“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [ require that ] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

So:

1. A "well regulated" [modern word: effective] militia is necessary to the security of a free state (from a tyranny of the central government)

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [so they have means to create a well regulated militia]

Please note the following: militia is not the same thing as government controlled armed forces.

The intent of the amendment in the light of historical circumstances is obvious: citizens being able to defend themselves are less likely to be brutalized by the government that supposed to serve the citizens, not rule them with an iron fist.

Please note they were looking at contemporary monarchies that responded to citizen's discontent with rifle and bayonets of mercenary troops.

THE BIG QUESTION remains however: since the US citizens have no means to defend themselves against government brutality anyway ( we have no tanks or TOW missiles :))

What basis do you have for translating "well regulated" to mean "effective" when the words "well regulated" are still in common use today?

And the sentence is clearly set up to mean: BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It means that the people, collectively, can keep and bear arms for the purpose of supporting a well regulated militia, aka the national guard, a police force, etc.

Any Constitutional individual right to own a gun would have to be enacted by way of a new amendment, not by twisting and deliberately over translating the second amendment to say what you prefer it said.

A lot of words in use today were in use 200 years ago and they mean something a littel different. Well regulated in this context means effective, because according to the XVIII century school of warfare the most effective way to conduct a battle was to have uniform units operate in strict discipline.

Therefore "well regulated militia" means "effective military force outside of federal government control".

Also, the only way you could have a militia in XVIII century was if everybody purchased their own gun and kept it at home. The whole Swiss army works that way utill this day.

Your post does not address historical context of the 2nd amendment at all, it just says "Government should have an army." It already does, it never needed special permit for that, or a special amendment, certainly not in XVIII century.

Plus you did not read my post all the way through. I clearly state that the intent of the 2nd amendment seems to be obsolete today, as none of us can purchace effective means to oppose the government army: like Abrams M1 or F16, or even a measly anti-tank missile.

I doesn't work that way. The "US" would lose trying to brutalize any country or any individual.

Selene212:

It means that the people, collectively, can keep and bear arms for the purpose of supporting a well regulated militia, aka the national guard, a police force, etc.

So in your interpretation, there is no case in which it is appropriate for weapons to be beyond the control of some level of established government? It's difficult for me to envision that being the intent of any group who had just finished fighting an armed revolution against the previously established government of thier time.

Selene212:

Any Constitutional individual right to own a gun would have to be enacted by way of a new amendment, not by twisting and deliberately over translating the second amendment to say what you prefer it said.

Many of the States have such rights established either through statute or in their own Constitutions. If the establisment of this right were in direct conflict with the absolute intent and meaning of the Federal Constitution (as you seem to assume is the case), then they should have been nullified immediately as a result of the supremacy clause. If the existence of this as a right in any state is not specifically denied by the Federal Constitution (and its Amendments), then by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments the Federal government (which holds ultimate jurisdiction over D.C. under the Constitution) is denied the authority to infringe on that right which is reserved to the people.

How would you define militia?

My mother's uncle (a civil rights attorney) and I were discussing this one day. He pointed out that national guard units and police units were not the same as militias, and that a militia would be a volunteer organization formed by civilians, who would have to bring their own weapons. Funny, I think he took this definition from Miller...

This would suggest that there *is* a personal right to bear arms *for most people* inherent in the second amendment, and that it is not limited to police forces.

Those insurgents in Iraq would be *so* much better off if they had 1-2 tanks or F16's... [/sarcasm]

Personally I think that resistance with inferior (or even nonviolent resistance) is often far more effective than if the same people were driving tanks and had fighter aircraft. Partly because everybody loves an underdog.

The fact is, you can't occupy somewhere unless you send in the ground pounders and they are not in M1's or F16's.

Funny, I never thought I would say that I agree with you, but I do.

