6 Lies About the SECOND AMENDMENT 

With all the internal problems within America i fail to see how this is a 1st world country

Saying you can have a militia but banning private weapons ownership is like giving you the right to fish but banning rods, reels, bait, hooks and boat ownership.

Free men don't ask permission to bear arms!

The Washington Post can BELIEVE what they want to, it’s one of the best things about this country. But the rest of us believe the opposite. I am not giving up MY right to self protection because some journalists think people don’t have the right to.

The 2nd Amendment is not permission for the people. It is restrictions for the government.

The Supreme Court ruled every citizen is the militia. End of conversation

Thucydides once said “The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.” Something to think about.

If "the people" are "the militia", then "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms. If "the people" are not "the militia". then right, as stated in the text of the amendment, is explicitly aimed at "the people". Either way, "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms.

We all need to send this to our local congressman/congresswoman, senators and state representatives.

The National gaurd is a supplement to the standing army. They function as a standing army, they have a rank structure, a duty to follow orders and they cannot leave as militia can. Militia are private citizens with no contract to the military.

Everything a modern infantryman has access to should be readily available to the people

You can't loose a right, only privileges can be taken away. Free men do not copitulate to despots.

12:00 If the second amendment only applies to the “government militia”, why is it part of the Bill of Rights and not the enumerated powers?

The fact that people will argue that "a well regulated militia" is talking about police and national guard is ridiculous, militia men were farmers, store owners, butchers, men like any of us today. War wasn't their profession.

"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the Right of the People to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed." It's really not that difficult to differentiate the prefatory and operative clause of this statement. It shouldn't be difficult to differentiate the clauses in the second amendment either.

The very same people that say " people have no right to own guns " despite the Second Amendment says that we do , are the same ones that claim abortion IS a right . Exactly where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that ?

“In colonial times the term "well regulated" meant "well functioning" - for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: "Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislature to consult the happiness of a rising generation..." Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines "regulated" among other things as "properly disciplined"; and it defines "discipline" among other things as "a trained condition." Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies. Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia.." somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keep ... arms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms. The National Guard cannot possibly be interpreted as the whole constitutional militia encompassed by the Second Amendment; if for no other reason, the fact that guardsmen are prohibited by law (32 U.S.C. § 105[a][1]) from keeping their own military arms. Instead, these firearms are owned and annually inventoried by the Federal government, and are kept in armories under lock and key” - David I. Caplan

There's no such thing as collective rights. All rights are individual rights, and they come from nature, not government. Individual rights preexist, supersede and overrule any and all governments and laws.

@DefendersandDisciples, the National Guard ceased being a Militia in the Spanish American War, when all state militias fell under the War Department. Militia by definition do not deploy abroad. Yet, the Guard has been deploying since the Spanish American War.

As a (now ex-) academic I'm so sick of having these same argument ad nauseum with my erstwhile colleagues, who are anti-gun almost to a man. And crassly ignorant both of history in general, the beliefs and views of the Founders themselves, and basic grammar -- both modern and that of the late 18th century. I explain and explain, but they're somehow always ready to do ridiculous mental gymnastics to disregard the very simple language and established facts of the 2A. As Madison said, "Who are the militia? They are _the whole of the people,_ except for a few officials." As for 'well regulated', in the 18th century the term "regulate" did *NOT* have its modern definition of control, legislate or restrict; rather it meant to train, increase the performance of, or improve: The way one regulates a machine for optimum performance, or regulates a watch for the best timekeeping. As for the first sentence (preamble), just add "because" in front of it, and you'll have the meaning in the parlance of the era. It's that simple. This stuff is not rocket science, and I am convinced people who insist upon reinterpreting our rights are being willfully and knowingly disingenuous.

I think that people misunderstand "security" in the 2nd Amendment. It's not referring to public safety; It's referring to *securing* a free state from tyrannical threats, inside and out.

