The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained

[Silver]

"People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign. A mere group of persons acting or considered as other than the sovereign are not the People.

What convoluted bullshit....

If the founding fathers wanted to express "the people" as sovereign they would have used that term....and WE THE PEOPLE do not have 'sovereign power or authority', individually or as a group, except as provided for as a power to VOTE and have that LIMITED form of sovereignty or power...

Its typical liberal bullshit to try and confuse the simplest of issues....
Sorry sonny....WE ARE THE PEOPLE mentioned in the Constitution....
and WE THE PEOPLE are expressly mentioned as having rights, inalienable rights...one of which is to own weapons...not merely to hunt game but more importantly to protect ourselves and our property....

[Jagger]

the reams of clear statements by the vast majority of the Framers that contradict his hoped-for agenda.

Show us reams of statements that the framers didn't want the states to have power to provide for their own militias.

[Hobbit]

Show us reams of statements that the framers didn't want the states to have power to provide for their own militias.

If the state directly provides for and controls it, it isn't a militia.

Geez, you think you'd have figured that out by now. If any government controls the force, it is no longer a militia. It's a conscription.

[Jagger]

an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary. It says nothing about an armed and capable populace being necessary.

and that ordinary people must retain their right to arms themselves as they see fit.

The founders knew, from the experience with the militia during the Revolution, that relying on the people in the militia to provide their own arms wouldn't result in a well armed militia. That is why, as soon as the Federal Government had a few dollars, Congress started buying muskets for the militia.

[Yurt]

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary. It says nothing about an armed and capable populace being necessary.

The founders knew, from the experience with the militia during the Revolution, that relying on the people in the militia to provide their own arms wouldn't result in a well armed militia. That is why, as soon as the Federal Government had a few dollars, Congress started buying muskets for the militia.

it also says nothing about who regulates teh militia now does it? what does a militia mean if it does not mean an armed and capable populace? just because congress bought muskets for the militia does not prove anything, other than congress gave muskets to the militia.

[Joe Steel]

What convoluted bullshit....

If the founding fathers wanted to express "the people" as sovereign they would have used that term....and WE THE PEOPLE do not have 'sovereign power or authority', individually or as a group, except as provided for as a power to VOTE and have that LIMITED form of sovereignty or power...

Its typical liberal bullshit to try and confuse the simplest of issues....
Sorry sonny....WE ARE THE PEOPLE mentioned in the Constitution....
and WE THE PEOPLE are expressly mentioned as having rights, inalienable rights...one of which is to own weapons...not merely to hunt game but more importantly to protect ourselves and our property....

Utter nonsense.

Obviously, the product of a semi-literate and uneducated buffoon.

[Joe Steel]

But a statement of principle, isn't the only thing it is. It's also a clear and firm command: Government is forbidden to take away or restrict ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Period. And if various intrusive governments and their advocates (like Jagger) don't like it, too bad.

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns. It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

[Hobbit]

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary. It says nothing about an armed and capable populace being necessary.

The founders knew, from the experience with the militia during the Revolution, that relying on the people in the militia to provide their own arms wouldn't result in a well armed militia. That is why, as soon as the Federal Government had a few dollars, Congress started buying muskets for the militia.

And you continue to ignore the repeated definitions, straight out of the dictionary, that if the militia is regulated and provided for by the state, then it ceases to be a militia.

[Rick OShea]

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns. It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

Meaningless . . .

The individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms is not granted, given, created, conferred or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has also said that the citizen's right to arms is not dependent in any way on the Constitution for its existence.

If the right exists without any reference to the 2nd, how can the words and construction of the 2nd have any impact on the scope or exercise of the right?

No power was ever granted to government to impact the personal possession of guns, so none exists.

All the 2nd Amendment does is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess.

Please cite the clause of the Constitution that permits the federal government to have any import whatsoever on the personal arms of the private citizen . . . THAT is the determining factor on whether a "right" exists because "We the People" retain everything not conferred to the care of the federal and state governments (see Amendments 9 & 10).

So again, the question is not, do the citizen's have the right to possess and use their private arms . . . The question is, does the government have the (legitimate) power to even have an opinion on the citizen's private arms?

