For those that think the militia clause restricts 2A to the militia.

[rusty_rebar]

A rich and affluent society, being necessary to the happiness of our nation, all citizens shall all be given 1 million dollars every year.

In the above sentence, who gets the million dollars? Just the rich and affluent, or all the citizens?

Is the meaning of that sentence to give rich and affluent people 1 million dollars, or is it to enable all citizens to be rich and affluent?



*Minor grammar edit

[villager]

1. Except that that sentence doesn't actually exist, while the words "well-regulated" actually do...

Yet that part always seems to be ignored...

[rusty_rebar]

2. exactly what words in that sentence do not exist?

[Statistical]

3. They aren't ignored just misunderstod.

Circa 1776 "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulation.
"well regulated" = functional, effective, capable, accurate.

Language has changed considerably in last two hundred years thus we need to look at the meaning at the time it was written.

Also the structure is reversed compared to modern language.

Today nobody would write a sentence that is result before action however that was common 2 centuries ago.

Today we would form a sentence aciton, then result.

"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 modern language:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringe in order to have a capable militia to defend the state."

There is nearly 100 years of case law that indicate that the 2nd means exactly what it says (1776 to mid 1800s). It wasn't until after the civil war when the "need" to disarm the blacks led to a whole host of abiminable court decisions not just with RKBA but all rights.


The people have a right to keep and bear arms. Accept it or repeal it.

All 9 justices support an individual right to keep and bear arms. They just differ on what restrictions are Constitutional.

[safeinOhio]

45. Seems the term "bear arms"

in the 18th century meant in a military sense. That would be one could have arms in military a situation. Just as questionable as "militia" is in meaning. It can be argued either way.

[Statistical]

47. Nope not even close.

Lets look at some State Constitutions....

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

How does on defend himself only in a military sense?

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Why would the words "every citizen" be used if the right only apply to military action?

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

How does one defend his home, person, or property via military action?


While on can bear arms for military action there is no evidence that the term is limited ONLY to military action.

[safeinOhio]

48. Note, I said it can be argued either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the U.S. Second Amendment and them both codifying an existing right and not creating a new one has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.<10> <11>
The English text used the term to have arms while the American text uses the term bear arms which historians have described as having a military connotation in context of the necessity for militia to protect a free state.<12>

Those state constitutions are specific to those states. If the framers of the Federal Constitution had meant "to have arms"they may have stated it as such.
The ones you cited have not much to do with Federal laws at the time as they are specific about the rights in those states. Otherwise there would be no need to include them in the state.

As I said, it can be argued either way as proved by this and other articles.

[Statistical]

49. Bears arms isn't limited to ONLY military service.

The point of showing the State Constitutions was to provide an example. If as you claim "bear arms" = ONLY MILITARY service then over half of the State Constitutions simply make no sense. How does one "bear arms for military service" to defend his house or family? It is false on face value.

Given "bear arms" has a meaning beyond just military service you can't make a claim that the intent of the 2nd was limited to ONLY military service. While you may be right (I doubt it) you don't have any support for your claim. Now if someone said "bear arms" can NEVER mean military service then they would be equally wrong.


Of course we are arguing a matter of settled law.

So Held: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. - DC v. Heller (2008).

[safeinOhio]

50. Bear arms had a different meaning

in the 18th century. Doesn't mean bear arm=ONLY military service


This is even from a pro gun rights web site and shows it had a different meaning at that time and had nothing to do with carrying arms. I stand by my argument that it meant something else in the year 1800 than today.


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
To Bear Arms
"Bearing arms," throughout the 18th century, most likely meant to serve as a soldier or to fight (including bearing arms against another man in individual self-defense). Where the term "bear arms" appears, itself, without further modifiers it did not infer a broader meaning such as hunting or the mere carrying or wearing of arms.
For example, Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790) refers to bearing arms as an individual right of self-defense (against other individuals) as well as a right belonging to the states:
onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
         14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
Thus the term bearing arms was understood as not referring exclusively to military service.

Although without modifying terms, as mentioned above, bearing arms probably did not refer to the mere carrying or hunting with arms.

[Statistical]

51. From your own quote:

"refers to bearing arms as an individual right of self-defense (against other individuals) as well as a right belonging to the states:"

Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, , by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.

