An armed citizenry was useless without training. And training everyone would be "as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution ... the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable."
"Ask ultra-liberal lawyer Lawrence Tribe what the second amendment means. He will reluctantly tell you; an armed citizenry."
Well, duh. What else would a well regulated Militia consist of, armed cows?
The Founders stated, clearly, in the second amendment that it was a well regulated Militia that was necessary to the security of a free State, not an armed citizenry.
Well duh. It consists of an armed citizenry, exactly what you state above as being “futile and injurious”.
Your asinine attempt at saying that there can be a “well regulated militia” without there being an “armed citizenry” shows at face that you do not have any serious understanding or consistency of understanding of the second amendment.
Before 1792, there was no militia act, but there were well regulated militias. Since the second amendment was written before the 1792 Militia act, it is apparent that the Founders understood that there did not have to be government oversight in order for militias to be “well regulated”.
The 1200 men of the Massachusetts 4th Division under Shepard were a militia. Since that was five years before the Militia Act of 1792, how in the world could they have been “well regulated”?
Not useless, just less effective than with formal training. Just because someone hasn't been officially drilled in military discipline doesn't mean they don't have a good idea how & when to shoot an enemy. 18,000,000 deer hunters are not easily overrun.
Well, duh.
HOORAY!
He gets it! Twice in a day even!