Examining the History of the Second Amendment (June 4, 2014) 

This is the difference between us and all the nations touted to have a more civilized society than ours but nearly every single one of them, has called upon the U.S. for their freedom

@Corno di Bassetto "The Constitution of most of our states, and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason

When you mute someone who shares the truth, means you know that you lost.

Ive already watched this Colin Noir never talks about the founding fathers or their quotes. He works for the nra. The nra is a fake pro gun association. Try the goa who actually is pro constitution. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

Sadly, this is not the format that works for the 24/7 media machine. Short, one-line insults work much better in capturing the attention of the average, on-the-go citizen. This debate was fantastic. I learned much and now feel like I better understand the history that led us to DC v Heller.

THE SILENT MAJORITY?!

In fact, citizen militia and paramilitary groups are outlawed and prohibited in all 50 States. Dormant or active they are unlawful.

​@@deppsterdeppe725 So they are outlawed and prohibited in all 50 states by what authority? The same state and federal governments which were put on notice by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution that the state and federal governments are prohibited from outlawing and prohibiting Citizen Militias? George III and Thomas Gage agreed with your position. If fact, they tried to enforce your position at Lexington and Concord with somewhat questionable results. By the way, Hitler was a big fan also.

@@generalbarry They are outlawed and explicitly prohibited by Laws put in place by each state legislatures of course, as that is how laws are enacted as most people know.. The far right NRA myth and twisted perversion of the original intent of the 2nd amendment is their 40+ year fairytale. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...The fundamental reference and entire point lies therein.

The Second Amendment was the anti-standing army amendment. It failed spectacularly in that respect. If it was intended to curb state violence against citizens, it has also failed, as the US has the rates of violence by police.

Thats from the Declaration.

Hot heads are needed at times. If the colonists had sat with the King of England and discussed cordially their differences, they would be in the river Thames.

They were equally afraid of a central banking system.

No doubt about it thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Federal militia law from the time of the Second Amendment actually required people to own military weapons and enroll in the state militia where they liked it or not.