Google lies about it also. If you google if it is legal for a civilian to train for combat , google says it is not which completely contradicts the well regulated militia part. It’s crazy.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of privileges granted by the government but unalienable rights of the people, a list of restrictions on the government. The intent of the second amendment is to keep the citizens as well-armed as the government thus providing a balance of power, enabling the people to remove a tyrannical government by force if necessary. Arms- any weapon that can be wielded in defense or offense by an individual. Any arms a local, state, or federal agency can use against a citizens of this nation cannot be restricted from citizens of this nation, it's unconstitutional and a violation of our second amendment rights. How can gun control groups claim semi-automatic pistols, semi-automatic rifles, standard capacity magazines, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, suppressors are dangerous and unusual when they are the go to for every government agency in this country?

Second Amendment - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." All other words are descriptive. The above is the real provision. What - the right Whose - the people For what - keep and bear arms How - shall not be infringed Very simple. Very direct. Common English translation - Government, don't touch!

It's not a misunderstanding, it's an outright LIE. They just feel if they keep saying it, more and more people will begin to believe it!

As I recall: technological advancement was not considered consequential, well regulated meant you weren't ignorant about which end is pew pew, and every male 18 to 45 is militia - regardless of what mouthbreathers in D.C. came up during the early 1900s.

You should also address the 1700's definition of "Arms". It is quite interesting. It encompasses more than just firearms.

There is no "collective right." That concept is absurd, like "sovereign citizen."

When I was in grade school in the 60s and 70s, we were taught the 1st 10 as the bill of individual rights.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." -- Patrick Henry

A good portion of the Founding Father's were inventors and and they saw the evolution of battlefield amrs, this is why they used the word Arms and not another word!

I just want to clarify free state as I see it. To me state is not referring to a geographical land area but a condition. So instead of “security of a free state” I interpret it as “securing a state of freedom”.

The real reason for armed for defense and Second Amendment is specified in second paragraph of Declaration of Independence and it specifically states tyrannical government: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the ( right of the people ) to keep and ( bear ) Arms, shall not be infringed. It's a multiple RIGHT ! The rights are written for the people not the government !

"Shall not be infringed" was not a suggestion. It was a directive.

“The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so. ... With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies.” “While none of the Founders liked the idea of a standing army, the majority (Madison strongly included) believed it to be necessary. The Second Amendment was not a response to Anti-federalist criticism of the standing army. All the Bill of Rights were added because of a desire to disarm what Madison and the other Federalists saw as an Anti-federalist quibble, a strawman objection to the lack of a Bill of Rights which was intended to excite the fear and passion of the masses but which the statesmen on both sides viewed as negligible. Madison just wrote up a set of principles - of truisms - in which everybody believed, and the Congress duly passed it as the Bill of Rights. Two of these truisms that got cobbled into one article were: that there is a natural right to be armed; and that militias are a good thing, a much better thing than a standing army, however necessary it may be.” “ [Today] both sides in the modern Second Amendment debate recognize that Madison proposed, and the Federalist First Congress passed, the Bill of Rights in response to Anti-federalist criticism of the Constitution. Unlike the individual right view [the view of those who believe the Second Amendment protects an "individual" right to keep and bear arms ], however, the states' right view presupposes the Amendment's hostility to parts of the Constitution to which the Anti-federalists were deeply opposed. The Anti-federalists had opposed ratification of the Constitution on two very different kinds of grounds. One involved deep suspicion about specific provisions, particularly those allowing a standing army and providing for federal supervision of the militia. Entirely independent of those specifics, the Anti-federalists, and many other Americans, were critical of the failure to append to the Constitution a charter of basic human rights that the federal government could not infringe under any circumstances. The individual right view sees the Second Amendment, and the Bill of Rights in general, as responding to this second kind of criticism. During the ratification debate, the Federalists vehemently denied that the federal government would have the power to infringe freedom of expression, reli-gion, and other basic rights - expressly including the right to arms. In this context, Madison secured ratification by his commitment to support the addition by amendment of a charter that would guarantee basic rights. But that commitment extended only to safeguarding the fundamental rights that all agreed should never be infringed. It did not involve conceding any issue on which the Federalists and Anti-federalists disagreed, i.e., the latter's opposition to specific provisions of the Con-stitution. Indeed, a few days after their submission, Madison said that he had "deliberately proposed amendments that would not detract from federal powers, among them a right for the citizenry to be armed. " The Second Amendment, then, was a response to the perceived lack of individual rights guarantees, not, as states' right proponents contend, a reaction to the standing army and militia control provisions of [the original Constitution]. The latter source of Anti-federalist wrath was simply not addressed by the Second Amendment. Nothing on the face of the Amendment deals with [those] concerns; certainly Madison did not see it as changing those portions of the Constitution. The Anti-federalists were not placated by the Amend-ment; when the proposed Bill of Rights reached the Senate, they unsuccessfully attempted to amend or repeal the offending clauses of [the original Constitution].” - Second Amendment Scholar, Don B Kates