The 18th-century meaning of the term 'well-regulated' is that preserved on old grandfather clocks-- 'in good working order', not 'subject to a bunch of regulations'. The U.S. Code defines the organized militia (Nat'l Guard) and unorganized militia (able-bodied males between ~18-45)-- neither one is 'well-regulated'. Your usage of the term to try to restrict the 'militia' to a U.S. gov't force like the Nat'l Guard is spurious, since the Founders were clearly suspicious of standing armies and had just finished fighting against the 'legitimate' political rule of England. Surely this was an attempt to preserve gun ownership for the citizens, not a governmental organization.

Which of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are applied collectively? Why only the 2nd? It's not hard to find statements by the Founders that make this clear-- 'no free man shall be debarred the use of arms' and such.

As for the other posters who claim the 2nd is irrelevant since the citizens cannot hope to stand up to the weaponry of the U.S. military... an inferior numerical force of insurgents armed with AK47s, improvised bombs, and the occasional mortar or RPG has been styming the goals of the U.S. military in Iraq for five years now! The Palestinian terrorists have achieved some of their political goals w.r.t. nuclear-armed Israel as well, and so have the IRA against the U.K. and Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets.

What makes you think that a significant minority of American insurgents could not make political/military progress against the same U.S. military, given that the gov't cannot practically even bomb Philadelphia like they could Fallujah? If the need for another homegrown revolt ever arises it won't be with Napoleonic/Civil War tactics, slugging it out eye-to-eye on a field. Even 2-3 million Americans armed with hunting rifles and Molotov cocktails could probably do well against a semi-fascistic U.S. gov't.

And you are not translating it to say what your prefer it said? Your arguments make no more sense than any others. Once again, why am I not in jail for owning guns? Why does Wal Mart sell guns? I laugh when you say "and the sentence is clearly set up to mean". What a bunch of hogwash. I guess you'll be very upset when the Supreme Court rules that we do have the right to bear arms.

"What basis do you have for translating "well regulated" to mean "effective" when the words "well regulated" are still in common use today?"

Maybe you never had a history class or know anything, but language has changed since 200 years ago.

Please, remove your head from your ass.

The National Guard is not a militia. A militia, by definition, is an unauthorized group of the people joining together.

"Any Constitutional individual right to own a gun would have to be enacted by way of a new amendment,"

Except that they didn't ban any guns back then, so your argument has no merit. Damn, you are rather ignorant of history.

"Plus you did not read my post all the way through. I clearly state that the intent of the 2nd amendment seems to be obsolete today, as none of us can purchace effective means to oppose the government army: like Abrams M1 or F16, or even a measly anti-tank missile. "

Yes, because obviously, it is completely impossible for a loosely organized insurgency armed with only small arms and improvised explosives to resist a modern military. That's why we got the mess in Iraq cleaned up so quickly.

How spectacularly wrong can you be? "...people, collectively, can keep and bear arms for the purpose of supporting a well regulated militia, aka the national guard, a police force,(sic) etc. is the most half-assed interpretation of 2A EVER in the entire history of 2A interpretations ! What ? The cops or the guard sends a truck and some strongbacks over to The Communal People's Armory to requisition some lethal hardware for their cop or guard duties ? In case nobody has let you in on the secret; the cops, the guard, the Army, the DEA, the FBI, Postal Inspectors------------ALL the government minions, most assuredly, ARE NOT "the militia". What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand ?

Try this on for size. If EVERY other "RIght" in The Bill of Rights speaks to freedoms invested and certified in individual citizens; why would 2A be THE ONLY ONE that addresses and confirms a collective "Right" ?

You and your fellow believers are the ones that are "twisting and deliberately over translating".

BTW, that third comma, rather than being a substitute for "and", is a caesura or pause intended to lend special significance to "..., shall not be infringed".

Crapitude voiced in terms of "irrelevant", "antiquated", "bygone era" and other such ignorant disparagement reveals more about the spouter's lack of breadth, and depth, of knowing than it reveals about the fundamental document.