Previous Post
Next Post

View from the gallery

HOUSE RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, Gun violence is an ever present problem in the  State, as well as nationwide; an example of which is 8 persons dying in Chicago in one week in October due to gun violence; and . . .

WHEREAS, In the past few years, court rulings, including the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia V. Heller, in interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution have overturned long standing precedent, which had supported state and local authority to deny gun possession when necessary to promote and protect public safety; in order to reach its decision, the 5 member majority of the United States Supreme Court either ignored or misinterpreted much of the clear and plain wording of the Second Amendment; and

WHEREAS, As stated by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his well-thought out dissent on behalf of 4 Justices in Heller: “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 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.

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.  Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”; rather the Second Amendment’s original purpose was to act as a check on federal gun-making policy, not to prevent individual states from creating gun policy as they saw fit;  and

WHEREAS, The legal view of the Second Amendment as a collective, militia right, and not an individual right, held for over 200 years until the Heller decision in 2008, which invalidated a law barring individuals from possessing a handgun not registered before the law took effect and annual registrations for the remaining handguns; and

WHEREAS, The Heller decision and other pro-firearm industry court rulings have resulted in a proliferation of guns in numerous communities and have diminished the security and freedom of our citizens to enjoy a life free of gun violence; living with the fear of gun violence is contrary to living in a free society; high levels of gun violence are a threat to the security of whole communities; and

WHEREAS, The cost of gun violence has been pushed onto everyone except the people and companies that produce and sell firearms; the firearms industry benefits financially when more guns are sold; more firearms in circulation leads to more gun crimes, homicides, and suicides to the extent that gun-related deaths will soon exceed the number of deaths in automotive crashes; but the Heller decision effectively said that most of the Second Amendment should be disregarded in favor of the part that is most profitable to the firearms industry, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; and

WHEREAS, Throughout the history of the United States, federal and state laws have regularly placed restrictions on who can legally own, possess, and use firearms; even prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, gun control laws were enacted; therefore laws restricting gun access are not anomalous to American law; and

WHEREAS, Before these court decisions, state legislatures had been able to pass laws restricting gun access if it was in the best interests of public safety; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we urge the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, to restore interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right afforded to state-sponsored militias that as Justice Stevens stated in his Heller dissent, ” … it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the non-military use and ownership of weapons … “.

Previous Post
Next Post

208 COMMENTS

    • It already *is* happening.

      Tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth and perceived fact.

      This isn’t a hallucination on their part, they actually believe their own bullsh!t on this.

      They’re priming the pump, so to speak, with this approach.

      • The most horrifying statement is this…
        “Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”

        If this is the prevailing thought among elected state representatives. They should be recalled. Every citizen has a right to lawfully protect themselves.

        • Even more horrifying is the fact that the statement was made by Stevens, a SCOTUS justice and reflects the way nearly half of the court feels about Heller.

          It is entirely possible that within the next decade, Heller could be reversed and the 2nd Amendment reinterpreted as not an individual right after all.

          Even more possible if a Democrat gets to pick the next couple of Supreme Court justices.

        • First of all if you ain’t from here (U.S.) [~ 3-4 generations deep] your entitled to your opinion but no one’s asking you to solve/decide/define/or figure out SH_T for us, you all have enough broken toys to F with. If you are from the other group (from here) no one’s asking you either. If you have a black robe and a gavel then you are there to protect the Constitution FROM OUTSIDE LAW. Further you are to decide in matters of party diversity, and some international law matters. You are not the founding fathers, NEITHER ARE OUR SERVANTS WHO APPOINTED YOU. Chuck the Constitution as prescribed ONLY (at your peril). Or by other means as a revolution (as a citizen, not in that position). In all cases, while you wear the title, you beat back attacks on the Constitution, or pack your sh_t and GO HOME.

    • these punks are retarded or criminal.

      “The Militia” is the People! the founders have many times written about how All citizens are the Militia and it is their duty to stand up against Corruption and to over turn and remove Any unjust government or enemy foreign or domestic.

      the Militia is not a set group of qualified men, its not the police, or the national guard. its the citizens, All citizens of this nation make up the Militia.