“For either I have my country well equipped with arms, as the Romans had and the Swiss have; or I have a country ill equipped with arms, as the Carthaginians had, and as have the king of France and the Italians today. In the latter case the enemy should be kept at a distance. [I]t is certain that no subjects or citizens, when legally armed and kept in due order by their masters, ever did the least mischief to any state. ... Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than forty years.” - Machiavelli

All I can say about regulating nuclear weapons is: good luck enforcing that rule over 12437400km3 when civilian space-faring becomes commonplace.

Nowhere in the 2A does it state the right to keep and bear arms extends ONLY to bearable arms.

“A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. .. to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” -Anti-Federalist Richard Henry Lee (The Federal Farmer)

“[t]he Framers of our Constitution were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them; but, when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed themselves in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” -Chief Justice Howard Taft

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” -Beccaria

the militia is every able bodied man capable to act as a soldier

What I don’t hear from anyone is if it was meant for only the militia , why doesn’t say the right of the militia not be infringed instead of the people

It does give me the right to own nuclear weapons if the government has them. That’s part of a well regulated militia. How else would one combat tyrants?

To believe that the founders couldn't imagine modern weapons is like saying that everything we saw throughout the Star Treck series, that has become reality today, could not have eve been imagined in the 80s.

Well I don't care what all those people think and say cuz they're not supposed to be going off reading the Constitution and trying to interpret what it means. It means exactly what it meant by the understanding of the people when it was created. There is no interpretation whatsoever involved in that

" who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then that we should turn our arms, each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia . Their swords, and every other implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American . The unlimited power of the sword is not in either the hands of the federal, or state governments, but where i trust in god it will ever remain, in the hands of the people " - Tench Coxe 1788

How can the constitution of the United States of America end at a state border?

Shall not be infringed amen

Amazing to see people finally start speaking out about this bs Also I see you acting like the AR-15 is a military rifle often through the video; it just isn't. Most confuse it with the M-4A1 however. The AR-15 simply is a civilianized version of the M-4A1, and does not have full auto capability as you likely know. The M-4A1 does.

The same men who gave us the constitution also gave us the Militia Act of 1792. Within the Act it defines the Militia as all free men 18 years of age or older. The militia is *NOT* the national guard or law enforcement.

Shall not be Infringed prohibits the state and federal government from limiting or taking away said right (privilege, immunity).

Isn't the text "a well regulated MILITIA" and not "a well-regulated GUN?"

Video about Private Ownership of Nukes: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-v67RhMrH5DE.html (for some reason, it's not showing up on the video)

The first and third lies are not simple misunderstanding, it is deliberate misinterpretation.

I am in the militia. I signed a legal government document less than a week after my 18 birthday that had the word militia in black and white, multiple times. It did use words like able-bodied and willing, but I don't recall seeing an age limit on it. I may be old, but I can still shoot straight

The predecate is not neccessary to the Right to keep and bear arms .... This was an extension of the individual right of individuals to gather together and form a militia...Rights are endowed by our creator to us as individuals . Rights:Locke - 2nd treatise on government

There's no such thing as a free state in America. Last time I checked there are gun control laws in all 50 states. Let me know when you can own a full auto-suppressed SBR by getting a government permission slip.

What American citizens do not comprehend and understand that anyone passing or enforcing any form of gun laws,or working with or on behalf of any gun control organization, association, movement, group whatsoever are guilty of felony crimes in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5).

I’m 64 and I’m still part of the Militia. I’m in excellent shape and health and walk 5 miles everyday with a 45 pound load out including plates and a AR-15 Rifle.

ThEy WoUlDn'T uNdErStAnD tHe AtOm Me: Mr Jefferson we got a big cannon ball that can be transported in a single cart. We loaded them into a couple of sky boats and level a couple of Japanese cities.