I don't need any agent of the government to tell me what my rights are. My rights predate the Constitution and the governmental authority created by it. By the Constitution's structure, no governmental agency has any legitimate import on the extent of my rights, only of laws.

This also extends to the courts including SCOTUS . . . As a creation of the Constitution their duty is NOT to determine if a right exists, or its scope, or whether it is popular, only whether a law enacted is beyond the strictly limited, clearly defined powers delegated to the legislature.
*
I find especially repugnant any member of Congress pontificating on the extent of my rights; their purview is only the creation of law at the citizen's behest, not the citizen's rights. Their only legitimate concern regarding my rights is to not exceed the legislative authority granted to them by the Constitution . . . If the bastards could only stick to that our rights would be safe . . .

[Missileman]

The Second Amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

Under Article One Section Eight, Congress was granted exclusive power to organize, arm and discipline the militia. The Anti-Federalists pointed out that Congress could destroy the militia by merely neglecting it or running it into the ground. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to grant the states concurrent power with Congress to provide for the militia, because a well regulated militia was believed to be necessary for the security of a free state, and they didn't trust Congress with exclusive power to provide for the militia.

Article 1 section 8 enpowers Congress to PROVIDE FOR...AKA FUND organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

[Little-Acorn]

Article 1 section 8 enpowers Congress to PROVIDE FOR...AKA FUND organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.

That's correct... and it was that way for several years after the Constitution was ratified. But then that changed when the Bill of Rights was added, containing the 2nd amendment, which modified those powers of Congress.

The modification was: Congress was no longer allowed to do ANYTHING that might restrict or take away the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

As Jagger pointed out (hey, he finally got one right, there goes his perfect 0-for-everything record), by some interpretations Congress might be able to disarm a militia (that is, the male populace capable of bearing arms) by not giving it any weapons, and then twisting things to say that since only Congress could arm the militia those folks could not buy their own weapons, even privately.

One purpose of the 2nd amendment, was to eliminate that "argument". No matter what Congress did (or didn't do), ordinary people (that populace again) still retained their right to own and carry guns.

[Silver]

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns. It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

a right for the People not for any person or group of persons

FOR the people but NOT FOR any person ???

and NOT FOR any group of persons (a group of persons is commonly known as PEOPLE)

This is quite laughable...it makes no freekin' sense ....it is beyond being stupid...

Does the 'steel' refer to the steel in your head, or for your heads density?

You're not worth the trouble of debating....arguing with you gives your lame comments a validity you don't deserve....

[DragonStryk72]

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns. It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

Again, Joe, where the hell is the militia getting the guns then? come on, man, seriously, pay attention, words mean shit.

[Jagger]

it also says nothing about who regulates teh militia now does it?

Since a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a state, the state obviously should have the power to regulate the militia, if Congress fails to to so.

What does a militia mean if it does not mean an armed and capable populace?

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorfl, which forbade a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon. Again; terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science. So in the act of settlement, where the crown of England is limited “to the princess Sophia, and the heirs “of her body, being Protestants,” it becomes necessary to call in the assistance of lawyers, to ascertain the precise idea of the words “heirs of her body;” which in a legal sense comprise only certain of her lineal descendants. Lastly, where words are clearly repugnant in two laws, the later law takes place of the elder: leges pofteriores priores contraries abrogant is a maxim of universal law, as ell as of our own constitutions. And accordingly it was laid down by a law of the twelve tables at Rome, quod populus poftremum juffit, id jus ratum efto.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_cent...ne_intro.asp#1

--Blackstone' Commentaries; Page 59.

The usual meaning of the word militia in 1789 was "standing force of a nation; train-bands." See 1787 edition of A Dictionary of the English Language.

Just because congress bought muskets for the militia does not prove anything, other than congress gave muskets to the militia.

It's evidence that the founding generation, at the time of the founding, didn't believe that the members of the militia should have to provide their own arms. If we're going to consider post ex facto evidence, which we shouldn't, we must consider all of the evidence.

[Missileman]

It's evidence that the founding generation, at the time of the founding, didn't believe that the members of the militia should have to provide their own arms. If we're going to consider post ex facto evidence, which we shouldn't, we must consider all of the evidence.

It can very well be interpreted that Congress believed that every citizen should be armed in the interest of national security... even those unable to afford them.