Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

[dismal]

The natural right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment simply reaffirmed (i.e., "shall not be infringed), is meant as a check on the federal government and to maintain the right to self-defense. If the people are armed then the government and its army can be constrained. That had been the understanding of the Second Amendment when it was ratified and for more than a century thereafter. The efforts to claw back the natural right focused on what is essentially the preamble of the Amendment - the need for well regulated militia. This was likely due to the term "militia" having lost its 18th century commonly understood meaning. That is, the militia is the people. Yet, the Amendment is unambiguous that the right reaffirmed belongs to the people and not to the states or congress. It would be rather ridiculous to argue that to protect against government tyranny, the right of the government to keep arms shall not be infringed. So, yes, a well regulated militia - the individual right to keep and bear arms - is necessary for the security of a free state as this may be the only check the people have on tyranny.

The notion that a militia consisting of US citizens could serve as any kind of check on a government turned tyrannical is an absurd fiction when said government has the military resources available to it that the US government has. It's just naive gun-nut wank fantasy. In order for a militia to be able to hold its government in check; there needs to not be such a massive power imbalance between the two.

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

 

[Trausti]

The natural right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment simply reaffirmed (i.e., "shall not be infringed), is meant as a check on the federal government and to maintain the right to self-defense. If the people are armed then the government and its army can be constrained. That had been the understanding of the Second Amendment when it was ratified and for more than a century thereafter. The efforts to claw back the natural right focused on what is essentially the preamble of the Amendment - the need for well regulated militia. This was likely due to the term "militia" having lost its 18th century commonly understood meaning. That is, the militia is the people. Yet, the Amendment is unambiguous that the right reaffirmed belongs to the people and not to the states or congress. It would be rather ridiculous to argue that to protect against government tyranny, the right of the government to keep arms shall not be infringed. So, yes, a well regulated militia - the individual right to keep and bear arms - is necessary for the security of a free state as this may be the only check the people have on tyranny.

The notion that a militia consisting of US citizens could serve as any kind of check on a government turned tyrannical is an absurd fiction when said government has the military resources available to it that the US government has. It's just naive gun-nut wank fantasy. In order for a militia to be able to hold its government in check; there needs to not be such a massive power imbalance between the two.

You're certainly free to cower and grovel if and when government becomes tyrannical or is replaced by a less benevolent ruler. The despots count on people like you. But don't expect others to share your fatalistic and surrender impulses.

 

[Trausti]

The notion that a militia consisting of US citizens could serve as any kind of check on a government turned tyrannical is an absurd fiction when said government has the military resources available to it that the US government has. It's just naive gun-nut wank fantasy. In order for a militia to be able to hold its government in check; there needs to not be such a massive power imbalance between the two.

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

 

[dismal]

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

Also, the people who wrote the document were reasonable familiar with an example of calling forth armed citizens to defeat a powerful standing army.

 

[dystopian]

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Too late. You guys have a permanent standing army; and as well-equipped and well-funded as it is today, there is no chance in hell a militia would ever be relevant in any capacity against it.

 

[ksen]

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

That plus hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons and support from a world superpower.

 

[bilby]

As a good rule of thumb, the more a state claims to be free, the less free it is, as this exchange from 'Yes, Prime Minister' illustrates:

East Yemen? Isn't that a democracy?

Their full name is 'The People's Democratic Republic of East Yemen'

Ah, I see. So they are a totalitarian dictatorship.​

Places that have freedom never need to mention it. The USA calls itself the 'Land of the Free', so it's no surprise that its schoolchildren are required to recite a pledge of allegiance, or that it has a huge proportion of its citizens in jail.

At least it's not the People's Democratic American Republic.

 

[Trausti]

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

That plus hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons and support from a world superpower.

Not up on Syrian civil war history, eh? The US didn't begin providing its "moderate" rebels with arms until the end of last year. Yet:

The above map is the picture of the conflict just before ISIS broke out as distinct group in December.