Another important point, 'arms' does not mean firearms. It means weapons.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You have the right to bear any arms of any kind...

I believe that even a felon should have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense

A well regulated clock, being necessary for the telling of accurate time, the Right of the people to keep and wear timepieces shall not be infringed. Which has the Right to keep and wear time pieces? The People, or the well regulated clock? ‘A well regulated militia” simply refers to an Ideal condition of Readiness. As you say, the second amendment simply gives a purpose for why the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is not a prerequisite condition for the free exercise of that Right.

Shall not be infringed.

The government is the one that should be regulated on what they can carry private citizen should be able to have up to and including f-16s and nuclear weapons

The old boys that wrote that Right would be amazed at the modern sporting rifle and its ammunition but, they would understand it and know it as a gun.

The Founders did not foresee the word "regulated" taking on the connotation of limiting something in the 20th century. At the time, "well regulated" means in functional order. In THIS context, it mean well-armed and well-trained. Here's one example of the word "regulate" retaining its original meaning: think of the regulator in your car door that operates your car window. The regulator makes the window work. It does not restrict the window from working.

As a Militiaman from Kent in England, we believe in the English Bill of Rights, given that we're Christians and that the current conditions of the world right now, I think it's more than enough justification to be armed.

you are correct lets put the same regulations and arguments on the first as we do the second we need a license to tweet or post to make sure the speech is safe

The thing that bothers me: The oath of office is the promise to protect and defend the constitution. Why is no one calling out those politicians and their lackeys for their treason? (It is considered either treason or a high crime to betray the oath of office each of our politicians take.)

I live near fort Leavenworth in Kansas. It is insane the amount of female/lesbian soldiers that are sent here. Because there is nothing to defend here. The prison Guards are a whole separate division there, and the military is just for those unfit for combat.

The Continental Congress of 1777('the Founders') had FIRST HAND knowledge of the technological advancement of firearms 14 YEARS prior to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. See: 'Belton Flintlock.'

During the American Revolutionary war we had continent lines “the regular army” we had militias “ armed civilian volunteers “ . During the southern campaign it was Nathaniel Green who utilized the militia properly. They would be out in front of the continental lines with their rifled firelocks . They would engage the British out to 300 yards taking out the leadership first . Once they advanced to around 80 yards the militia would fall in behind the continental line because they were unable to attach a bayonet to their firelocks. Nathaniel Green literally defeated Charles Cornwallis by attacking them running away from him .

The idea that the militia clause was there to allow for forming a militia is wrong and what has caused so many people to think arms ownership is tied to the militia. It's also wrongly pushed by the right in order to say, "I am the militia so I can have a gun." It wasn't what the amendment said. They had finished debating whether there should be a standing army or a militia. They had also debated whether a militia could be called up and perverted to be used against the people or used against a militia of another state by the federal government. They didn't like the idea of a standing army; but knew the country needed protected. So, they said basically, "Because the country needs protected and we need a militia to do it, the people can be armed to defend against the militia." It wasn't, "The militia has to be populated, so the people can have guns." It was, "The militia must be armed, so the people can have guns to defend against them.