        • Given contemporary usage of the term regulated, well- and un- are by now synonyms. And not just with regards to the militia, either.

          • The 16th century definition is not so different from the contemporary. People have a penchant for stating otherwise, contrary to established fact.

          • They are absolute truth. That I know, look it up for yourself. Or try gunsite, they have the definition there for you.

        • I’ll contribute this, a quote from the Oxford English Dictionary:

          “†b.b Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare—1.

             1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.”

          Clearly, as the justices noted, the word’s meaning and emphasis have shifted. Nonetheless, a prefatory clause is not determinative of the amendment’s meaning. There is certainly evidence that the citizens of the new nation believed the right to keep and bear arms was theirs. They made frequent and open use of that right.

          • Properly disciplined is not an obsolete definition. Indeed, written regulations exist as a manner of enforcing discipline.
            Also consider regulated pressure sources, voltage, time-keeping, etc…all held to some standard measure of performance.

          • The meaning hasn’t shifted. We have a well-regulated militia, the National Guard. Read the powers of Congress.
            Well-regulated translates something akin to paraprofessional.
            The populace may be considered unorganized militia, but that hardly qualifies as well-regulated. Without regular training and drill as a team such is impossible.

        • Actually, the 2A does exist to create one (that’s why the “well-regulated militia” part is in there). And you are right, we don’t have anything like a functional militia, regulated or un.

          The federal gov is commanded to preserve (as in “shall not infringe”) the individual citizens’ right to keep and bear arms and to put that right to use by maintaining a well-regulated militia. It has been an abject failure on all counts.

          In regards to the Illinois legislature, they need to take the advice they no doubt gave social conservatives who wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade — just shut the f*** up and deal with reality.

          • No, the 2a does not exist to create any militia. It is an enumerated right, not duty.
            Congress was empowered to organize, arm, train, and equip militias prior to the 2a being added. Congress could arm militia personnel without regard to any people’s right to arms, like is done in many other countries. The 2a exists to enumerate a people’s right, just like the rest of the bill of rights.

        • ” We have a well-regulated militia, the National Guard.”
          Which was created AFTER the constitution was ratified.

          Try again, genius.

          • Not really. If you actually read the Constitution (hint: powers of Congress) you will find that the militia we call the National Guard was created by the Constitution.
            It doesn’t take genius to see that, just literacy.

        • “Given the contemporary languague…”

          Holy Sh_t you’re reaching. The FLESH LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS THERE AND READABLE. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          It’s written because they knew the dictatorial detractors could not all be rounded up and violently destroyed [permanently] or else they would have DEFINED THAT TASK AND MEANS, AND WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY GOT THAT DONE. Instead we continually suffer fools and clowns, that we will be after in due time BECAUSE WE HAVE THE 2nd Amendment TO EQUIP US TO.

        • Paul, you do realize that the articles of the constitution specifically define who the militia is? Basically any able-bodied male citizen. So if the 2A was only for the milita, any able-bodied male can own a gun. Arguing in circles dude.

          • I do realize that you are very confused. Maybe read the Constitution, instead of referencing “articles” of it that don’t exist?
            I was not arguing against the rkba, just the illogic some use for their justification.
            Go ahead, read the Constitution, the “article” you cite isn’t there. I even know where it is, but it isn’t part of the Constitution, nor does it claim the populace as a well-regulated militia. Sorry

        • “The 16th century definition is not so different from the contemporary.”

          It was different enough not to encompass the practical equivalent of an outright ban, which is what the term is largely used as a stand-in for today.

          As pertains to the Government, Citizens, the Militia and arms, The Militia was understood to be very different from; indeed an antidote to, should need arise; a potential standing army under government command. As in, should there be a conflict between The Government and The People, the Militia would be the armed wing of The People. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t be regulated, but it does put a pretty solid crimp on the kind and degree of constraints the Government could impose on it.

          • Sorry, but no. The militia, the organized, trained (well-regulated) one, is a tool under the powers of Congress that could be used against the people. Guess you still haven’t read past the Bill of Rights, huh? Or any of the federalist papers?