 

[dystopian]

You're certainly free to cower and grovel if and when government becomes tyrannical or is replaced by a less benevolent ruler. The despots count on people like you. But don't expect others to share your fatalistic and surrender impulses.

Yes ofcourse. Pointing out that the power imbalance between the US government/military apparatus and its citizens is far too big for a militia to be remotely relevant is the same as "cowering" and "groveling" and "surrendering" and blah blah.

It couldn't possibly simply be an argument against A) gun-nuts running around pretending they're going to be wolverines and/or B) an argument against the absurd levels of military power the US maintains.

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

Pointing to places like Syria does nothing to strengthen your argument. Syria has never had a particularly well equipped military (in modern times); it has certainly never had anywhere near the power imbalance that exists between the US military and its people. Not to mention the fact that its insurgent groups are foreign supplied and have material beyond anything a US militia could hope to acquire in sufficient quantities to make a difference. Syrian insurgent groups have faced largely obsolete technology dating from the Soviet era; as well as poorly funded and organized government troops. The Syrian government actually still fields non-upgraded T55's and flies mig-21's.

A militia, especially one well-funded and supplied by foreign countries, could definitely acquire the kind of weaponry and ordnance that gives them a fighting chance against such a poorly equipped force. A militia would find it impossible to do the same against a force that is armed with the latest weapons and platforms *and* which maintains them in the absurd sort of numbers the US does. Even if they score a few early victories, that is meaningless given that A) they can't possibly capture enough platforms/weapons to get into a winning streak and B) don't have the know how to operate much of it anyway.

 

[Trausti]

Yes ofcourse. Pointing out that the power imbalance between the US government/military apparatus and its citizens is far too big for a militia to be remotely relevant is the same as "cowering" and "groveling" and "surrendering" and blah blah.

It couldn't possibly simply be an argument against A) gun-nuts running around pretending they're going to be wolverines and/or B) an argument against the absurd levels of military power the US maintains.

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

Pointing to places like Syria does nothing to strengthen your argument. Syria has never had a particularly well equipped military (in modern times); it has certainly never had anywhere near the power imbalance that exists between the US military and its people. Not to mention the fact that its insurgent groups are foreign supplied and have material beyond anything a US militia could hope to acquire in sufficient quantities to make a difference. Syrian insurgent groups have faced largely obsolete technology dating from the Soviet era; as well as poorly funded and organized government troops. The Syrian government actually still fields non-upgraded T55's and flies mig-21's.

A militia, especially one well-funded and supplied by foreign countries, could definitely acquire the kind of weaponry and ordnance that gives them a fighting chance against such a poorly equipped force. A militia would find it impossible to do the same against a force that is armed with the latest weapons and platforms *and* which maintains them in the absurd sort of numbers the US does. Even if they score a few early victories, that is meaningless given that A) they can't possibly capture enough platforms/weapons to get into a winning streak and B) don't have the know how to operate much of it anyway.

Good grief. <removed for violation of terms of service>

 

[dismal]

Wolverines!

 

[bilby]

Yes ofcourse. Pointing out that the power imbalance between the US government/military apparatus and its citizens is far too big for a militia to be remotely relevant is the same as "cowering" and "groveling" and "surrendering" and blah blah.

It couldn't possibly simply be an argument against A) gun-nuts running around pretending they're going to be wolverines and/or B) an argument against the absurd levels of military power the US maintains.

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

Pointing to places like Syria does nothing to strengthen your argument. Syria has never had a particularly well equipped military (in modern times); it has certainly never had anywhere near the power imbalance that exists between the US military and its people. Not to mention the fact that its insurgent groups are foreign supplied and have material beyond anything a US militia could hope to acquire in sufficient quantities to make a difference. Syrian insurgent groups have faced largely obsolete technology dating from the Soviet era; as well as poorly funded and organized government troops. The Syrian government actually still fields non-upgraded T55's and flies mig-21's.