Bears arms does not mean ONLY military service. It didn't in the 18th century it doesn't today. You might actually want to read Heller decision (and oral arguments).

All of this is covered:
Definition of "Bear Arms"
Definition of "The People"
Definition of "Well Regulated"
Definition of "Militia"
Definition of "Arms"
Collective vs. Individual right

Your original claim is not supported by your own quote.
"Seems the term bear arms in the 18th century meant in a military sense. That would be one could have arms in military a situation."

Bear arms doesn't have a military meaning but it also has an individual meaning. Thanks for the cite I bookmarked it.

[petronius]

53. Even if we grant that "bear" only refers to a military situation, we still have "keep"

As I read it, the full statement is meant to guarantee that individuals are allowed to have weapons among their property at all times, so that those weapons will be available if and when a circumstance arises that a calling of the militia is necessary. Any other interpretation seems to torture the language...

[GreenStormCloud]

10. The grammar is the same.

His sentence is an exercise in teaching the English language to those who refuse to understand it, such as yourself.

[ET Awful]

12. No, it's an exercise in poorly framing an analogy.

For it to have the same grammar, it would need another comma, a restriction on the first clause and would contain a provision prohibiting infringement instead of giving something away.

[Travis Coates]

42. In Alexander Hamilton's own words

Here is exactly what "well regulated" means

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia,"

From the same essay

" Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

[ET Awful]

4. That may be the dumbest analogy I've read yet.

First, for it to have any actual comparison it would have to contain the "well-regulated" restriction on the first part of the sentence. Additionally, the end would have to read along the lines of "the right of the people to keep and bear money, shall not be infringed."

For your analogy to have any validity, the 2nd Amendment would have to contain a clause requiring each citizen to be given a gun every year.

Did you actually think your post made any sense?

Now, that said, while I believe that the original intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights was to provide for a well-regulated militia, not a well-armed populace with no regulation whatsoever, I also believe that times change.

For instance, the framers believed that a black person wasn't a whole person. They also believed that only men should be allowed to vote.

Things change, and in many cases, there are legitimate reasons for private citizens to own handguns, rifles, etc. But, if you want 'em, you damn well better be able to accept some . . .well . . .regulation.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. Ha Ha Ha. Speaking of stupid posts. Please see post #3 for an

education on what "well regulated" meant when the Bill of Rights was penned.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x328209#328240

[ET Awful]

9. Mmmmmhmmmmm. What he left out was that well-regulated actually would have meant

well-disciplined (notice that he actually added it back in in his response to me).

A well-regulated militia is a militia that is disciplined, has a command structure with a well-defined chain of command and the members of which are, in fact, regulated.

It's very telling that you completely ignored the rest of my post. . . it says a lot about your ability to read and comprehend English (modern or otherwise).

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Ha Ha Ha. Please see post #3 for an education on your own

comprehending "English (modern or otherwise)." because yours is seriously lacking. You could also go read the Heller decision as it is well footnoted on the subject.

Have a nice day and good luck with you education.

[ET Awful]

19. There you go yet again, not reading what I said, but instead trying to

spout your rhetoric.

Well done.

[Hoopla Phil]

22. Odd how some who turn a willfully blind eye to the truth refer to it as rhetoric.

Please go read Heller to understand who the militia are and what well regulated means. Your knowledge is lacking - but I suspect it is willful.

[one-eyed fat man]

44. See US Code Title 10, Section 311

Don't look now, but unless you are too old, already in uniform, or squat to piss, YOU are a member of the militia.

311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

While the draft has not been used since 1974, the law is operative and only takes the President's order to implement. That is why your SON must register with Selective Service at age eighteen and your daughter does not. That is all the draft does is activate individual members of the unorganized militia, just as whole units of the organized militia get called up and deployed.

[Statistical]

6. To the framers there was no distinction between "the people" and "the militia".

British troops took firearms from the clonists. They didn't ask to see the militia membership card before they seized arms.

The colonist were upset that their right (under British common law) to keep arms was violated. This is why the 2nd was included in the Bill Of Rights.

I do agree the sentence constructed by the OP was poor though.

As far as well regulated it could be replaced with "functional, effective, capable". Regulation meaning restrictive laws simply wasn't part of the language circa 1776.