        • “The militia, the organized, trained (well-regulated) one, is a tool under the powers of Congress that could be used against the people.”

          I don’t know whether you’re just being obtuse for the sake of it, but does “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.” really read to you like the militia is there to stomp on the people and make their state unfree?

          • Have you ever read the Constitution? Federalist or anti-Federalist papers? It seems not.
            That militia you reference, under the powers of Congress:
            To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

            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;

            Yes, they are not the general populace, and yes they were a threat to the people. Remember, we had just dealt with martial law in the colonies. Guess why the 3a is an enumerated right?
            So yes, that militia was a threat, and the right of the people to be armed is to counter that militia. The idea that the general populace could somehow be a well-regulated militia is inane.

        • The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. Hence the reason the word “unalienable” is used in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away. The Second Amendment “codified” a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed”. Again this is not a right granted by the Constitution.
          The use of the word “militia” has created some confusion because we don’t understand the language as it was used at the time the Constitution was written. However in context,it’s clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

        • @Paul G,

          So what you are saying, is that the way to read the second is along the lines of: A well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. But, because any well regulated militia can become a threat to the people, the right of the people to arm themselves should not be infringed. So that they can defend themselves against said militia?

          Or generalized and short: the government needs an army. Which can be turned on the people. Therefore the people need to be armed to defend themselves?

          I have never heard that particular interpretation before, but it doesn’t sound impossible, given the 2As wording.

          Every interpretation I have ever heard, casts the militia as the arm of the people necessary to defend against any possible standing army. And that the people needs to be armed so they can ensure said militia is militarily relevant. What you seem to suggest is that the militia IS the “standing army.” Or at least it’s equivalent in terms of chain of command. And that the people therefore needs to be armed to defend themselves against it. It’s certainly clever and original, even if I’m not 100% sure I fully buy into it. Regardless, thanks for not being an idiot, and bringing up a point diametrically opposed to gun-guy dogma, that actually makes some sense.

          • You got it, Stuki. Early on, we expected to have a minimal standing army, with a well-regulated militia providing for the common defense. Didn’t quite pan out, so the standing armies stuck around.

        • Paul G, you show a total lack of understanding of what the Second Amendment says and the Federalist papers. The “militia” are the general population capable of bearing arms. That is the militia that Congress can call forward. That is why the Constitution refers to “the militia,” i.e. a pre-existing body. Note that nowhere does the Constitution itself create a formal select militia that it then refers to for Congress to call forth. That is because the militia is the people. Congress cannot call forth the militia to be used against the people. It can only call forth the militia to suppress insurrections, repel invasions, and things like that. When Congress calls forth the militia, the organization of the militia is handled by each of the states regarding their respective portions of it.

          The Second Amendment itself, in speaking of a “well-regulated militia,” is only making a prefatory clause, not a conditional clause. It would be like an amendment stating the following:

          “A well educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose information shall not be infringed.”

          Obviously, the electorate can never be literally “well educated,” but to have anything semblance of a well educated electorate, one needs to protect the right to read and compose information. Same with a well regulated militia. To have any semblance of that, the individual right to keep and bear arms must be protected.

          “Well regulated” itself at the time just meant “well functioning,” “in good working order,” etc…the Federalist Papers that you claim to have read state very clearly that the militia can never be expected to possess the level of skill of professional soldiers, that at best, all one can hope for is that they be armed fairly similarly (and even today, that is not doable).

          • I understand exactly what I am speaking about. You are confusing the “militia”, a generic term, with a well-regulated militia, which is not the same. The people may be “the militia”, but they are not the well-regulated one that was envisioned as the nation’s primary defense, and a government tool that posed a threat to the people. The state militias did exist pre-Constitution, but it was the Constitution that folded them into federal service. That was when they became a likely adversary of the people.
            Next time you read, go for comprehension .

          • Kyle, this:
            To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
            makes quite clear that the militia can be used against the people. Capiche?
            Well-regulated did not mean well-functioning, it had real meaning. This describes a well-regulated 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;
            organized, armed, trained, disciplined, with a chain of command.
            And…..directed by the gov!….a threat to the people.

