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.”

Keep in mind... just because its not a Constitutionally protected right does not mean you cant possess guns. Guns are property and as such can only be taken upon Due Process of law.

One reason we keep them out of the hands of dangerous felons....

Fifth Article:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Fourth Article:
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.

In Heller Justice Stevens writes that the 2nd Amendment:

“protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.”

Stevens continues:

“Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demon­strates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.”


The first few lines of the 2nd Amendment lists three very important factors.
1) It states that the purpose of the Amendment is the need to preserve the militia. 
2) It states that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
3) It states that said militia must be “well regulated."
The preamble to the Second Amendment makes threeimportant points. It identifies the preservation of themilitia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.”

I should have noted that Stevens was dissenting in Heller. It was a 5 to 4 decision.

All the dissenters signed on to Stevens dissent

You have made the argument, as well as others, that “the people” is controlling and should be used in the same manner as it is elsewhere in the Constitution and not solely for those possessing the weapon in furtherance of maintaining a well regulated militia. 


Your argument is disingenuous. You seem to be suggesting that “the people” referred to in the Second Amendment can be interpreted as “law abiding” citizens as you recognize the problem of dangerous felons being armed.



However, I would assume you believe that “the people” mention by the First and Fourth Amendments is not limited to “law abiding” citizens as even felons are protected by those constitutional provisions. 

How do you defend defining “the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments refer to ALL citizens but only “law abiding, responsible” citizens in the Second Amendment?

"James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and was adopted on December 15, 1791."

People agreed to it. They had these arguments prior.

Very clearly their was not agreement. It is not obvious... at all.

That is why early Supreme Court cases refused to prohibit a State from prohibiting gun ownership.

The concern was that the Federal government would force the states to do away with their Militias and rule by force... but if a State freely decided to prohibit the ownership of guns, they were fine with that.

what states prohibited gun ownership

Even the Supreme Court in the last 10 years or so are split on this issue 5 to 4.... but given the Trump appointments I am sure it would be closer to 6 to 3

Take a look at the Miller case in 1934... it will also cite other cases along that line

again what states prohibited gun ownership?