They feared tyranny might develop under a Republic as happened to the Roman Republic. All gentlemen in those days had a classical education and were very familiar with the history of ancient Greece and Rome. In Rome, the Republic was destroyed by generals like Cornelius Sulla,.Julius Caesar, Marius, Pompey, and others. These generals commended armies that were loyal to them personally, not necessarily to the Republic. They used their armies to advance their personal ambitions, which might or might not be aligned with the policies of the Republic's government. The Founders saw this as a potential danger to the American Republic. They had gone through the Revolutionary War and had seen some generals, especially Washington, become powerful. Luckily Washington did not harbour ambitions dangerous to the Republic -- this is a major aspect of his greatness. To defuse this danger, the Founders avoided creating a standing army, and relied instead on volunteer militias to defend the country. In order to make such militias part of the regime they were creating, they adopted the 2nd Amendment, which says that in order to ensure that well regulated militias (not gangs) every male white citizen (implied) had the right to "keep and bear arms". Standing armies are given guns and uniforms and training by the government. The soldiers agree to serve full time for some period, for which they will be paid. British soldiers were said to "take the King's shilling" when they enlisted and were promptly paid a shilling as a sign that they were now soldiers of the King. Volunteer militias do not receive weapons, uniforms, or payment from the government. They provide their own, and volunteer their time. The Founders hoped that including the words "well regulated" would have the effect of disciplining the militias to some extent so that their activities would fulfill their goal of protecting the "security of the State". It did not specify what such regulations were or who would impose them, but trusted the citizenry to adopt sensible, patriotic rules for themselves. To facilitate recruitment, a large pool of men who owned firearms was useful, so that the best men could be chosen. If the only men who owned guns in a community were too old or infirm to participate in a militia, it would be impossible to form a militia. So, to ensure that there would be enough men available to form a serviceable militia, the Amendment recognized that white men (implied) had the right to keep and bear arms. Did the Founders envisage a country without well regulated militias, in which millions of people would "bear arms" into theaters, supermarkets, churches, schools and county court? Certainly not. They themselves did not carry arms with them as they went about their daily activities. They did not debate the Constitution with guns in their hands. When they fought duels, like Hamilton and Burr, did both men arrive at the site with guns in their holsters? Certainly not. Did ordinary citizens carry guns all the time -- while they plowed their fields, slaughtered pigs, drove to the crossroads store, walked to church? We don't see much mention of that in the literature they produced. Why didn't somebody blow the Headless Horseman away when he started scaring everybody? Did Rip Van Winkle make to sure get a new gun when he woke up? It might have been more common for people on the "frontier" to carry guns, since they feared the Indigenous people whose land they were stealing. But most Americans didn't live on the frontier. They lived in places like New York or Charleston or Philadelphia, or, a majority of them, in settled agricultural regions. One group that carried guns was the Slave Patrols. And here we come to the kind of thinking that motivates much of the gun culture today. The nightmare of a slave holding society is a slave revolt. In Haiti, there had been a slave revolution at around the same time as the American republic was taking shape. Slave owners were well aware of the Haitian Revolution, and the harsh treatment meted out by the former slaves to their former "masters". Sugar production is one of the most arduous forms of labour, and that's what the Haitian slaves had been forced to do for centuries. When they had not performed up to the standards of their overseers, they were punished ruthlessly "as an example". All this oppression, when finally overthrown by the Haitian people, led to atrocities against the "masters" by the newly free slaves. All this was current news to American slave "owners", and they were afraid the same thing would happen to them some day. So they set up Slave Patrols made up of armed white men who would ride around at night looking for slaves who had wandered away from their master's plantation. When found, such a slave would be whipped and returned to his "owner". The Slave Patrols were especially on the lookout for groups of slaves, meeting together in the backwoods and socializing or -- horrors! -- planning a revolt. These meetings were dealt with very harshly. White people spread rumors about black men sneaking off to meet slaves from other plantations to organize a revolt, in which they would kill their "masters", rape white women, burn the house and the outbuildings and then go one to the next plantation and do the same. Just like Haiti! Nowadays, the gun culture is saturated with similar fantasies, of "ghetto dwellers" breaking out of their slums and descending on the white suburbs with their illegally obtained guns, looking to shoot the suburban men and rape their women. They would "intrude" into the homes of white people and stand there with guns, with their strange hair styles and headscarves, their tasteless jewelry or even gold "grills" on their teeth, listening to rap and hip hop on their stolen cell phones as they manhandle the nice things the white people have gone into debt to buy. The "rioter", the "intruder", the "criminal", the "ghetto N--" arouse the same fears that used to torment white people during the times of slavery. And for some white people the response is the same: militarize the cops and have them clamp down on the ghetto dwellers. But you can't always rely on the cops! So you need to arm yourself to defend your loved ones and your property. Like that couple in Missouri who saw a group of black people marching with banners and chanting slogans outside their luxury townhouse and rushed to grab their guns and go outside to "defend" their property from these "intruders". In reality, the group of marchers were totally peaceful and caused no disruption whatsoever, aside from making some noise with their chants. But, driven by the ancient fear of a slave revolt as it has been updated to the 21st century, this wealthy couple saw "N-- in the neighbourhood" and assumed the Evil Day had come and rushed out to confront them, guns in hand. That white couple became instant heroes to the millions of Americans who have kept alive in their hearts the fear of slave revolt, and who were awestruck by the heroism of these two gun toting rich folks. That fear underlies much of the gun culture that is so prevalent in the US. It explains the profound emotional attachment felt by many Americans to their guns; it explains their endless threats of insurrection to overthrow "tyranny" (rule by non whites), and their panic over the demographic changes that have made it inevitable that America will be majority non-white in a few decades.

the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS

+Chad Kamerad Well put,

Karen Garcia Thank you.