          • Kyle, the federalist papers never sought to try and make excuses for why well-regulated could never mean well-regulated. Nope. It explained why the people could never be well-regulated, but that smaller groups could be trained to that standard. Again, comp!etely in agreement with my comments.

        • I understand exactly what I am speaking about. You are confusing the “militia”, a generic term, with a well-regulated militia, which is not the same.

          Except that the phrase “well regulated militia” is just a statement of the importance of the protection of the right, not something created by the Constitution that Congress can then call utilize. The amendments are not what create the powers of the government. Those are found in the articles, where the House, Senate, Executive, etc…are created and described. No where in any of those is there any creation of a militia. But yet the militia is referred to a pre-existing body. That is because the militia is not a government creation, i.e. a select militia, but rather is in reference to the general population. The Bill of Rights came after the Constitution had been written and ratified.

          The people may be “the militia”, but they are not the well-regulated one that was envisioned as the nation’s primary defense, and a government tool that posed a threat to the people. The state militias did exist pre-Constitution, but it was the Constitution that folded them into federal service. That was when they became a likely adversary of the people.
          Next time you read, go for comprehension .

          There was no “well regulated” select militia that was envisioned as the nation’s primary defense. The primary defense was always seen as the militia at large, the general population capable of bearing arms. The Constitution provides Congress the power to raise a formal army if they deem it necessary. The Federalist papers speak of the issue of select militias, which the Founders and many were suspicious of. Nor were there any select state militias at the time that were folded into federal service. That came later, when later select militias were folded into service as part of the newly-created National Guard. But at the time of ratification, the militia was clearly understood as being the people. This federal select militia you speak of never existed (which is why one was formally created later in the form of the National Guard, which is formally part of the United States standing military).

          Kyle this:
          To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
          makes quite clear that the militia can be used against the people. Capiche?

          I specifically stated the militia can be used to suppress insurrections. That is not using it against the people, that is using the people to protect the nation, as an insurrection could be from any number of groups. In modern times for example, you could have Nazis trying to stage an insurrection, communists trying (communists are notorious throughout history for doing just this), radical Muslims, or some other group.

          The Federalist papers specifically talk of just this issue, where they state that if an insurrection was to form in one state, the militia of multiple other states could be called and marched into that state to quell it. Again, there was nothing about any select standing federal militia that would be called forth. Just the general population capable of bearing arms.

          Well-regulated did not mean well-functioning, it had real meaning. This describes a well-regulated 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;
          organized, armed, trained, disciplined, with a chain of command.
          And…..directed by the gov!….a threat to the people.

          Well-regulated most definitely meant well-functioning. One can find references to a well-regulated government, a well-regulated society, a well-regulated hairstyle, a well-regulated drawing room, a well-regulated school, a well-regulated machine shop, etc…in the writings of the time and into the 19th century (before formal government regulation). Well-regulated militia meant a well-functioning militia.

          Regarding your citing of the Constitution there, look at the language. Note first how it says for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. If this is in reference to a select federal militia, then why is that language even there? A standing select militia will already be organized, armed, and disciplined. Note the Constitution does not mention about organizing, arming, or disciplining an army, because it’s implied that if you raise an army, you’ll do all those things. Same with a standing militia. The reason that language is there is because it is not in reference to any standing select militia, but rather the militia at large, the general population.

          If the militia at large is required for a national emergency, it is up to Congress to organize, arm, and discipline it. The appointment of the officers of it is left to the states and the actual training of the militia is also left to the states.

          Kyle, the federalist papers never sought to try and make excuses for why well-regulated could never mean well-regulated. Nope. It explained why the people could never be well-regulated, but that smaller groups could be trained to that standard. Again, comp!etely in agreement with my comments.