A militia, especially one well-funded and supplied by foreign countries, could definitely acquire the kind of weaponry and ordnance that gives them a fighting chance against such a poorly equipped force. A militia would find it impossible to do the same against a force that is armed with the latest weapons and platforms *and* which maintains them in the absurd sort of numbers the US does. Even if they score a few early victories, that is meaningless given that A) they can't possibly capture enough platforms/weapons to get into a winning streak and B) don't have the know how to operate much of it anyway.

Good grief. Just because you're a chicken shit doesn't mean everyone else is. You can't do that! There much to strong! Step aside Mary and let the men through.

There is a difference between recognising when you are facing overwhelming and unassailable force, and being 'a chicken shit'. Or can I take it that you applaud the Japanese for their treatment of prisoners in WWII? They had that same attitude - that giving up in the face of unavoidable defeat rendered people less than 'real men'.

A failure to recognise that difference is a good way to get yourself killed to no purpose whatsoever.

If you consider it brave to stand up to an oppressor who has the means to crush your rebellion like a bug, then that's fine; but don't delude yourself that you have a better chance of standing up to the US Government with a pistol or a rifle any more than you have with a knife or a plastic spoon - because you don't.

The right to bear arms makes exactly zero difference to the chances of a successful rebellion against the US government. Shit, only a century and a half ago, almost half the country, equipped with a proper army, tried, but couldn't do it.

If history is any guide, revolutionaries have never found it hard to obtain weapons. Many governments throughout history have been overthrown, all of them without the pre-existing constitutional right to bear arms.

The best way to succeed at revolution is to persuade a sizable fraction of the oppressor's army to join your side - and once that happens, prior civilian ownership of arms is irrelevant.

The other way to succeed is simply to want it more - the American Revolution overthrew the colonial government mainly because the British didn't care enough to bring their full power to bear. They achieved this victory despite having no lawful right to bear arms.

The constitutional right to bear arms has NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL to the ability of people to revolt against dictators, tyrants or oppressors. NONE.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't think that the composers of the Constitution intended it to be a suicide pact. Here is some evidence of that:

Article I, Section 8 includes "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

So they likely didn't support the "right to rebel" interpretation of the Second Amendment. It seems to me that it's about buying your own weapons and practicing with them, so you can be a good soldier.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Good grief. Just because you're a chicken shit doesn't mean everyone else is. You can't do that! There much to strong! Step aside Mary and let the men through.

You must consider the level of training and discipline of the US Armed Forces, National Guard, police.

A third of Americans are armed. There is no organization whatsoever among this armed citizenry. Even if they organized, there is little likelihood they could build any effective chain of command or communications network. I doubt you're going to be able to use your cell phones or facebook or be able to tweet each other. Moreover, I would submit that fully one third of the US' armed citizens would lay down their arms in the face of trained forces. Why? I will invoke my namesake. By and large, we are lazy and comfortable and wish to remain so.

Pun intended.

 

[Trausti]

Yes ofcourse. Pointing out that the power imbalance between the US government/military apparatus and its citizens is far too big for a militia to be remotely relevant is the same as "cowering" and "groveling" and "surrendering" and blah blah.

It couldn't possibly simply be an argument against A) gun-nuts running around pretending they're going to be wolverines and/or B) an argument against the absurd levels of military power the US maintains.

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

Pointing to places like Syria does nothing to strengthen your argument. Syria has never had a particularly well equipped military (in modern times); it has certainly never had anywhere near the power imbalance that exists between the US military and its people. Not to mention the fact that its insurgent groups are foreign supplied and have material beyond anything a US militia could hope to acquire in sufficient quantities to make a difference. Syrian insurgent groups have faced largely obsolete technology dating from the Soviet era; as well as poorly funded and organized government troops. The Syrian government actually still fields non-upgraded T55's and flies mig-21's.

A militia, especially one well-funded and supplied by foreign countries, could definitely acquire the kind of weaponry and ordnance that gives them a fighting chance against such a poorly equipped force. A militia would find it impossible to do the same against a force that is armed with the latest weapons and platforms *and* which maintains them in the absurd sort of numbers the US does. Even if they score a few early victories, that is meaningless given that A) they can't possibly capture enough platforms/weapons to get into a winning streak and B) don't have the know how to operate much of it anyway.