WE TODAY IN AMERICA HAVE A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. AS THE CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WITH MEDIA CONTROL OVER FAKE NEWS AND FALSE NARRITIVE NEWS HAS CREATED A SELECTIVE PEOSECUTING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IS NOW HAPPENING TO THE BLACK PEOPLE THROUGH RACIAL PROFILEING AND WHAT ROBERT MEULLER IS DOING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE NOT, ONE CRIME THAT INVOLVES PRESIDENT TRUMP . THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND THE FEW THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED MOST OF THEM WERE ALREADY UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION FOR SOME OVER 10 PLUS YEARS.. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING SELECTED BY A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE FBI AS A GOVERNMENT MILITANT TRAINED GROUP. THIS CAN AND DOES HAPPEN TO MANY MANY NORMAL CITIZENS WHO EVEN HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT YET GET THIER LOIVES RUINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRATES ARE NOT LIKE THE DEOMOCRATS OF YESTERYEAR. THEY ARE NOW A SOCIALIST ANTIFA VIOLENT GROUP THAT USES THE MEDIA TO LIE AND SPIN THE TRUTH IN THE NEWS. FOR EXAMPLE JUST LOOK UP RU-vid AND FAKE NEWS. CNN WILL POP UP ALL OVER. AND HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . NOW CHRIS CUOMO ONCE SAID ON T.V. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY CITIZEN TO OWN HILLARY CLINTONS WIKILEAKS EMALIS THAT TELL THE TRUTH AND EXPOSE HER LIES AND TELL THE REAL TRUTH ABPOUT HER. AND IF THE CITIZENS HAD A COPY OF THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS THEN IT IS ILLEGAL AND THEY THE CITIZENS ARE CRIMINALS. AND ONLY THE MEDIA LIKE HIMSELF CHRIS CUOMO AND THE MEDIA ARE THE ONLY LEGAL ONES WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS THE HILLARYS WIKILEAKS. NOW THAT IS A REAL LIE. AND WHEN THE MEDIA WHICH IS A CORPORATION LIE TO THE MASSESS AND CITIZENS WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IS FRAUDULENT NEWS. THAT IS VERY INFLUENTIAL TO THE ELECTION PROCESS . SO FORGET RUSSIA THAT TOOK OUT ADDS IN FACE BOOK . BUT WE HAVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA THAT ON PURPOSELY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE TO LIKE OR DISLIKE A POTENTIAL CANDIATE. THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ACTIONABLE BY TRUMP AND CONGRESS SHOULD PASS MANY LAWS THAT IF A REPORTER SPINS OR LIES OR DISTORTS THE TRUTH FOR THIER CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE NEWS MEDIAS SHOULD GO TO PRISON. PERIOD. NOW HOW THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GUN AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS LIKE THIS. SO FELLOW CITIZENS YOU BETTER KEEP ALL YOUR GUNS ALL BIG AND SMALL.BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUSHED IT ALREADY WITH RACIAL PROFILING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT OBAMA USEDA EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STOP ANY INVESTIOGATION INTO THE FAST AND FURIOUS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE. ALL LAWYERS DO IS COMPLICATE THE ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND TRAINED TO DO. SO YOU CAN LISTEN TO A FAT CROOKED CAREER POLITICIAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR YOU CAN SAY WHAT BEN FRANKLIN SAID. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

i open carry every day here in vegas ...SUBSCRIBE

I agree

Please demonstrably explain and then prove this 'god'; then deomntrartbly prove that it was in any way responsible for the compromise that was the US Constitution.

Indeed!

Indeed!

Indeed!

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ― James Madison “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 William Grayson, of Virginia:

Corno di Bassetto The 14th amendment prevents the states from "doing whatever they want with Guns" . States cannot violate your civil rights such as the Second Amendment under the 14th amendment to the constitution. (including turning them all into scrap metal).

I love the second amendment Subscribe

once YTube stumbles across this video it will disappear

Really? Where are these rights listed, and by whom? Or are you just making that up?

@@leezaslofsky4438 So you are out for your morning jog. Suppose someone attacks you. Do you have to ask anyone for permission to defend yourself? No? Well, then it is a right. And since self defense is a right so is a tool for self defense, and a gun is a great tool for self defense.