          I never said the federalist papers claimed any such thing. I said that the federalist papers stated that the militia could never itself be well regulated because, being that the militia is the general population capable of bearing arms, that would mean that every general citizen would also have to try to attain the proficiency with arms of a professional soldier. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 29, that would severely hamper the economic productivity of the entire country. Which also makes quite clear that “the militia” is in reference to the general population, not any select federal militia. A select federal militia would be a way to have a well-regulated militia, but there is no provision for Congress to create any such thing in the Constitution, only a standing army and navy. It gets around this by making the select militia it has officially part of the standing military.

          • Standing armies were highly distrusted, hence the desire to rely on well-regulated militia. Please, actually do the reading. Or try

          • What you call a select militia is a well-regulated militia. It was not originally part of the standing army. Even the Nat’l Guard of today has a degree of autonomy.

          • Well-regulated refers to the importance of the right? That’s hilarious! What right to militias? Where is that enumerated? Why would they refer to a well-regulated ideal that is unattainable instead of just saying the ” supremely important” right?
            Why? Because you keep redefining terms or disregarding them to fit your own fantasy.

        • Also keep in mind that the Bill of Rights were only agreed upon by the Founders in order to win the support for ratification of the Constitution by the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists would not support the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, which the Federalists saw as unnecessary and even counter-productive. The anti-Federalists were extremely distrustful of the government created by the Constitution. They would in no way have supported any amendment that claimed the right was tied to a select standing federal militia.

          The Federalist papers themselves also talk specifically about how the militia (at large) would be used to defend the country as opposed to any select militias. No where is there talk about there being need to create a standing select militia. The whole history of classical republican political philosophy is filled with talk about how the militia, i.e. the general population capable of bearing arms period, are who protect against invasions, insurrections, and check tyranny. Select militias were the province of kings and princes who didn’t quite have the money to maintain a standing army but wanted a specific military force that could be used to oppress the people, and as such were highly distrusted by the Founders.

          • Comprehension is obviously a problem for you. I never claimed the rkba is tied to a militia, you imply it with your “the people are the militia” tripe. The people are not a well-regulated militia. Then you try and minimize the meaning of well-regulated to suit your desires, contrary to reality.
            Maybe get someone to read and explain for you.

        • Standing armies were highly distrusted, hence the desire to rely on well-regulated militia. Please, actually do the reading. Or try

          Select militias were also highly-distrusted. As said, they were a way for kings and princes to maintain special military forces without having to pay for a full standing army. There was no desire anywhere to rely on any select militia and the Constitution doesn’t create one.

          What you call a select militia is a well-regulated militia. It was not originally part of the standing army. Even the Nat’l Guard of today has a degree of autonomy.

          The only type of militia that could specifically be literally “well regulated” would be a select militia, but the statement about a well regulated militia in the Second Amendment was a statement about the importance of the right, not a reference to any select militia anywhere (as there is none created in the Constitution). To use the well educated electorate example, a literal well educated electorate would have to be a select portion of the electorate, as the electorate at large can never literally be expected to be well educated. But one could very much imagine writing, “A well educated elecotrate being necessary to the preservation of a free society…” as a statement in an amendment about the importance of protecting the right to read and compose information.

          So the powers of Congress are no longer part of the Constitution?

          There is no power of Congress to create any kind of select militia. They only have the power to call forth the militia (and organize, discipline, etc…it), which is seen as pre-existing, not having been created anywhere in the Constitution.

          Comprehension is obviously a problem for you. I never claimed the rkba is tied to a militia, you imply it with your “the people are the militia” tripe. The people are not a well-regulated militia. Then you try and minimize the meaning of well-regulated to suit your desires, contrary to reality.
          Maybe get someone to read and explain for you.

          You must not be very familiar with the writings on the subject from the time as it is very clear that the people are the militia. Hamilton makes this very clear in Federalist 29, and it is clear in how the Federalist Papers distinguish between “the militia” and “select militias.” The Virginia Ratification convention also talks about “the militia at large” versus “select militia.” Of course the people are not a well regulated militia. Nor could they ever be a well educated electorate. But a well educated electorate is essential to preserving liberty, and a well regulated militia is essential as well. Both are statements of importance for protecting their respective rights. They are not conditional clauses at all.

