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.


The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was not to not grant theright to arms , but to preserve and guarantee a pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms.The amendment does emphasizes the need for a militia but in no way does it mandate membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The purpose may be collective{a militia is not a private army}But the Second Amendment was intended to preserve and guarantee an individual right.This in no way transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause is a declarative. A whereas,--not a therefore declaration of purpose, and the method the founders chose and wished was to preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms , in-part, ensuring the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence in writings of the Founding Fathers,supreme court decisions before the 20th century or the early American legal commentators that indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to members of an active militia.

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

please explain to me why the two things you said are any different

i think of the second ammendment as a way for the founding fathers to have somewhat of a backup army, in the case that our real one fails(hopefully never), even when the enemy marches through our towns they have to fight against our own civilians as well. This backup army is also at no cost to the government.

By well regulated i believe that those who participate by holding guns must be loyal to the government and not some rebel, and of course competent.

[quote="bones";p="85843"]please explain to me why the two things you said are any different

i think of the second ammendment as a way for the founding fathers to have somewhat of a backup army, in the case that our real one fails(hopefully never), even when the enemy marches through our towns they have to fight against our own civilians as well. This backup army is also at no cost to the government.

Correct. Private militias are illegal but government gone bad are not to be followed. THAT was also their point.

Colective rightists see the amendment as qualifying the right to own private arms which in no way it does. No need to even be a member to have the right. They beleive you do and the fed grants this right. It just aint so.

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

People that defend the militia bs must be full of fecal matter. They claim one thing to be in a militia then when asked about the people outside of the militia guide lines they spout more bs.

The fact is the 2nd amend states we can regulate the militias. The fact is the 2nd amend states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

The people that defend the militia bs also state there are no regulations on militias. How do you have an organized or unorganized militia without some rules to how the militia members will be trained or disciplined? That means the militia rather organized or unorganized is regulated!

__________________
Internet stalking is a crime and college educated stalkers(actup)need to be punished!

There is no requirement to be in a militia to bear arms!

What does well regulated mean.
As you say it has no beearring on the right to arms per say{having to be in one to have the right}. That was the point.
However the words well regulated are easily misplaced to mmean strict government control by the fed. Not exactly.
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

The first definitionwhich is to controle by law was already allowed for in the constitution.There was no need to repeat that kind of regulation and it would have been uslessly redundant.As I said, private militias are and were illegal.Even these state militias today , id not sanctioned and controled by the state are illegal period.Here is thepart from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the 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;

This is allowed only if the states agree.If the fed is illegally trying a power grab the final sayso is with the states.In their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia some attempted to define well regulated bythe use of definition number 2 ,"adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in, keept ready and well maintained for use. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.

This leaves the last 2.As alexander Hamilton said in federalist 29;
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed29.htm
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"To put in good order" is clearly the correct interpretation of well regulated.To be a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

Thismeaning is further bolstered by a quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 ;
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
Saturday, December 13, 1777
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc00964)):
or
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.
from The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) where it defines regulated in 1690 to mean "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers.

It has nothing to do with laws by the fed controlling them over the states.This would have been a federal select militia{present national guard} and anathema to the founders very idea of liberty. and their fear of federal power.


"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

Applies to militia only!

The 2nd amend states well regulated militias, not well regulated people!

__________________
Internet stalking is a crime and college educated stalkers(actup)need to be punished!

There is no requirement to be in a militia to bear arms!

PLANE ENGLISH! NO WAY! I always thought the constitution was written in parabola English. Thanks for enlightening me.

__________________
"Violence isn't always evil. What's evil is the infatuation with violence."
Jim Morrison

thats what Isaid. the right to keep and bear arms is the peoples and shall not be infringed.

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

Only for those graduates of government schools

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

...does such a simple statement require such a colorful interpretation from you? Colorful interpretations are used by those who disagree so they can bend it to their liking.