Good grief. Just because you're a chicken shit doesn't mean everyone else is. You can't do that! There much to strong! Step aside Mary and let the men through.

There is a difference between recognising when you are facing overwhelming and unassailable force, and being 'a chicken shit'. Or can I take it that you applaud the Japanese for their treatment of prisoners in WWII? They had that same attitude - that giving up in the face of unavoidable defeat rendered people less than 'real men'.

A failure to recognise that difference is a good way to get yourself killed to no purpose whatsoever.

If you consider it brave to stand up to an oppressor who has the means to crush your rebellion like a bug, then that's fine; but don't delude yourself that you have a better chance of standing up to the US Government with a pistol or a rifle any more than you have with a knife or a plastic spoon - because you don't.

The right to bear arms makes exactly zero difference to the chances of a successful rebellion against the US government. Shit, only a century and a half ago, almost half the country, equipped with a proper army, tried, but couldn't do it.

If history is any guide, revolutionaries have never found it hard to obtain weapons. Many governments throughout history have been overthrown, all of them without the pre-existing constitutional right to bear arms.

The best way to succeed at revolution is to persuade a sizable fraction of the oppressor's army to join your side - and once that happens, prior civilian ownership of arms is irrelevant.

The other way to succeed is simply to want it more - the American Revolution overthrew the colonial government mainly because the British didn't care enough to bring their full power to bear. They achieved this victory despite having no lawful right to bear arms.

The constitutional right to bear arms has NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL to the ability of people to revolt against dictators, tyrants or oppressors. NONE.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

It's not about your chance of success; it's about having the option to do so. You may easily bend over and take it, but not everyone is like you. You have the option to sit out any rebellion should you choose.

American government is premised on the idea the people are naturally corrupt and fallible; hence all the checks and balances. While the three branches may check each other, the people check the government.

The constitutional right to bear arms has NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL to the ability of people to revolt against dictators, tyrants or oppressors. NONE.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

Then the legal scholarship on the Second Amendment is full of liars.

Tench Coxe - 1792
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Joseph Story - 1865
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Justice Thomas Cooley - 1880
It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

The above quotes were taken from the Wiki article on the Second Amendment which is well written and informed.

 

[bilby]

Yes ofcourse. Pointing out that the power imbalance between the US government/military apparatus and its citizens is far too big for a militia to be remotely relevant is the same as "cowering" and "groveling" and "surrendering" and blah blah.

It couldn't possibly simply be an argument against A) gun-nuts running around pretending they're going to be wolverines and/or B) an argument against the absurd levels of military power the US maintains.

So you're saying it's unrealistic the militia (aka the armed populace) can protect themselves from the government when the government has a large standing army?

Ding-ding-ding. This is exactly what many of the founders thought, which is why they tried to prevent the formation of a permanent standing army.

Yep. Look at Syria. The rebels may have started with a few small arms. But a battle victory or two and things can begin to change quickly.

Pointing to places like Syria does nothing to strengthen your argument. Syria has never had a particularly well equipped military (in modern times); it has certainly never had anywhere near the power imbalance that exists between the US military and its people. Not to mention the fact that its insurgent groups are foreign supplied and have material beyond anything a US militia could hope to acquire in sufficient quantities to make a difference. Syrian insurgent groups have faced largely obsolete technology dating from the Soviet era; as well as poorly funded and organized government troops. The Syrian government actually still fields non-upgraded T55's and flies mig-21's.

A militia, especially one well-funded and supplied by foreign countries, could definitely acquire the kind of weaponry and ordnance that gives them a fighting chance against such a poorly equipped force. A militia would find it impossible to do the same against a force that is armed with the latest weapons and platforms *and* which maintains them in the absurd sort of numbers the US does. Even if they score a few early victories, that is meaningless given that A) they can't possibly capture enough platforms/weapons to get into a winning streak and B) don't have the know how to operate much of it anyway.

Good grief. Just because you're a chicken shit doesn't mean everyone else is. You can't do that! There much to strong! Step aside Mary and let the men through.

