General Discussion

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2013, 10:04 AM - Edit history (1)

1) State Militias already existed...they were codified under the Articles of Confederation:
"Article VI...nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state...but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

This is why no definition is needed for 'militia' in the Constitution - the Militia of the several States were well-known entities that had existed in the commonweaths for decades; THESE were the entities to be called forth for federal service in Article 1.

2) the Constitution gave important powers over the existing state militias to the federal government. The power to arm & regulate them in hopes of establishing more effective & uniform militias throughout the Union; the power to use them in federal service, as a way of better securing the states, and as a 1st line of defense for the Union against invasion until a standing army could be raised.

3) the states feared this national control, that the powers could be used to destroy the state militias through abuse or disuse, or render them ineffective by ignoring or disarming them, leave the states with no armed force and so open to invasion, rebellions, slave revolts, &c., and to lay the pretext for that bane of liberty and force of tyrants - a large standing army.

The state militias were mandated with very specific roles by the Constitution in order to secure our liberties {the majority of the purposes enumerated in the preamble - establish justice, common defense, domestic tranquility, secure the blessings of liberty}.

The 2nd amendment wasn't needed to ensure the continued existence of the militias, but to ensure the would not be rendered useless, destroyed if left unorganized/unregulated via congressional non-feasance, or by the people being disarmed.


OK - so we know about the importance of state Militias, we know about the protection from tyranny, and we know about the importance of the people bearing arms, the one thing you didn't really address.

So where does the 2nd's security of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' fall in all this?