The act as specified that each militiaman would acquire a rifle or musket and that the weapon could not be used as surety, bond or collateral in any financial or judicial case, as the firearm was not technically a privately owned firearm. This was in line with tradition and English common law and royal decree, in which all subjects were required to be able to muster with privately purchased arms when called to bear arms. All subjects had the responsibility to bear arms but only the nobility HAD the right to bear arms. The act was the result of the failure of the Confederacy and the states to secure and protects the hundreds of thousands of arms in their hands in 1783, such that few were serviceable in 1787 and the Federal government was dealing with the massive national debt, the new government having assumed not just the Congressional/Confederate debt but that of the states. It was 1807 before the US had sufficient arms for its regular force and most of the militia, which included thousands of muskets purchased from the British in 1798-1800. Even then, Kentucky sent 1000 unarmed volunteers without winter clothing to Jackson in New Orleans in December 1814. Jackson had the city turned upside down with the seizure of all private arms to arm the Kentucky volunteers, which is why he put them on the other side of the river. The states were responsible for the readiness of the militia and did so through state funding including arms purchase to supplement arms received from the Federal government from 1808 on. This was done by making the Governor commander of the state militia and having all officers commissioned by the Governor at the pleasure of the Legislature. From the 1830s, the militia outside the slave owning South, the frontier states and NY, atrophied into uselessness. The militia did not atrophy in the slave states as they rotated on and off duty pulling patrols to chase escaped slaves or preventing any gatherings of free men of color and/or slaves. The militia in the frontier states were engaged in constant conflict with the Native Americans. Instead, citizens would form volunteer companies, purchasing or being donated uniforms and arms. These companies were chartered in law by the state legislature and officered by men holding a commission from the Governor. Unless formed under posse comitatus for the enforcement of law, the gathering of armed individuals was considered illegal. As an example, after a particularly corrupt election in San Fransisco in 1858, the outraged citizens formed "vigilance committees". These "vigilantes" broke into the city militia arsenals and armed themselves, deposing the mayor and city council. The Territorial Governor, despite being sympathetic to the citizens, collected what few Regular Army units (a few companies of infantry, dragoons and artillery) in California and mobilized militia to occupy the city and disarm the "vigilantes" or engaging in an armed insurrection. So back we go to the Second Amendment. A "well-regulated militia" and the right to bear and keep arms. Again, we have to go back to 1787. We discussed something of what to "bear arms" means. When Elizabeth I came to the throne, she published a decree defining the militia as "any subject able to BEAR ARMS in defense of crown and land. But this wasn't quite true. Up until 1790. only men 21 and up who owned a certain amount of property or wealth and who were members of the Church of England, the Scottish Kirk and the Reformed Dutch Church could be citizens. The poor, working men, Jews, Roman Catholics, Methodists. Baptists, Quakers, Unitarians could not be citizens nor serve in the militia. The Constitution partly ended this situation by forbidding any religious test for holding office, Federal, state or local, including commissions in the militia. While the states continued to determine who was a citizen, religion was no longer a bar and eventually poll taxes and such were eliminated. Second Amendment ended these restrictions against service in the militia or the Federal forces. There may have been another reason. The rebels once they had control of the colonial legislatures, purged the militia of loyalists. Militia membership hung on who you were loyal to. Our Forefathers may have been a little leery of allowing the states to do something similar, which did happen in the seceded states in 1860. All citizens had the right to bear arms in defense of the Constitution and the nation. Now, "to keep arms" is a little fuzzier. Certainly this goes back to those royal decrees defining the arms each subject was to acquire and maintain in relation to their wealth and social status. Initially, these arms were kept by the subject. As time went on, these weapons were collected into arsenals managed by the sheriffs and lieutenants of the monarch. As these weapons became more and more deadly, leaving them in the hands of private citizens was questioned. Still, even today, the Swiss citizen-Soldier takes his individual weapon and stores it at home through the length of his militia service. He is not given access, however to magazines and ammunition. What may have driven this was the situation in Massachusetts, where in 1775, the legislature ordered 35,000 muskets to arms those without arms or replace the personal arms such as fowling pieces. Unfortunately by 1776, the British occupied Boston, and the legislature had little ability to store 35,000 muskets, so they were issued out to the militia to keep at home. This also assisted in the formation of the "minuteman" companies. But the point is, neither the Constitution nor its Amendments address privately owned firearms. When arms are discussed it those of the militia. The reality of the situation is that the Federal government has no authority to regulate privately-armed firearms. Under the Tenth Amendment, that power falls to the states. Which means if Arizona wants to let people walk around with loaded AR-15 clones in public and New York wants to severely regulate who can own firearms and what type of firearms they can own, both states are exercising their Constitutional authority.