@@Anon54387 This is a typcal "argument" from a gun nut. Suppose you are not armed/ Suppose you are not able to get hold of your weapon? Suppose you are disabled, or frail elderly, or a teenager nt yet old enough to be armed? MOST people NEVER get attacked. Of those who get attacked, a large proportion are not able to get hold of a gun, ar not famliar with the use of a gun , do not believe in using lethal force in an inident they may have misinterpreted, or where it is easier to use a cell phone tocall for help, or where the "attacker" can be dealt with other than by using lethal force against her or him. Americans pay enormous amunts of money for their 18,000 police agencies, and more huge sums for private security agencies, and many security devices that can prevent an attacker from getting anywhere near the you. You seem to dismiss all this spending, training, and day to day activity, and single out the rare instances where a person may find herself or himself under attack with no access to any kind of security aside from the possession of a lethal weapon. Once you have st up that rare situation, yu base your whole attitude to firearms on it, as if it were a typical everyday occurrence. That is the wrong way to approach this issue. In a society where massive efforts are going on every minute of every day to preserve personal security, the real uestion is how can people faced with a difficult situation access the help that society provides? Ignoring all that, you pretend that "we" are lone cowboys riding around in unpopulated areas, where the only possible response to "attack" is a lightning fast resort to firearms, with the intention of either killing the attacker or wounding her or him so badly that she or he loses the capacity to threaten you. Such rare incidents are NOT the best baiss for approaching the question of firearms in modern society. And indeed in most modern countries, there are regulations that constrain the possession and use of firearms, thereby reducing the incidence of "attacks" and increasing the safety of the public. Only in the US, and certain corners of the world's gangster community, is the issue approached as if society has completely failed to provide any security for its members. In this fantasy world, the question of "gun rights" sddenly becomes urgent, as the complete failure of society to protect its members from lethal threats forces individual citizens and residents to resort to lethal self defense, based on their own rapid apprecitation of what is happening at the moment of "attack". This kind of idiotic fantasizing accounts for many of the deaths and injuries suffered by ordinary Americans because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; or react in ignorance of the actual situation (like the cop who murdered a 10 year old kid who was playing around with a toy gun, or the cop who murdered a man who had just informed him that he was in legal possession of a firearm and reached to get the documents requested by the cop). In fact, yu do NOT have a "right" to kill or injure someone because you imagine that he is a dnger to you. You are bound by law -- and not a new law -- to respond to threats with proportionate force, or, better, to try to prevent any use of force at all. That used ot be called "Keeping the King's Peace". The KIng has commended his subkects not to kill each other, and whoever kills someone breaches that command and is therefore liable to be punished. The King's Peace was imposed in order to get rid of the custom of revenge killing or injuring relatives of a person thought to have killed or injured someone. If a man kills your cousin, you go and kill one of his cousins, thus exacting revenge and resolving the crime. That was the wy things were until kings gained enough power to suppress that kind of tit for tat, almost random murder and injury. That kind of thing makes it difficult to society to gain prosperity, because3 you might be targeted by someone's cousin for something your cousin did without you knowledge some years ago. Now it's not called the King's Peace in the US, but the idea remains the same: we are required, as members of society, to do our best to keep the peace. Gun nuts think that means that they have th right to kill anyone who "attacks" them. That is the wrong interpretation, and in most cases it is against the law to do so. Gun nuts, in their foolish indifference to Reason, think society would be more "polite" if everyone knew he was risking death of wounding if he dared to be impolite. Such ruthless contempt for the lives and personal safety of others is typical of a gangster or psychopathic mentality. A society of armed psychopaths wold perhaps benefit if every psychopath had the "right" to kill other psychopaths when they get rowdy. But only a small number f people are psychopaths or gangsters, and it is a big mistake to base social customs on their behaviour -- in fact, on letting them set the standards for society in general. If we're going to let a small minority set the standards for society as a whole, wouldn't it be better to choose peace loving, constructive, caring people as that minority, rather than ruthless killers? Or was Jesus an impractical dreamer who got what such people usually get from the more realistic members of society: torture and death, public humiliation, and a reputation as a Loser?

the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS

Absolutely right. It was even there in the older British Bill of rights(1689) and the Magna Carta from which the Amer8can Bill of rights(1791) is emerged.

It looks like bumpstocks are going to be legal.

That is absolute nonsense: there was no militia during the 18th century that didn’t serve without government authority and organization. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about and I can prove it.

@@walterbailey2950, your ignorance of history is astounding. Research *"The Sons of Liberty"*

@@rainsilversplash4376 it’s astounding because you’re the one who’s really ignorant. You just don’t know it. The sons of liberty were a terrorist organization. They acted with encouragement of some rebel leaders but not as a Militia. Massachusetts colony did use its militia against the British and formed some of them into a select corps called Minutemen that were given special training.

I agree. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

@@danielpalos I agree, we shouldn't have security problems. But 314 mass shootings in 186 days in 2022 is a scurity problem. Since 2020, firearms are the leading cause of death in those ages 1 to 19. That is a security problme. So, what is the solution to those security problems?