There is a difference between recognising when you are facing overwhelming and unassailable force, and being 'a chicken shit'. Or can I take it that you applaud the Japanese for their treatment of prisoners in WWII? They had that same attitude - that giving up in the face of unavoidable defeat rendered people less than 'real men'.

A failure to recognise that difference is a good way to get yourself killed to no purpose whatsoever.

If you consider it brave to stand up to an oppressor who has the means to crush your rebellion like a bug, then that's fine; but don't delude yourself that you have a better chance of standing up to the US Government with a pistol or a rifle any more than you have with a knife or a plastic spoon - because you don't.

The right to bear arms makes exactly zero difference to the chances of a successful rebellion against the US government. Shit, only a century and a half ago, almost half the country, equipped with a proper army, tried, but couldn't do it.

If history is any guide, revolutionaries have never found it hard to obtain weapons. Many governments throughout history have been overthrown, all of them without the pre-existing constitutional right to bear arms.

The best way to succeed at revolution is to persuade a sizable fraction of the oppressor's army to join your side - and once that happens, prior civilian ownership of arms is irrelevant.

The other way to succeed is simply to want it more - the American Revolution overthrew the colonial government mainly because the British didn't care enough to bring their full power to bear. They achieved this victory despite having no lawful right to bear arms.

The constitutional right to bear arms has NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL to the ability of people to revolt against dictators, tyrants or oppressors. NONE.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

It's not about your chance of success; it's about having the option to do so. You may easily bend over and take it, but not everyone is like you. You have the option to sit out any rebellion should you choose.

You should read what I wrote again; I am talking about the situation where your options are restricted to 'bend over and take it' vs 'die'. There is not always another option; the variations on the theme of 'fight' all lead to one of those two outcomes when your enemy is sufficiently more powerful than you are.

American government is premised on the idea the people are naturally corrupt and fallible; hence all the checks and balances. While the three branches may check each other, the people check the government.

Wait, you actually believe that, don't you?

Excuse me while I piss myself laughing.

The constitutional right to bear arms has NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL to the ability of people to revolt against dictators, tyrants or oppressors. NONE.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

Then the legal scholarship on the Second Amendment is full of liars.

Wait, that's NEWS to you?

You really didn't already know that?

Do you live under a rock?

Tench Coxe - 1792
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Joseph Story - 1865
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Justice Thomas Cooley - 1880
It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

The above quotes were taken from the Wiki article on the Second Amendment which is well written and informed.

They are also all more than a hundred years old (in one case, more than two hundred years old). Got anything written since the First World War?

Or perhaps you reckon that the military and political landscape hasn't changed much since 1914 (or 1880, or 1792 for that matter).

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Then the legal scholarship on the Second Amendment is full of liars.

Tench Coxe - 1792
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Joseph Story - 1865
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Justice Thomas Cooley - 1880
It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

The above quotes were taken from the Wiki article on the Second Amendment which is well written and informed.

You don't even start with legal scholarship about anything. You're not qualified to interpret it and throwing in a few quotes from wiki is laughable. You want real legal scholarship? Here's a snippet--a small snippet about the 2nd Amendment from District of Columbia v. Heller:

The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters, and its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; normal meaning may include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
10 Cases that cite this headnote
2
Constitutional LawDisplay Key Number TopicsIntrinsic Aids to Construction
The requirement that there be a logical connection between a stated purpose in a prefatory clause and a command in an operative clause in a constitutional provision may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause, but apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
7 Cases that cite this headnote
3
Constitutional LawDisplay Key Number TopicsIntrinsic Aids to Construction
Constitutional LawDisplay Key Number TopicsMaking, Interpretation, and Application of Statutes
StatutesDisplay Key Number TopicsAncillary Provisions or Material
Where the text of a clause indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as “whereas” clauses in federal legislation or the Constitution's preamble, a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do; operative provisions should be given effect as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues.

So at this point do you have any fucking idea what Alito is talking about?