I already discussed the Militia Act of 1792 as amended and the Militia Act of 1862. Both of these were replaced by the Dick Act of 1903, it being considered out of date to require company grade officers to acquire and carry espontoons. First and foremost, the Dick Act split the militia into two parts. There was the ORGANIZED militia which were those citizens who were active members of the state National Guards and Sea Militias. The National Guard was formalized on a national level and received funding from the Federal government while being held to higher standards of readiness through inspections by Regular Army officers and exercises with RA units. Any citizen between 18 and 35 could join the National Guard and perform the required paid drills and annual training. They would be assigned to a specific National Guard unit and issued a rifle and equipment that would be centrally stored at a National Guard arsenal. Their officers would hold a commission from the Governor and were required to acquire a Federal commission. Even as late as 1989, 20% of Army National Guard officers did not hold Federal commissions. They would be mobilized as units, brought to war strength by volunteers, and as necessary, by draft, into Federal service when they would be liable to service not only outside the state but possibly the country. Everyone else, who were citizens or foreign residents who had declared their intentions to become citizens, from 17 to 55, became part of the UNORGANIZED militia. These men were neither trained, nor armed, nor uniformed nor paid. They represented a mobilization asset. When needed they would be drafted into state service, but more likely into Federal service. At that time, they would be armed, organized, uniformed and trained by the Federal government. WW1 was the first war fought under the Dick Act. Initially, the RA and NG divisions were given different uniform arms disks. Then the drafted National Army divisions received a third. Someone got wise to the fact that none of the divisions were pure anything and ended this separation, all division being part of the Army of the United States. While millions volunteered, the Wilson Administration decided not to wait for the volunteers and started drafting from the beginning in 1917. The next applicable event was the National Defense Act of 1920, which recognized the Federal Reserves of the Armed Forces, such that the Regular Army, the National Guard and the Organized Reserve now made up the AUS. Then in 1937, the word "militia" was replaced by the word "reserves" in US Code Title X, XI and XXXII, the laws which govern the Armed Forces of the US.

I love that minutemen were a thing. WE ARE THE MILITIA.

Well regulated to me means the majority of owners have the best equipment and regularly drilled and trained to fight together when needed

Originally the Second Amendment had a clause that exempted persons who were religiously opposed to bear arms (pacifists) were exempted from doing so. When the Bill of Rights went to the Senate, the senate dropped that clause without an explanation. Therefore, ALL Americans should bear some sort of arms for protection of themselves, their family and neighbors, the greater community and Nation and Constitution. That last sentence is just a personal opinion and not a demand. As it is said, “Opinions are like backsides, everyone has one”. So the debate rages on.

"Well regulated" means using common arms and common training.

The second amendment was predicated on April 19, 1775. The British regulars were not just attempting to confiscate muskets but also cannon.

When the Black Panthers created an organized armed militia to protect black citizens in California from racist police officers Ronald Reagan started some of the first gun restrictions to unarm them.

Also don’t forget the first two battles of the revolution were fought against the British with personally owned rifles.

Justice Clarence Thomas: In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".

I keep and bear arms. I have a concealed carry license and practice regularly. I am also 75 and therefore not part of the original definition of militia. The first clause of the amendment is a reasoning, not a limitation.

George Washington declared - "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." First Annual address to Congress January 08 1790. Note the word "manufactories" i.e. gun makers, smiths, and all arms related in general - "Congress shall make no law.."

When the US Bill of Rights was made (especially the Second Amendment), men were lead by honour codes and the weapons were not weapons of mass destruction. You teach your children how to shelter in place and not to run in straight line to "protect them from being shut. You have bulletproof backpacks. This is not the sign of a free country, this is the sign of a war zone.

That's the thing, we do train, monthly. In the rain, snow, extreme heat, low light. Why do you think certain states are trying to pass "anti training" laws? Last thing they ( ahem gvts) want is a half dozen or so close knit groups standing together.

You know what is awesome? I grew up watching "Reading Rainbow" and "School House Rock". This is back when we had a real education.

The language of the Constitution strikes me as simple and straight-forward....as are Federal statutes.... only the tax code is puzzling.

If you don't believe in the 2A, convince congress to repeal and replace it, but don't lie about what it means.

Just having in my lifetime to hear this over and over and fight it and fight it is so stupid.

I would also mention that when a group of people try to train and drill on their own, they are looked on as a dangerous extremist group and put on FBI watchlists. Bit of a catch-22 on the part of detractors, isn’t it?

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.” - The Second Amendment reworded for people who are bad at English.