A shotgun was considered well regulated if both barrels hit same target.
A watch was well regulated if it kept accurate time.
An army was considered well regulated if it was capable, effective, disciplined.

[ET Awful]

8. So tell me . . . if a militia should be well-regulated, by which, according to your own post

would mean well disciplined, how exactly is a militia well-disciplined without a command structure and regulations.

You contradict yourself.

[Statistical]

14. The militia relies on the 2nd the 2nd doesn't rely on the militia.

A well regulated militia; a functional militia relies upon the 2nd the 2nd doesn't rely upon the militia.

You can't have a militia composed of the people if the people are prohibited arms. We learned that prior to revolutionary war when many militias were under staffed because the British troops and loyalists simply disarmed entire cities and town.

The use of militia has fallen out of favor and given rise to standing armies (something founding fathers feared) still the lack of militia (functional or not) doesn't make the 2nd go away.

One could argue that since we no longer have militia we no longer NEED a 2nd. If you feel that way then repeal it.

Until it is repealed.....

THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEARS ARMS because that is necessary for us to have a funcitonal militia AND that is necessary for a free state.

[ET Awful]

15. Slick, you didn't answer my post at all, you just repeated your nonsense

misinterpretation of my original post.

Well done.

[Statistical]

16. Let me simplify it for you ....

"how exactly is a militia well-disciplined without a command structure and regulations."
IT ISN'T.

That is failure on the part of the government. However their failure doesn't negate the right of the people.

The people have a right to keep and bear arms. A populace well trained and versed in use of firearms is essential for a functional militia.

The states have chosen to neglect this responsibility. The states *should* appoint officers (who are full time paid members of the militia) and create an organization structure. They were charged with this by the federal government and did adopt it faithfully for about a hundred or so years.

Still the failure of the State on maintaining their "functional militia" doesn't eliminate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
If there is never another militia mobilized until the end of time the PEOPLE still retain the right to keep and bear arms. It will be a capability of the people that goes untapped by the government but the government unwilliness to use the potential of the people (and save trillions in defense spending) doesn't eliminate the right.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


The concept was that the people having access to arms would be intimately familiar with them and a body of people capable of using firearms is the basis of a militia. Thus if the people can be deprived of arms the states can be deprived of a militia and thus freedom.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.

---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[ET Awful]

18. There you go again . . . . not actually addressing anything or misrepresenting what you do state

Having spent a bit of time in a well-regulated militia, I can assure you that the majority of them didn't know jack about firearms when they joined said militia.

Now, go back and read my original post.

Then read my follow-up posts.

Now, if you agree that there should be regulations on firearm ownership as I said in my other post, then you are in agreement with me and are just spouting your rhetoric to see your name on the screen.

Or, if you think there should be no regulation, then you are for people like my sister's ex who has been arrested for making terrorist threats, has restraining orders against him from both my sister and my mother (not to mention their places of employment), having free access to firearms.

Now, do you agree there should be regulation or not? It's a simple question.

[Hoopla Phil]

21. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are two subgroups of "The Militia"

The organized one that you "join" and the unorganized one to which "the people" are born into. You really do need to broaden you knowledge of English words and what they mean.

[ET Awful]

32. Mmmmhmmm . . . you're name suits you well "hoopla" it's all you can speak.

So using your logic, the 2nd Amendment requires all citizens to be proficient with firearms as part of the well-regulated militia you allege they are "born into".

Hmmmm, that's a new one.

I think I'll just go with my initial instincts and just quit responding to your nonsense.

[Statistical]

38. You sarcasm aside it is closer to correct that anything you have posted for far.

Except the 2nd doesn't REQUIRE anything. It PROTECTS the right of the people to keep and bear arms from government infringement.
The founders felt the RKBA SPECIFICALLY needed protection because "the whole of the people" (not literraly but a significant portion of the population) form the irregular militia and in order for them to be proficient they would need access to arms.

"Hmmmm, that's a new one."
No actually that is an old one, 200+ years old.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. If you gather that from my posts you have a very active imagination.

The 2A does not require anyone to be armed. The Bill of Rights are restrictions on the government, not requirements of citizens.

Also, the unorganized militia that you seem to be willfully ignorant of is not new in the slightest.

Yes yes, continue to turn a blind eye and remain in you willfully ignorant state.

