Replies

It wasn't even IN the constitution until amended.

Militia's were under state control and not recognized as such unless officered by officers appointed by the state and trained under federal regulation.

Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose "...being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state. I am sure such points mean nothing to you.

Their practical function was almost entirely to protect the citizenry from Indian attacks. Against a real army they were of limited use and those among the founders who had served in the Continental Army well understood this.

A "one-note blowhard?" Please, I use the whole Octave and it sounds much more harmonious than the atonal screaching from you boys.

Oh, you might want to check your writing so that one does not get the idea that you can't think OR write correctly.

Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose "...being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state. I am sure such points mean nothing to you.

Now I clearly see why the ban isn't an issue with you.

It took some doing, but at least you're beginning to be honest about it.

"Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose "...being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state. I am sure such points mean nothing to you."

The state referred to in the 2nd is the nation as a whole. As an example, ever hear of nation states? But again, being NRA you should know that.

"Their practical function was almost entirely to protect the citizenry from Indian attacks."

Um, no mr. "NRA". The militias were created to provide a military force. They were the precurser to the National Guard. The militia was/is for defending the nation against enemies of the nation. I read an article about a former Soviet big wig that said that the reason Russia never tried to invade the US is not because of our military (they felt they could beat it), but because of all the guns that the citizens had. We as gun owners are the militia, we are the last line of defense of this country if it were to be invaded.

"Against a real army they were of limited use and those among the founders who had served in the Continental Army well understood this."

Not so, the Mel Gibson movie The Patriot was based on a real person from here in SC. The militia was what tipped the scales in our favor.

Who are "the people " in the Second Amendment, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ?

I told you on the other thread where this came up and you were proven wrong: I'm not dealing with you. My only purpose is to mention how fruitless it is to try to logically debate you to people who would otherwise be wasting their time. See my tag line for what I'm trying to prevent.

being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state. I am sure such points mean nothing to you.

You've got the emphasis wrong. "being necessary to the security of a FREE state.". You also have a problem with English grammer. The main clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's up to the people to decide if and how those arms shall be utlitized.

Early militias were as likely to be controled by cities and towns, rather than the State government, some were independent of all governments. In any event, the militia are the people themselves, or at least the male portion thereof, just wearing a "different hat".