          If the mention of a well regulated militia in the Second had anything to do with a select militia, then the rest of the Constitution (which was written and ratified first) would make mention of it. It would say something like, “Congress shall have the power to raise a select militia force out of the militia at large…”

          • Yes, the well-regulated militia clause does relate to the right, not as in the people are a well-regulated militia, but because such a militia was the expected source of tyranny at the hands of government.
            You know, by suppressing insurrections and enforcing laws.
            Odd too, lots of countries have select militias without having princes or kings. Are you living in fantasy land?

        • Yes, the well-regulated militia clause does relate to the right, not as in the people are a well-regulated militia, but because such a militia was the expected source of tyranny at the hands of government.
          You know, by suppressing insurrections and enforcing laws.
          Odd too, lots of countries have select militias without having princes or kings. Are you living in fantasy land?

          Again, no well regulated militia, i.e. select militia, was ever intended to suppress insurrections and enforce laws and repel invasions. That was the militia at large, which the Congress has the power to call forth. That is why the Constitution refers the militia as a pre-existing body and makes no mention anywhere about select militias. The Federalist Papers make very clear that the militia is the general population.

          A select militia could very much be a tool for tyranny. So could a standing army. They also could be used to protect the country from invasions and insurrections. But historically, they were also used for oppressing the people.

          Yes, lots of countries have select militias without having princes or kings. So what? The United States has the most powerful standing military ever seen and is not a dictatorship. Some countries have no explicit protections for rights at all and are still democratic. But that doesn’t stop the risk from being there. The point also isn’t about modern times so much as the time the Constitution was written, where there was huge concern about select militias and standing armies.

          • No Kyle, you are just wrong. Well-regulated was not just a euphemism. Look at the articles of confederation:
            but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed ande accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
            Do you really think the states were required to train, arm, and outfit all-able bodied men. Obviously not. Well-regulated meant trained. Even taking your concept of well I functioning, a militia that is not trained does not function.
            Fast forward to the Constitution, those same militias are folded into federal oversight. Not general military, but well-trained. Congress was even unpowered to arm them. That is not the general populace.
            Your fantasy that well-regulated referee to all able bodied men is just that, fantasy.
            It is very clear that the well-regulated militia were not generic, but were well-trained, intended to serve as an alternative to standing armies. Contrary to your assertions, standing armies were highly distrusted, well-regulated militias a little less so, though still distrusted. Still, they were needed for the security of the state, especially without standing armies.
            So, those well-regulated militias, being able to be used by government against the people, were a threat, but needed. A very good preface reason for the right of the people to be armed, to opposes government abuses.
            Sorry, facts just do not support your fantasy. But hey, you are learning something, that is a good thing.

        • No Kyle, you are just wrong. Well-regulated was not just a euphemism. Look at the articles of confederation:
          but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed ande accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
          Do you really think the states were required to train, arm, and outfit all-able bodied men. Obviously not. Well-regulated meant trained. Even taking your concept of well I functioning, a militia that is not trained does not function.

          Well-regulated meant well functioning or in good working order as stated. But the Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution. Under the Articles, there was no real central government. That was why they came up with the Constitution. The Constitution makes no mention of state militias or any federal militia. Just the militia, i.e. the general population capable of bearing arms.

          Fast forward to the Constitution, those same militias are folded into federal oversight. Not general military, but well-trained. Congress was even unpowered to arm them. That is not the general populace.
          Your fantasy that well-regulated referee to all able bodied men is just that, fantasy.

          Only they weren’t. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution or in the Federalist Papers about the militia consisting of select state militias being folded into a formal select federal militia. If that had been the case, the Constitution would make explicit mention of it. The phrase well-regulated in the Second Amendment is just a declarative statement about the importance of protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. It was not any modification of the rest of the Constitution itself.

          It is very clear that the well-regulated militia were not generic, but were well-trained, intended to serve as an alternative to standing armies. Contrary to your assertions, standing armies were highly distrusted, well-regulated militias a little less so, though still distrusted. Still, they were needed for the security of the state, especially without standing armies.