@@elviejodelmar2795 - A few points about Switzerland: *conscientious objectors are exempted both from military service and from keeping a rifle at home; *to keep a long gun at home, a person must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger themselves or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes; *gun sellers are required to scrupulously check that background, and a national record exists; *a person who kept a gun but then winds up landing outside of the above restrictions will have their gun confiscated; *purchasing a handgun, as opposed to a hunting gun, requires a permit, and these are valid only for between 6 and 9 months and a separate permit is required per handgun; *there’s no right to open carry; to concealed carry requires a license, and to obtain the license you must provide proof you really need to concealed carry … like you’re a bodyguard to a high-profile person, basically; *open carry of long guns is absolutely forbidden, you are only allowed to transport your long gun to the shooting range or hunting ground in a case with the ammunition kept separately from the long gun; *a long gun kept at home must be kept under lock and key, with the ammunition stored separately. I in general agree with what you write, and you may already know all the above, but for other readers’ sakes I felt I ought to outline how guns and gun ownership are really quite tightly regulated even in Switzerland, as opposed to in our current, quite broken, USA. The mad dash by conservatives in the USA, beginning in the 1980s, to warp the 2nd Amendment from its original intent-of allowing for the organizing of a federal militia in the event of a hostile foreign invasion-to, instead, our bizarre present-day shoot-‘em-up free-for-all is, in a word, insane. I’ve watched it over the decades in disbelief. And of course it’s led to today’s predictable results. It’s about time we, the sensible majority, took back control of our country, away from the insane conservative minority who today undemocratically rule it.

@@danopticon Well said.

@@danopticon 19th century jurisprudence and commentary unfortunately disabuse your position. Your view collapsed because of extensive scholarship on the subject that was too irrefutable to ignore, not that your opinion is correct. FYI, do you know roughly per polling what percent of the population actually agrees with your interpretation of the Second? It's around 25%. That puts you in the extreme minority, not the "sensible majority." You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts about the numbers that actually support your position.

Absolutely right. Even nowadays, we see such provisions in laws at some places wherein individual citizen has not just a right, but a duty, of not just owning, but always carrying a firearm, which, in today's times of magazines, is always loaded.

Slavery in all of its forms

the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS

A rephrasing of the amendment is because of the need of a militia as a first line of our defense the right those who legally required to bear arms shall not be infringed by the National government under the military clauses.

Well, this is what makes some of the pro gun rights people look so ridiculous. The Bill of Rights are largely a set of restrictions on the federal government, but now gun rights activists look to the feds to overturn state and municipal laws.

the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS

No it's not. If you understand English, and have studied American history, the words of the Founding Fathers, they meant to express to We the People at the time, a plain and understandable Right in language. It's not clumsy, complicated, or difficult.

Should children be able to buy a .50 caliber machine gun?

@@stevemiller7429 Yeah. They should.

@@vidyanandbapat8032 You're insane, seek professional psychiatric help ASAP.

@@rsr789 Why?

I thought it was a poor analogy as well..

I agree we should take out all the seat belts, air bags, and drivers license requirements to make sure people can operate vehicles safely.

Talking as someone who's a conservative on the gun issue, it wasn't mentioned because it's irrelevant to the discussion. The question is how far the right goes not whether you can infringe on it.

@@HistoryNerd808 It goes up to the level of civilians owning tanks and fighter jets which they do own.

@@vidyanandbapat8032 Not armed ones. It's illegal to drive a tank on the streets for example, nor can you own a tank on private property that is armed, same goes with jet fighters. Also, there are some weapons which are outright banned to be owned by private citizens, like nuclear bombs, nuclear-powered submarines, etc...

chris wilder because they’re communists. And like a scorpion or viper. It’s their nature.

Because they are NOT Right! Well there may be a few, but I rarely ever see them.

The original and primary intent of the 2nd was not to allow all people the right to protect themselves. The 2nd amendment was never intended the accessed by africans brought to this land as slaves. Neither of these men address the idea that southern colonies like virginia maintained militias to control slave then later free population of africans.(Many of these southern militias developed into their modern police departments, which explains why they still have issues policing poc). Black codes made it illegal for blacks to have guns. States changed their state constitutions like TN to reflect their purpose of keeping weapons out of the hands of blacks and the NRA backed gun control as late as the 60s in an effort to keep groups like the black panthers from having guns.

the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS .....SUBSCRIBE

no definition can be be clearer of its meaning

the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS .....SUBSCRIB

Well some weapons of used wrong correctly do more than damaging your thumb.

The "woke" finds it abhorrent to look for fault or to lay blame. That's SO judgmental! However, I do expect the BLM to do a Jan 6 on the Capitol (you know, a mostly peaceful protest like they did at the Portland, Oregon police station on 04 Aug 20) to demand a ban on high-capacity, high-power assault hammers.