[Statistical]

25. I that the RKBA (and any right ) is not absolute and is subject to some restrictions.

However I am not in agreement with you.

"Now, do you agree there should be regulation or not? It's a simple question."
Nowhere in this thread did anyone say there should be no regulation. That is simply a strawman.

"then you are for people like my sister's ex who has been arrested for making terrorist threats, has restraining orders against him from both my sister and my mother (not to mention their places of employment), having free access to firearms."
Another strawman. Name a post where I indicated violent felons should have firearms.

The fact that you even bring up "well regulated militia" to support a claim of restrictions on the RKBA seems to indicate you have no belief in an individual right totally separate from service in the militia.
The fact that you say "just spouting your rhetoric" as it relates to the philosophy of the founding father and the rational for the 2nd is equally enlightening.

"Having spent a bit of time in a well-regulated militia"
I doubt it. Neither the national guard nor the active army would be considered a militia as indicated in the 2nd amendment.

I assume you disagree with this statement.

So Held: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The RKBA does not rely on the militia, the militia relies on the RKBA.

[ET Awful]

27. So, let me get this right, you think there should be regulations, but you don't think there should

be any?

I never said individuals should not be allowed to own firearms, not once did I say that anywhere. I tire of your circular arguments where you first say I think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, then say I'm right that there should be some regulations, then continue around in your circle.

I'm done with you.

[Statistical]

30. Be done then but for the record I never said the RKBA is unlimited and subject to no restrictions.

That was a claim you simply made up.

[pipoman]

46. If you ain't wit me, you'se again' me...

how ridiculous is this?

Now, if you agree that there should be regulations on firearm ownership as I said in my other post, then you are in agreement with me and are just spouting your rhetoric to see your name on the screen.

Or, if you think there should be no regulation, then you are for people like my sister's ex who has been arrested for making terrorist threats, has restraining orders against him from both my sister and my mother (not to mention their places of employment), having free access to firearms.

Nice try there. There are at least a million other options, if you can't see this, well you are an idiot like your brother-in-law.

For instance, some of us here are OK with the 20,000 plus regulations on the books right now and believe we don't need another single one. Others of us feel that some of the 20k restrictions are actually infringements and will work toward repeal or challenge of the infringements, I have yet to see anyone on this board advocate a position of "no regulation", not a single poster. So the truth is that people here have different ideas about regulation. Some, like you, espouse a desire for a conservative interpretation of the 2nd which in turn would allow you to impose very strict regulations on those wishing to exercise their rights under the 2nd. Others here, like myself and likely the poster you are addressing, advocate for a very liberal interpretation of the 2nd, meaning that ANY regulation on the 2nd should, in fact must, offer a very obvious and demonstrable positive effect, statistically, on society...strict scrutiny...So you see, your 2 bogus choices are ...well...bogus..Tell me which of the 2 positions above would best describe the progressive/liberal philosophy?

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Then start a movement to have the 2nd repealed. N/T

[ET Awful]

13. You really don't read too well do you?

Let' see, I state that I believe people should be allowed to own guns, you say I should try to have the 2nd Amendment repealed.

Sheesh, some people have a REALLY hard time reading English beyond that which they find agreeable.

So basically what you're saying is you want NO regulation? Either that or you agree with me that there should be some regulation.

Do you think the mentally ill should have access to guns?

Do you think someone who has a violent history and a restraining order against them by an ex-lover or spouse should have access to guns?

Do you think convicted felons who have a history of violent crimes should have access to guns?

If your answer to any of the above is "no" then you are agreeing that there should be regulation. If you say the answer to any of the above is "yes", then you're an idiot.

[Hoopla Phil]

24. You really don't know what the 2A means do you? Please read Heller.

It will explain it to you.

[ET Awful]

28. In other words, you don't want to admit that there SHOULD be regulation

so you won't answer the questions.

Well done.

[Statistical]

31. Not one person on this thread has said there should be no regulation.

You must either be debating yourself or reading another forum.

[ET Awful]

33. Hmmm, you and all your myopic brethren read my initial post

and immediately spouting nonsense about how wrong I was without once addressing the need for regulation which I stated I supported (while also stating that people should be permitted to own firearms).

Instead, you attacked me instead of actually reading what I posted, sure sounds like you disagreed with what I said about require regulation now doesn't it.