"A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - The 2nd Amendment A well regulated militia is ONLY necessary to the security of a free state in this sentence, it is not necessary for ANYTHING ELSE. The argument that people must be in the well regulated militia to have the right to keep and bear arms or for the government not to infringe on it is false. The right of the people to keep and bear arms existed even before the 2nd Amendment was ever written and the Colonists used that right to fight for their independence. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed on, regardless of if people are in a well regulated militia or one doesn't even existing in the first place, because a well regulated milita requires the people be armed with military weapons and equipment to exist and provide security to a FREE state, not the otherway around. A well regulated militia requires 5 things: 1) The militia MUST be made up of FREE people, not government-controlled soldiers. Why? The Colonists didn't fight for their freedom based on the control and command of the British government, their previous domestic government. If it was up to the British government, the Colonists would've been made to stand down and just give up all their gun powder, muskets, and cannons. Therefore the American citizens need no authorization/command from the American government to militerize and act according to what is best for them and their freedom. 2) The free people MUST be of good physical AND mental condition. Why? People who are too young/old or too out of shape and not able to physically carry the arms and supplies they need to survive in a battle, particularly prolonged battles where soldiers need to carry many pounds of food, water, and medical supplies along with their arms, ammo, and armor. Also, people who are not mentally able to handle the rigors of war are not useful on the battlefield. A mental vegetable would not be useful in a militia. The Colonists did not send children, elderly, and physically and mentally sick people into war against the British. 3) The free and fit people MUST be well armed. They must be as well armed as their opponents or better or at the very least, the best they can be. Why? They would not fare well if they had only rifles or pistols with 10 round magazines when their enemies are tyrannical armies with tanks, fighter jets, bomber planes, etc. The Colonists fought against the British with muskets and cannons just like the British did. They did not fight with bows and arrows because muskets and cannons were "weapons of war" or "military style weapons", in fact, they fought with muskets and cannons SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY WERE WEAPONS OF WAR AND THEY WERE FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST AN ARMY! 4) The free, fit, and armed people MUST be well supplied. Why? Guns, tanks, fighter jets, bomber planes, etc. don't do much good if there's no ammo for them. They also need other supplies like food, water, medical supplies, and fuel. Starving/dehydrated/wounded/stranded people don't do well on battlefields. They need food and water to maintain their stamina. They need medical supplies in case they are wounded. They need fuel to transport themselves and supplies across long distances, or to use vehicles of war. After the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers wrote the Milita Act 1792, and within it, they said the people must also bring several other things besides just a rifle, powder, and ball ammo, they needed sacks and pouches to carry all their other things like drinking flasks, medical dressings, mess kit, etc. 5) The free, fit, armed, and supplied people MUST be well trained. The training doesn't have to come from the government. Why? People who don't know how to even use their arms, medical supplies, or operate the vehicles of war won't do very well. Also the people should not expect a tyrannical government to train them how to beat them. The British did not train the Colonists how to beat them in war. A government that prevents the people from having or being able to do any of these things is tyrannical and wishes to stop them from ever fighting for their freedom in the first place. 1) If the government tells the people they can only act against them under the command of the governor, congress, or the president, and outlaws private action of militias, they are tyrannical. 2) If the government force feeds the people garbage by putting nothing but garbage on the market shelves to make them obeases and unhealthy so they cannot form a well regulated militia, they are tyrannical. 3) If the government disarms the people either completely or even partially, and reduces their armed strength to that which is less than theirs, they are tyrannical. 4) If the government limits the people's ability to get or acquire military supplies like MREs, tourniquets, etc. they are tyrannical. 5) If the government forbids the people from gathering and practicing military-type drills/exercise/etc. because they aren't part of the government's offical/registered/accepted/approved milita, they are tyrannical.

Militia regulation goes deeper. Militia regulations REQUIRED members to own serviceable weapons in good condition, with enough powder and ball to keep that weapon firing. That's impossible without an individual right to own and carry arms. The militia cannot rely on government coffers to provide resupply and logistics support. That's on the militia itself.

Here's where they get you with syllogism. They say, "not an 'individual' right". Remember that every time they speak, they speak in double (legalese and colloquial English). If you look up the legal definition of the word, "individual" you find that it refers to an [crporate] "entity." The constitution does not protect commercial entities. It protects the people from commercial entities.