militias being the primary reason, especially considering the Congress' new powers re: organizing and arming them.


Also, I HIGHLY doubt that all those who were exempt from militia duty...

("the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states&quot ..

were under ANY threat or had ANY fear of losing their rights to keep and bear arms.

Cheers!

The militia is an organization.

Everything you have sited is the action of an individual. Furthermore, none of those individuals claim to be representing any militia during those actions.

Yes, you got the definition of "well regulated" correct.

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:59 AM - Edit history (1)

More tough talk from a poster who spends more time banned from posting then time active here.

By the way thanks for the laughs you provide

It is understandable, why those who can not control themselves and assume the same of others, support strict gun control.