[Statistical]

37. I read everything you posted and DIDN'T attack the claim of regulation

because namely that was the only thing you actually got right. :hi:

[Hoopla Phil]

41. Your questions stem from a false premise based on ignorance of what

the definitions of militia and well regulated mean. If you educate yourself on those meanings you will see that.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. I don't think anyone is advocating for unlimited rights to own indiscriminate weapons

ordnance, or wmd's. I'm saying that you do not know of what you speak and are remaining willfully ignorant of the issue. For some reason you insist on asking questions from a false premise that resides in your ignorance. Please educate yourself on what the militia is and what well regulated means.

[Statistical]

7. Heart is in the right place but that is a poor illustration.

This one has always serve me well.


"A well informed electorate being necessary for free and fair elections, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed"

Who has the right? The election? Only voters? or all people?

All people having books leads to more informed populace. The electorate being a subset of that is then improved.

[opiate69]

23. Not too sure how that has "served you well"...

unless you regularly debate the issue with imbeciles or 10 year olds... that analogy is about as false/absurd as the OP's. To whit:

"A well informed electorate"/"A well regulated militia"
"The right.. to own and read books"/"The right to keep and bear arms"

In the book analogy, the books are the instruments through which the electorate becomes well-informed. In the 2nd Amend., keeping and bearing arms is not the instrument through which the militia is "well-regulated".. If the 2nd Amend. was worded along the lines of "a well armed militia, etc, etc", your analogy might be valid.

[Statistical]

26. Actually keeping and bearing arms IS EXACTLY how the militia becomes well reulated.

EXACTLY.

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people ALWAYS possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.

---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Well regulated = functional, capable, disciplined.

The rational for the 2nd was that if the people are deprived of arms then the militia would wither on the vine. If the people are always protected in the right to keep and bear arms they will be capable. That doesn't mean that access to arms is the ONLY element to a capable militia but it is one of the elements and it is clear from reading the writings of the founding father that the intent was that the people has the right to keep and bear arms.

"keeping and bearing arms is not the instrument through which the militia is "well-regulated"."
You simply don't understand what well regulated means.

[opiate69]

29. Actually, no..

well regulated, as used by the founders and others during those times, meant " a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training.".. and "thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning." .. as quoted from Hamilton's Federalist Paper #29, and John Dutton,1686.
Source: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

[ET Awful]

34. Now now, don't bother him with facts.

He'd rather just pretend that the framers of the Constitution intended everyone to own Uzis.

[Statistical]

36. Actually more like military rifles.

The rifles carried by colonists in 1776 were functionally equivalent to those carried by standing armies.

So you insult aside the founders actually intended for the people to have M-16 (or M-4) given that is the standard infantry weapon today.

Now that may not be practical today but you were bringing up original intent so at least get it right. The militia members provided their OWN ARMS. Obviously if your form a military force those arms would need to be military in nature.

Circa 1776 that would be something like a Kentucky rifle.
Circa 1800s that would be repeating rifle.
Circa 1900s that would be a battle rifle.
Circa 2000s that would be a select fire assault rifle.

[Statistical]

35. You are aware that militia routinely was called up about once a year (some state twice a year).

For 2-3 days.

How exactly does one achieve a state of "thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning." with 2-3 days a year?

The PEOPLE HAVING ARMS was the intent of the 2nd. The people having arms, and using them continually their entire life would result in a populace that was both capable of using arms and had the arms that needed using.

Drilling would still be necessary for discipline, and hired officers necessary for a command structure but if the people were deprived of arms then there is NO MILITIA.

The people having arms was the reason for the 2nd because without there would be no functional militia and without that the states were never truly free (in the opinion of the founding fathers).

[mvccd1000]

20. Giving a reason for the right does not change the existence of that right.

As I read somewhere on the 'net after the McDonald ruling, "I may have stepped inside because it was raining, but that does not change the fact that I am no longer outside."

[freebrew]

43. Only problem I see:

a million dollars won't go far amongst 300 million citizens...

[jmg257]

52. Are there actually people who still believe that? Surprisingly ignorant, they are.

With such easy access to the internet, an hour of online research should clear up any confusion about the Militia, We the People, and our secured right to keep and bear arms (and why it was secured - see Section 8 and how it might be abused).

Not very hard.