          The problem with your claim is that there was no federal well-regulated militia. Again, no mention of it in the Constitution or in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, in Federalist #29, argues that he himself could be for the formation of a select militia, because he saw it that it would be impossible for the militia at large to have the characteristic of well-regulated troops. However, he also said that others would disagree, as they distrust select militias, and that it would be up to the Congress to decide on whether ultimately to form such a militia. This thus shows a few things. For one, it shows that the word “militia” was understood as referring to the general population capable of bearing arms, not any select militia. Two, it shows that the Constitution doesn’t at all create any select federal militia for the government. As Hamilton said, the Congress itself would have to try that if they desired it, as he saw it.

          Which is exactly what happened later on, when the National Guard was created.

          So, those well-regulated militias, being able to be used by government against the people, were a threat, but needed. A very good preface reason for the right of the people to be armed, to opposes government abuses.
          Sorry, facts just do not support your fantasy. But hey, you are learning something, that is a good thing.

          The mention of a well regulated militia as a declarative statement in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with it being viewed as a threat and thus it being important to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. To support that assertion, you need to show where in the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, any mention is made of a select federal militia that is created. There are none. In addition, you need to explain why the prefatory clause states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” Nowhere is there anything about how a select federal well regulated militia could be a threat to a free state. If it was written as you are claiming, it would say, “A well regulated militia, being a threat to the security of a free state…” Then you’d have an argument. Instead, it is a statement about the importance of a well regulated militia to the security of a free state (i.e. against tyranny, insurrections, and foreign invasions), and hence why it is important to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

          • Keep trying Kyle. So how do all able bodied men become a well-regulated militia? Oh, you yourself say they didn’t really mean it, proof the government lies!
            Or they meant a smaller, dedicated group. Hint, they did. Like the minute men.
            Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

            While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute’s warning – hence they were called “minute men.”

            Did You Know?

            Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

            While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute’s warning – hence they were called “minute men”

            The more you know, the less you try to impose your fantasy on others. Sorry Kyle, you are not part of the well-regulated militia.

        • Keep trying Kyle. So how do all able bodied men become a well-regulated militia? Oh, you yourself say they didn’t really mean it, proof the government lies!

          Not a lie at all, just a declarative statement. You seem unable to understand that concept. I could say to you that a well educated electorate is very important for preserving a free society. Does that mean that the electorate could ever really be expected to be actually well-educated? Likely not. No different than with a well regulated militia.

          Look at Article 1, Section 8 where it says:

          “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;”

          So does this then mean that copyrights and patents are only applicable for things that promote the progress of science and useful arts? So then things like the Game of Thrones novels, Fifty Shades of Grey, all of Stephen King’s novels, Ann Rice’s novels, etc…the government must have zero authority to issue copyrights for any of those, because they do not promote the progress of either science or useful arts. Patents on new toys also would not be under the authority of the government.

          Of course that would be ridiculous. “To promote the progress of science and useful arts” is a declarative statement.

          Or they meant a smaller, dedicated group. Hint, they did. Like the minute men.
          Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

          No they didn’t, or the Constitution would explicitly specify it. It doesn’t. There is no mention of a select militia in the Constitution. You made that up out of thin air by trying to claim that the Second Amendment is a conditional statement that grants the government a power, something none of the Bill of Rights do. Their only purpose to government was to limit it.

          While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute’s warning – hence they were called “minute men.”

          Did You Know?

          Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

          While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute’s warning – hence they were called “minute men”

          The more you know, the less you try to impose your fantasy on others. Sorry Kyle, you are not part of the well-regulated militia.

          There is no well regulated militia, no more than stating that a well educated electorate is important makes everyone part of some well educated electorate. It was only a declarative statement. You are only making this all the more clear by your inability to address the fact that the Constitution says nothing about a select militia and the main work explaining why the Constitution should be ratified, the Federalist Papers, clearly explains that the militia is the general population (hence why Hamilton says that trying to discipline the militia would be impossible and why he thus would support the creation of a select militia, but that such a proposal is merely his opinion and not any part of the proposed Constitution. The mention of the militia by the Constitution is the general population.