Question: If you have a child in the classroom beating others with a stick, do you say, "It's not the stick's fault," and proceed to arm the others for self-defense?

Google District of Columbia v Heller. That will answer your questions.

@@jonathanoconnor9546 My understanding of that decision is that one is not required to be a member of the militia to keep and bear arms, and I can agree with that. That's different from being qualified by a militia. My family all together took a hunter safety course conducted by the county sheriff. The instructors were definitely assessing whether or not we were "in our right mind" prior to giving each of us a certificate. The course didn't require my continuing service in the Sheriff's Department in any kind of auxiliary capacity. I think it would be good for those interested in gun ownership to be qualified by the militia, that being consistent with the term "well regulated."

it means well trained and functioning

Yes, it is. The right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. How many times does it need to be said? BTW, one doesn't have to be in a militia to have the right. That would make it a privilege. You guys are all reading from the same faulty script. I know, my teachers in college tried to fill my head with the nonsense that one had to be in a militia as well.

@@Anon54387 The US Constitution constrains the federal government on this matter, not the States. At the time, the point of the Second Amendment was to address States' concerns with Federal power. Obviously slaves were not the People and were not to have any right to arms. In large measure, militia existed to maintain "domestic tranquility", that is, in the South, to maintain an economic system that included slavery. Who has to serve in the militia is up to the Free States, and very deliberately so. I did not propose militia membership to keep and bear arms, I proposed the "militia" be it Sheriffs or State or local police, be the agencies that qualify human beings to keep and bear arms. (It's the people, not the guns, right?) Slaves didn't qualify and nobody was taking that infringement to court back when the language was written because it was a clear social assumption. Infringement in fact existed from the beginning as a matter practicality. Today we have mentally ill people legally buying weapons and killing children. We are supposed to just accept that? Would the authors of the 2nd Amendment tell us to just accept that? Nobody who sent their kid to school thought it was going to happen to them. What's a mentally sound, law abiding citizen's problem with qualifying with a weapon? They should do it for their own and their family's safety. At the end of hunter safety class, the retired Sheriff's Deputy who qualified me for hunting safety told the story of how he as a kid shot his sister in the eye, blinding that eye for the rest of her life. There are lots of good reasons for weapons training before operating a weapon. By now it should be a clear social assumption that the mentally ill should not keep and bear arms, and the State and local "militia", not the federal government, is the proper power to make the call on who is and who is not mentally ill. Because they are the ones who have to risk their lives, enter the school, hunt down the shooter, and deal with them one way or another.

Somehow it is assumed that the Militia would show up empty handed unless told otherwise???

The problem with your "argument" is that one generation does not have the right to remove the foundation of Liberty from another. Since we are always half a generation away from tyranny who are we to make the decision for future generations what tools they may use to fight for their freedom?

Did you read the recent Bruen decision by the Supreme Court?

@@jimklemens5018 I have not read it, but I am aware of it. Seems I was ahead of the curve. LOL.

the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS .....SUBSCRIBE

He hopes to the people in the audience it is.

Bob Sykes - The right of a State to fund, operate, and maintain it's own state militias, are powers and functions reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. The proposals/amendments submitted Roger Sherman and the Virginia delegation dealt with those very powers. In the wording/text of the Constitution itself, States have "powers", not "rights". The aforementioned proposals from Sherman and Virginia were defeated precisely because the Federalists DID NOT want there to be any question or dispute regarding the Federal Government's authority over the state militias. They did not want to give the states a "platform" that they could then use/exploit to challenge the authority of Congress regarding various militia functions. They agreed, in principal, that states would still be allowed to maintain and operate their own militias, in accordance with the procedures set by Congress. The Federalists simply did not want to have *that kind* of amendment in the Constitution. Sherman was told his amendment really wouldn't be necessary because there was nothing in the Constitution that actually prevented the states from funding their own militias. The Second Amendment establishes that the citizens have a right to their firearms, and militia service did not, and would not, change that. The militia powers did not allow the Federal Government to disarm any law abiding citizen, wether they were a militia participant or not. That's the "right of the the people" part.

