even if you use a textualist stance it still supports it

if you follow the definitions at the time

wtf What did you watch to recommend the latter?

regulated meant well supplied, not with governmetn regulation

im trying to find scalias opinion on it

As entertaining as those comedians/magicians are I had prefer to rely on what the Supreme Court has said on the matter... But ya its a fun show.

its very well written

Um... that definition is not modern... Oxford Dictionary traces "bear arms" all the way back to its original Latin. Its not a modern definition, Love.

also warships and cannons were in private ownership at the time

so any control on the 'type' of arms is also not intended

We've already shown you when they said militia, they meant civilians.

I've even shown it to you in the US Code, current law.

Yes... Scalia basically said you can own a fucking battleship

Hence why "the people" is also used in there.

since I'm land-locked I'll take a tank instead but thanks anyway

@JD~Jordan no he didnt

'well regulated' pours some sand in the pistons. Js

@Zuluzeit no it doesnt

@Zuluzeit well regulated meant well supplied

I absolutely agree with that... yes. They meant citizens because their was no standing army. There was a great divide among the founders on how we wanted to split up military power with the state or the federal or a combination.

So yes... they do not mean that you have to be in the military to "bear arms" but they clearly recognized that the right to do so was only to further the preservation of a Well Regulated Militia

> @Zuluzeit well regulated meant well supplied
@ImNotGas I agree. A lot of people don't. I wish it weren't in it.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the modern U.S. Army has its roots in the Continental Army, which was formed (14 June 1775)

Untrue.

its pretty clear this clause supercedes any pedantic interpetations of the former clause

They didn't have to say why. Tried to get cute. I'd rather they'd kept it simple.

Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Indeed, it was President George Washington who urged the first Congress to pass an act enrolling the entire adult male citizenry in a general militia. The father of our country further urged that "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."

Washington's sentiments about the militia, and who should be included in the militia in the infant United States, were echoed by George Mason in the debate on the ratification of the Constitution before the Virginia Assembly: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

"Except for a few public officials." With these six words, George Mason made explicit his deep-set belief that the individual armed citizen was the key to protection against government excesses and in defense of freedom.

James Madison expanded on this point in The Federalist Papers, number 46, where he downplayed the threat of seizure of authority by a federal army, because such a move would be opposed by "a militia amounting to half a million men."

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm

Yes... but that Continental army was mostly made up of those in the State Militia.

But based on what you have said so far it seems clear you didnt actually read the PDF. So Im just having to retype the same stuff over and over at this point.

If you want to take a look and address it point by point that works for me

Madison agreed and wrote the federalist papers to explain this in further details.

every single founding father is in agreement

they intend the whole populace to be armed

Exactly. Just enough ammo to argue it.

They had citizen armories IIRC.

Yes. Madison did lean that way but what he actually said in the Federalist papers has been greatly exaggerated and often completely wrong in their conclusion.

Some communist stuff.

Lol public armories. Goddam commies.

thats... not how it works

the fascists had the volksturm

so

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to main­tain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to con­cerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States.

In 1934, Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act. In that decision the Court held that:

 “…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable rela­tionship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regu­lated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instru­ment.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. 

So, its clear the Supreme Court in 1934 felt that the “right to bear arms” was only Constitutionally protected in so far as that right was in furtherance of the preservation of a “well regulated militia.”