"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to THE SECURITY of a free state..." Some facts for you [View all]

The average gun nut will either ignore the first two clauses, or claim that 'militia' refers to average citizens. Then claim that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was intended to give citizens the power to overthrow/resist their own government if it became 'tyrannical.'

Well, here are the REAL facts. The 2nd Amendment was there to guarantee state governments the ability to maintain part time state militias which could A) be called up by the State government to respond to a local state emergency or insurrection, B) be called up by the FEDERAL government to either repel invasions OR put down insurrections in or by states, and C) serve as a counterbalance to any federal standing army. It was NOT a reference to gangs of beer-bellied morons running around in the woods shooting at targets with Barrack Obama's or Janet Reno's face on them.

The the point about State Militias counterbalancing a federal army is the closest to the wingnut point of view, and they'll frequently cite Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 28 as proof of this. But if you read the paper (it's only a couple of pages) you'll see he was merely belaying fears about the federal government becoming tyrannical (and claims this is ridiculous), and claims that state militias could prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannical, and THE FEDERAL army would likewise present a balance against STATE governments becoming tyrannical. In Federalist Papers 28 and 29, Hamilton contends that the FEDERAL government should specify how the militias are to be regulated, but that the OFFICERS should be appointed by THE STATE governments as a way of balancing state vs federal influence over the armed militias.

"This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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.""--Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper 29

Proof that Hamilton thought fears of the Federal Government were ridiculous:
"There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29


If the average wingnut wants proof of what the Founding Fathers MEANT by a 'well regulated militia,' simply refer them to The Militia Acts of 1792, which were signed into law by GEORGE WASHINGTON HIMSELF. It specifies how the state militias are to be organized, and (more importantly) gives THE PRESIDENT the authority to call up the state militias to either repel invasions or put down insurgencies. (It also MANDATES that all men of military age BUY a musket and other accessories for service in the military....that's right, folks....George Washington, with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in his cabinet signed a MANDATE 'forcing' citizens to buy something.)

Here are The Militia Acts of 1792. You can use this link to prove to your wingnut friends exactly what the Founding Fathers MEANT by 'militia' in the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Alright, now for the second wingnut talking point. The idea that The Founding Fathers INTENDED that the 2nd Amendment was to be used by citizens to fight against their own government should it become tyrannical. If that was their intention, they had a funny way of showing it! Two years later, George Washington himself actually USED The Militia Acts of 1792 to PUT DOWN THE WHISKEY REBELLION in Pennsylvania in 1794.
The federal govt imposed a tax on whiskey which 500 farmers in Pennsylvania thought was tyrannical. So they took up their arms and attacked the home of the local tax collector. Sounds kind of like the scenario the wingnuts always paint, doesn't it? George Washington apparently didn't agree, because he called up the State Militias of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey to put down the rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

So, to summarize:
1. What the Founders meant by 'a well regulated militia' is spelled out clearly in The Militia Acts of 1792.
2. Hamilton did NOT think 'militia' referred to unorganized, individual citizens, he meant militias organized by state governments. He also thought the fears about the Federal govt. becoming tyrannical were silly. He says so in Federalist Papers 28 and 29.
3. The Founders actually USED the state militias to put down a citizen's rebellion AGAINST A TAX that the citizens thought was tyrannical in 1794.