"defense of themselves" *does* mean self defense. "and of the state" covers ( obviously ) the common defense/militia related stuff. Otherwise, it would have been redundant. That's what people actually did back then: the firearms they used for defending property/farms, hunting wildlife & game, - *then* became the firearms they used in service.

radiokorps said: "The Second Amendment establishes that the citizens have a right to their firearms, and militia service did not, and would not, change that." ------------------------------ This is just a blatant assertion. There's actually no mention of firearms in the Second Amendment as the word "arms" is part of the phrase "bear arms" which means "render military service" according to Madisons original proposal. Original: "... compelled to render *military service*." Next version: "compelled to *bear arms*." To the Framers, they meant the same thing, and none of these mean "compelled to *carry firearms*."

radiokorps said: ""defense of themselves" does mean self defense." ------------------------------- Again, this is just a blatant assertion. The evidence that the arms bearing provision is a militia provision that doesn't address self defense is in the same declaration of rights: VIII. "That every member of society hath a right *to be protected* in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence *of that protection*, and yield his *personal service* when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:.. Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of *bearing arms*, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,.." 1. The "protection" is militia protection. 2. "Personal service" is service in the militia. 3. "Bearing arms" means military service in the militia. Also, look at this: SECT. 7. "...nor shall any member, while he continues such, hold any other office, except in *the militia*." So, where is the militia provision? XIII. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Bob Sykes - And the first part of the proposal clearly said. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; ". Not the right of the" militia".( The Founders knew how to set qualifications regarding militia service, and did so in the Fifth Amendment.) The militia is drawn from the people, not the other way around. The firearms people personally owned for protecting homes and property; hunting wildlife and game, *then* became the firearms they used when called into action. Now: The Federal government can end militia service any time it wants and thus negate your Second Amendment rights in that fashion. Congress can end conscription at any time, and simply release the individuals from service. Now that they're no longer part of a militia, their firearms no longer qualify for Second Amendment protection. That's NOT how constitutionally enumerated rights of the people in Bill of Rights are supposed to work. One reason the Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected with militia service. The state militias of the 18th and 19th centuries were finished off when Congress finally repealed the Militia Act(s). "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster, "An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Constitution". "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - Samuel Adams. "Arms" ( in the Second Amendment ) means firearms. Militia members were required to own their own firearms. If they didn't have a firearm they had to go out and personally purchase a firearm for themselves. This is precisely how the militias "got their guns". Every individual had to personally supply their own firearm. The firearm was the weapon used by militia participants. That "arms" means firearms ( in the text of the second amendment ) is agreed to by both sides in this debate. This is you simply playing games. And being profoundly disingenuous. Also : "The majority of the Pennsylvania convention refused to propose amendments to the Constitution, which was ratified on December 12, 1787. However, the "Dissent of the Minority of the Convention" demanded a declaration of rights. Apparently written by Samuel Bryan, author of "Centinel," the document was first published on December 18, 1787 and was circulated throughout the country. Among the rights declared was the following: " That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.' " Under your convoluted reasoning, someone would actually have to be enrolled in military service in order to have the right to hunt with a firearm. ( " killing game" ) which is obviously not the case ( or the intention ). So, no, the term "bear arms" does is *not* confined to military service. Again, from the Heller Majority opinion : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " 1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the peo­ple.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly ­and­ Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search ­and­ Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5 Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”-the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the peo­ple” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively-but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitu­tion that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Ver- dugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art em­ployed in select parts of the Constitution.... [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are re­ served in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national commu­nity or who have otherwise developed sufficient con­nection with this country to be considered part of that community.” This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “mili­tia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the peo­ple”-those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right-“the people”-to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter­pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th­century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dic­tionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinaf­ter Webster) (similar). The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cun­ningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding­ era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added). Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo­lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in­terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), 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. We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the writ­ten documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right uncon­ nected with militia service. William Blackstone, for ex­ ample, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penal­ ties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist . . . shall or may have or keep in his House ... any Arms...”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia­ related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16- 17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many stat­utes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file com­ plaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment­ related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Com­plete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose- confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding­ era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous in­ stances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provi­sions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry­ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms­ bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”-what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Intro­ duction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self­defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre­Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate-again, in the most analogous linguistic context-that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independ­ence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18-23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petition­ers and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (some­ times) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic mean­ing would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war-an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one­ half of an idiom. It would be rather like say­ing “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context-the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petition­ ers’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also “carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms”-though no one thinks that those other phrases also had special mili­tary meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Mili­tia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common refer­ences to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discus­sions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Conti­nental Congress 349-351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10 Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs (“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms”). And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amend­ment?, 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Sept. 2008), online at papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1086176 (as visited June 24, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear arms” from the founding period). JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12-13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collec­tion appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game’” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amend­ment that identify private ­use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self­ defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive quali­fying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11 JUSTICE STEVENS places great weight on James Madi­son’s inclusion of a conscientious­ objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment: “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Creating the Bill of Rights 12 (H. Veit, K. Bowling, & C. Bickford eds. 1991) (hereinafter Veit). He argues that this clause establishes that the drafters of the Second Amendment intended “bear Arms” to refer only to military service. See post, at 26. It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process.12 In any case, what JUSTICE STEVENS would conclude from the deleted provision does not follow. It was not meant to exempt from military service those who objected to going to war but had no scruples about per­ sonal gunfights. Quakers opposed the use of arms not just for militia service, but for any violent purpose whatso­ ever-so much so that Quaker frontiersmen were forbid­ den to use arms to defend their families, even though “[i]n such circumstances the temptation to seize a hunting rifle or knife in self­defense . . . must sometimes have been almost overwhelming.” P. Brock, Pacifism in the United States 359 (1968); see M. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War 336-339 (1923); 3 T. Clarkson, Portraiture of Quaker­ ism 103-104 (3d ed. 1807). The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of arms”-a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders eds. 1898) (emphasis added). Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such carrying would be required.13 Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”) JUSTICE STEVENS believes that the unitary meaning of “keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second Amendment’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural). See post, at 16. There is nothing to this. State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083-3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910-2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentle­ man’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467-468.15

