2A, has this argument been used?

[Logbas34]

I am sure somewhere down the road someone has used this argument, but here is my thoughts on the 2A.

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.

1st, When they said regulated they meant trained, not limited.

but more importantly, we can all agree that this text is ambiguous, Perhaps for a reason. Anti-gun nuts talk about how back then there were only muskets, however the british and any other government at that time had muskets. to be able to ensure "the security of a free state" the militia would be on par with the government. fast forward 200 years. yes things have changed. But are we on par with the government?

Now I'm not saying we should all have a tank and an F-35 but perhaps the founding fathers used this ambiguity to their advantage. To ensure "the security of a free state" we can't be carrying muskets anymore, with in the increase of technology we must remain on par with the government on some levels. we already have a ban on new manufactured MG's, Now its a ban on Semi-auto's? when does it become a point when we can no longer be able to construct a well regulated militia?

to sum it up my view is the founding fathers didnt place a specific type of weapon because maybe they had the knowlege that someday there would be new developements in weapons, and that by explaining what weapons were a right to the people would only give us power until new technologies came out.

I hope I am making some sense

* side note*
I was thinking this because watching the NRA press conference and those 2 idiots protesters were both being very specific on their arguments. Why did they only yell "ban assult weapons". The NRA isn't just a group of people who condone only Semi-auto firearms. my belief on that situation yesterday is that it was stagged by someone because most anti-gun nuts would just say ban firearms all together, But they were specific. Why?? obviously it's a deterioration of our freedom, slowly, year by year.

[MV10]

Judge Scalia addressed both parts in great detail (and along lines similar to what you're saying) in the Supreme Court's ruling in DC vs Heller, and also how "the right of the people" contrasts with "the State" as a separate entity. It's a long and often technical piece of writing, but if you have the time, it's worth reading:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... inion.html

The dissenting opinion written by Judge Stevens is a joke.

[Bendersquint]

Its been beaten to death and Scalia wrote the very strong Ruling on it which I definitely agree you should read!

What can be argued that I really haven't seen much about is "What is a well regulated militia".

Do you have to have training events, qualifications, meetings, by laws, duties, pay, an armory etc?

Sounds like it could be a dangerous argument not many would want to start.

[Logbas34]

Thank you very much guys! I'll check out that article after work tonight!

[silencertalk]

1st, When they said regulated they meant trained, not limited.

but more importantly, we can all agree that this text is ambiguous, Perhaps for a reason. Anti-gun nuts talk about how back then there were only muskets, however the british and any other government at that time had muskets. to be able to ensure "the security of a free state" the militia would be on par with the government. fast forward 200 years. yes things have changed. But are we on par with the government?

Actually most people, both pro gun, and anti gun, read it incorrectly - including Scalia.

The "well regulated militia" is the government's military - the anti-gunners are correct to say so. It does not mean us regular people. But then us regular people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

The part where pro gunners saying we are the militia because it was all men 18-40 was just plain wrong and confused the issue for decades. It is self-evident that the Army/Militia would be armed - it is not like they were going to form the world's first unarmed military. But then the "people" also get to bear arms. In other words, the 2nd means what it says literally.

It you think about it that way, it suddenly makes perfect sense.

Scalia was incorrect on the preface - he got lost on thinking the militia is what was being guaranteed arms - but he got the "people" part right.

[Bendersquint]

1st, When they said regulated they meant trained, not limited.

but more importantly, we can all agree that this text is ambiguous, Perhaps for a reason. Anti-gun nuts talk about how back then there were only muskets, however the british and any other government at that time had muskets. to be able to ensure "the security of a free state" the militia would be on par with the government. fast forward 200 years. yes things have changed. But are we on par with the government?

Actually most people, both pro gun, and anti gun, read it incorrectly - including Scalia.