          • It isn’t a declarative statement. If it were it would be contrary to known fact. And prior use of the term makes it quite clear.
            Sorry Kyle, you will never be a part of a well-regulated militia.
            Even the current US code has the male populace as unorganized militia. Unorganized cannot equal well-regulated. Think of the firing order on a car. Do you prefer it unorganuzed, or well-regulated. It can’t,be both

        • It isn’t a declarative statement. If it were it would be contrary to known fact. And prior use of the term makes it quite clear.

          It has been known fact for quite some time that it is a declarative statement. It is also quite clear from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers themselves that it is a declarative statement. The only time it was “known fact” that it was not a declarative statement was back when there was much historical ignorance about the Second Amendment and the legal profession claimed it was a protection of state militias.

          Sorry Kyle, you will never be a part of a well-regulated militia.
          Even the current US code has the male populace as unorganized militia. Unorganized cannot equal well-regulated. Think of the firing order on a car. Do you prefer it unorganuzed, or well-regulated. It can’t,be both

          The militia will never be well-regulated, that is correct. But in order to have any semblance of it being well-regulated, the right must be protected. Same as how it has often been said that a well educated population or electorate is important to protecting freedom, even though the electorate will never overall be actually well educated. Again, there never was any select well-regulated militia. The Constitution makes no mention of any such thing anywhere. It creates the House, Senate, Executive, Judiciary, and explains the powers of them. It says nothing about a select militia anywhere. And the Federalist Papers, which were written precisely to convince people to support ratification of the Constitution, quite clearly show that the militia was understood as the general population capable of bearing arms.

          • No Kyle, the Nat’l Guard is a well-regulated militia. Absent the 2a, such wishful thinking statements as well-regulated do not exist. You can make hypotheticals, but they,aren’t there. Thus no reason to believe that it was wishful thinking.
            If government had need to arm a militia, well regulated or not, the Bill of Rights is not where they would do so. They already had so provided, in the powers of Congress. So the 2a has nothing to do with arming any militia.
            No rkba is required for arming a militia anyways.
            Also, militia participation for the security of a free state is not a right, it is an obligation. Huge difference. Again, the BoR is not where such ideas would be presented.
            Thus, the idea that a rkba would be linked to militia participation by the 2a is hokum.
            That is the true wishful thibking.
            The 2a has a preface, a reason the people need a rkba, not participatory, but precautionary.
            I already showed you there were differences in militia participation back then, as now. The US code says so.

        • No Kyle, the Nat’l Guard is a well-regulated militia. Absent the 2a, such wishful thinking statements as well-regulated do not exist. You can make hypotheticals, but they,aren’t there. Thus no reason to believe that it was wishful thinking.

          Where is the National Guard mentioned in the Constitution? The National Guard is officially part of the Army and the Air Force. And the Constitution doesn’t create an army, air force, or military of any kind. It just says that Congress has the power to do so if it feels the need. The creation of a standing military does not entail a militia part of it, which is why the National Guard wasn’t created until long after the creation of the U.S. military. Yet the Constitution repeatedly makes reference to a pre-existing militia. That militia is the American people at large, not the National Guard.

          If government had need to arm a militia, well regulated or not, the Bill of Rights is not where they would do so. They already had so provided, in the powers of Congress. So the 2a has nothing to do with arming any militia.
          No rkba is required for arming a militia anyways.
          Also, militia participation for the security of a free state is not a right, it is an obligation. Huge difference. Again, the BoR is not where such ideas would be presented.
          Thus, the idea that a rkba would be linked to militia participation by the 2a is hokum.
          That is the true wishful thibking.
          The 2a has a preface, a reason the people need a rkba, not participatory, but precautionary.

          The preface is indeed precautionary, but it has nothing to do with meaning that there is some select federal militia. Again, just check the Federalist Papers.

          I already showed you there were differences in militia participation back then, as now. The US code says so.

          That code was created later though, not at ratification.

          • To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
            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;

            Now go and compare that with the roles, command structure, and training and doctrine of the National Guard.
            Wow! So alike! The national guard is the well-regulated militia. The people are the unorganized militia. Big difference. Sorry.