Exactly. WE ARE THE MILITIA

Bob Sykes - to keep and bear arms means just that. You're clueless. Congress has the power to end conscription any time it wants. Ergo, Congress can negate your Second Amendment rights and protections any time it wants. The Founders knew how to set qualifications with regards to militia service, and they did just that in the Fifth Amendment "...or in the Militia, when in actual service in a time of War or public danger;". No, the actual State Militia Proposals brought forth by the Virginia delegation and Roger Sherman were rejected an defeated. This proposal dealt with am enumerated personal, individual right... a right of the people. Just like the First and Fourth Amendments.

radiokorps said: "to keep and bear arms means just that. You're clueless." --------------------------------------- I'm not clueless, but you're brainwashed, as are most Americans. How come it's mostly Americans who seem completely oblivious to the universally known military expression and phrase "bear arms?" If a man is said to have "borne arms," what has he done? And "keep" arms does NOT mean personally "own" arms, it's a collective right to keep arms IN READINESS. Have a look at these very early militia laws and statutes: Delaware's militia act required each militiaman to "keep the same [arms] by him at all times, ready and fit for service" The word "keep" doesn't mean "own," it means "keep in readiness" and "keep in good working order." Virginia militia law required each militiaman to "keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of shot," and to "keep his horse, arms, and ammunition." Again, the word "keep" doesn't mean "own," it means "keep in readiness" and "keep fit for service." Virginia also required their militiamen to "constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready." This means "keep ready for militia service" When you also take on board the fact that to "bear arms" meant to render "military service," then "keep and bear arms" means " *keep arms ready for militia service* " not "own" and "carry" "guns."

Bob Sykes - Americans did actually own their own militia arms. Every person had to personally supply their own firearm. If you didn't have a firearm, you had to got out and buy one for yourself.

+radiokorps Going down the parsing of history is not necessary. Proponents of some collectivist view of the 2nd amendment need to show it even makes any sense at all. 1) How does this theory give the 2nd amendment any teeth at all and secure and protect anything? 2) Why, when it happens nowhere else in the Bill Of Rights, would our founders grant rights to (in essence) the government? 3) Why is it appropriate to apply their definition of "the people" to the 2nd Amendment and not the 1st? Or the 4th? There view makes no logical sense. Their burden is to first have their view make logical sense. Then only then would it be necessary to debate them further.

radiokorps said: "Americans did actually own their own militia arms." ----------------------------------------- Actually, sometimes militiamen were required by law to PROVIDE the specified MILITIA arms for the purpose of the collective defense. If they didn't provide the specified arms, or "keep" them fit for service, they could have been fined. This shows that those arms were seen as MILITIA arms which the public had a claim to.

Please demonstrate how your semi-automatic rifle is going to stop a tank, or a bunker buster, or even a nuclear bomb.