The "well regulated militia" is the government's military - the anti-gunners are correct to say so. It does not mean us regular people. But then us regular people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

The part where pro gunners saying we are the militia because it was all men 18-40 was just plain wrong and confused the issue for decades. It is self-evident that the Army/Militia would be armed - it is not like they were going to form the world's first unarmed military. But then the "people" also get to bear arms. In other words, the 2nd means what it says literally.

It you think about it that way, it suddenly makes perfect sense.

Scalia was incorrect on the preface - he got lost on thinking the militia is what was being guaranteed arms - but he got the "people" part right.

Well put Robert.

[continuity]

1st, When they said regulated they meant trained, not limited.

but more importantly, we can all agree that this text is ambiguous, Perhaps for a reason. Anti-gun nuts talk about how back then there were only muskets, however the british and any other government at that time had muskets. to be able to ensure "the security of a free state" the militia would be on par with the government. fast forward 200 years. yes things have changed. But are we on par with the government?

Actually most people, both pro gun, and anti gun, read it incorrectly - including Scalia.

The "well regulated militia" is the government's military - the anti-gunners are correct to say so. It does not mean us regular people. But then us regular people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

The part where pro gunners saying we are the militia because it was all men 18-40 was just plain wrong and confused the issue for decades. It is self-evident that the Army/Militia would be armed - it is not like they were going to form the world's first unarmed military. But then the "people" also get to bear arms. In other words, the 2nd means what it says literally.

It you think about it that way, it suddenly makes perfect sense.

Scalia was incorrect on the preface - he got lost on thinking the militia is what was being guaranteed arms - but he got the "people" part right.

My SSNcN takes issue with some of that. You can't read this stuff in a vacuum. That's part of todays runaway legal systems problem. Trying to make laws that are read in such specifically worded ways, that interpretation never enters the equation. But being that our laws are intended to coordinate humans, there will always be alternate interpretations. Keeps the attorneys in business.

Come to think of it, attorneys are the ones that make laws. Seems like a conflict of interests in some ways. But that's another discussion.

Since the Founders were concerned with the concept(s) of a "standing army", my SSNcN opines that the militia was to be the army of the States. To that end it was described as being comprised of males of a certain age, average Joe's, who as citizens of the US, were responsible to be able (well regulated) to provide a DEFENSIVE posture relative protecting the US from invading forces. Since the militia/army was to be comprised of Joe average, all Joe averages need to have non infringed access to arms. And it was Joe averages responsibility to BE armed and ABLE TO DEPLOY those arms effectively.

Maybe there might seem to be a disconnect with that thought, given todays high tech, ballistic nuke missile, satellite enhanced, super carrier world that we live in. And the US HAS a standing army... supported by an industrial military complex without equal... with the associated dollars and power that has allowed said genie to escape the bottle.

On the other hand, the beauty of the 2nd's wisdom is that such systems are such finely tuned mechanisms, speaking to the entirety of them, that an armed populace can potentially throw the proverbial handful of sand in the mechanisms gears, bringing them to a grinding halt. Look at the middle east. A somewhat organized rabble like Al-Qaeda is a bit of a problem is it not? Not to forget that the British were in the 1700's, the epitome of the days high tech force. A bunch of farmers ejected them from the colonies, using the tools of the day.

"Wars" are fought over who is the controlling force in an area. Who has the power to control those that live/exist there, and to enforce the tasking of the general populace to live as "they" deem appropriate and for "their" benefit.

To those, if there are "those", individuals who would seek to establish control over the US, even given the enormous technical resources engendered them, an armed populace will always be a threat.

At least that's what my SSNcN says anyway.

[2manygunz]

As noted by historians and shown on Wikipedia, the 2A, as ratified, actually reads:

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.

The difference being the lack of certain commas. This particular text and grammar makes Robert's point easier to contemplate.

[MV10]

Automatic weapons, nukes, jets... for anyone who believes the old saw that the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly imagine or predict unusually powerful weapons which only states could afford to own and operate, I give you this painting from the Naval Museum in Norfolk: