A well regulated Militia and the 2nd amendment

reply to post by Ramadhiman
as a brit you did a jolly good show of this, I am not a brit, USA born and bred, but do have Brit heritage as well as Scots and Irish, the 2nd can be summed up as "Shall not be infringed, to have the right to keep and bear arms" here is a link that sums it up www.lincoln.edu... formt he link

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State."

Although this right is apparently protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, in practice it is subject to great deal of controversy. The two opposing interpretations of the Second Amendment involve whether the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms or whether it guarantees the states freedom from federal government infringement on this right. Individual rights proponents claim that the framers intended to preserve the individual right, above the right of the state. Proponents of States' rights claim that the Second Amendment was adopted with the primary purpose of preserving the state militia.

and thus stems the confusion, there of the 2nd. It is the right of the people what is so hard to understand about that??? we the People are the Militia, but add the two together and look out ATF er BATFE and others will be coming for ya. For "We the People" are the true threat to TPTB, and we might have missed the chance for a remake of 1776, or a 1860, depending on the view of things.

I don't venture into my neighbors home with my firearm. Don't come into my home unannounced..


I have said firearm ready.

Let people decide for themselves...

Originally posted by Ramadhiman

The 2nd Amendment, does NOT actually confer the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
But it does Officially Recognise and Reinforce the Fact that every American Has the Inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for his/her own Protection of life, Property, and the defense of the land when so called upon to do so.
And that Right, in no way can be, Removed, Contravened, Breached, Reduced, withdrawn, Diminished, Circumvented, or Abolished by anyone, Neither President or Act of Congress, or any appointed agent thereof.

Correct, but the reason that government can not (legitimately) violate rights isn't simply that they are declared inviolate . . . That declaration (AKA the Bill of Rights) is only a redundant statement forbidding government to exercise powers never granted to it.

Far different that other compacts organizing other governments, the US Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. The fundamental principle is that all power first resides in the people and in the process of establishing a government, (whose primary function is to protect rights the people possess inherently), the people surrender a limited amount of power and assign the government limited duties.

This principle of conferred powers has a corollary, that of retained rights. All powers not conferred are retained.

The government only exercises those powers with the consent of the governed. When government violates the principles of its establishment, exceeds the limited powers granted to it and intrudes upon / injures / violates the rights of the people, the people can exercise their original right (as the sovereign creator of government) to declare the government has lost the legitimacy to govern, to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers lent to it through the Constitution.

If this depowering of government can not be done peacefully, the people of course retain the original right of self defense excepted out of the powers granted to government and recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment; the right to bear arms to secure a free state . . .

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

I guess I interpret it differently than others. This is how I interpret it:

The people were the militia in those days. There was no real army in the revolutionary war days and minutemen (citizen soldiers) were used. These were ordinary Americans that were called up to fight the revolution. In many cases muskets and firearms were supplied by the citizen himself. Thus since you need a militia "being necessary to the security of a free state" Hence the right to keep and bear arms for the private citizen

Or am I the only one thinking this?

The right to arms is not a derivative of the government's constitutional power to establish militia. The government's ability to organize a militia is a product of the people's pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.

Unlike the people's right to keep and bear arms, the organized militia is something that is entirely dependent on the Constitution to exist. The powers to call up, organize, train and deploy the citizenry as a military force is set out in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16.

The 2nd Amendment has no legal action pertaining to militia. Neither Congress or SCOTUS has ever examined the 2nd or held it to inform on any aspect of militia powers or read it to direct or control any (federal or state) militia activity.

Originally posted by ANNED

The only problem i have with this is the "under 45 years of age"

When this was written many men did not live long after age 45.

I am 62 and still can shoot better then when i was 20 and in the navy and i was on a navy shooting team.

That only means that one's obligation to perform militia duty ended when one reached their 45th birthday. That regulation had nothing to do with one's right to keep and bear arms as the right was never dependent upon one's militia enrollment status.