Well-regulated,” as used in the Second Amendment, implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 2.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
13
WeaponsDisplay Key Number TopicsDefinitions
“Security of a free state,” as used in the Second Amendment, meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 2.
14
StatutesDisplay Key Number TopicsMotives, Opinions, and Statements of Legislators
StatutesDisplay Key Number TopicsSponsors or authors
“Legislative history” refers to the pre-enactment statements of those who drafted or voted for a law; it is considered persuasive by some, not because they reflect the general understanding of the disputed terms, but because the legislators who heard or read those statements presumably voted with that understanding.

So here's what was said, but just partially.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “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.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law § 585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists' Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).
23 Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause *578 (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts ... for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation § 51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 102 Eng. Rep. 557, 560, 3 East, 157, 165 (K.B.1802)). Therefore, while we will begin **2790 our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4
*579 1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly–and–Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search–and–Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), § 2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively— *580 but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “ right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

That is,by any standard, a fucking torturous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And here is just one law review article written about Heller. Note that I don't include the article. The reason I don't include it should be obvious from the table of contents that I did post. But the point of it is to show that legal scholarship does not exist on wikipedia or the free internet in general, and so you have no idea of what the legal scholarship on the issue is.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is still alive and killing, but it's re-goddamn-diculous. That is a legal term. Anyway:

56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443
UCLA Law Review
June, 2009
Symposium
The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms After D.C. v. Heller
IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE: AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND A RESEARCH AGENDA
Eugene Volokha1
Copyright (c) 2009 Regents of the University of California; Eugene Volokh
How should state and federal constitutional rights to keep and bear arms be turned into workable constitutional doctrine? I argue that unitary tests such as “strict scrutiny,” “intermediate scrutiny,” “undue burden,” and the like don't make sense here, just as they don't fully describe the rules applied to most other constitutional rights.
Rather, courts should separately consider four different categories of justifications for restricting rights: (1) Scope justifications, which derive from constitutional text, original meaning, tradition, or background principles; (2) burden justifications, which rest on the claim that a particular law doesn't impose a substantial burden on the right, and thus doesn't unconstitutionally infringe it; (3) danger reduction justifications, which rest on the claim that some particular exercise of the right is so unusually dangerous that it might justify restricting the right; and (4) government as proprietor justifications, which rest on the government's special role as property owner, employer, or subsidizer.
I suggest where the constitutional thresholds for determining the adequacy of these justifications might be set, and I use this framework to analyze a wide range of restrictions: “what” restrictions (such as bans on machine guns, so-called “assault weapons,” or unpersonalized handguns), “who” restrictions (such as bans on possession by felons, misdemeanants, noncitizens, or 18-to-20-year-olds), “where” restrictions (such as bans on carrying in public, in places that serve alcohol, or in parks, or bans on possessing in public housing projects), “how” restrictions (such as storage regulations), “when” restrictions (such as waiting periods), “who knows” regulations (such as licensing or registration requirements), and taxes and other expenses.
Introduction 1445
I. A Framework for Thinking About Constitutional Rights Doctrine 1448
A. Scope 1449
1. Text 1449
2. Original Meaning 1450
3. Tradition 1450
4. Background Legal Principles 1451
5. Why It's Helpful to Distinguish Scope-Based Restrictions From Burden-Based Restrictions or Reducing-Danger-Based Restrictions 1453
B. Burden 1454
1. Generally 1454
2. In Right-to-Bear-Arms Cases 1456
3. Risks and Benefits of a Burden Threshold 1459
C. Danger Reduction 1461
1. Per Se Invalidation, at Least for Especially Serious Burdens 1462
2. The Two Versions of Strict Scrutiny 1464
a. The Shape of the Underlying Factual Debate 1465
b. The Consequences for Strict Scrutiny 1467
c. Intermediate Scrutiny 1470
d. Different Levels of Danger-Reduction Showings for Different Levels of Burden 1471
D. Government Proprietary Role 1473
II. Applying the Framework to Various Gun-Control Laws 1475
A. “What” Bans: Bans on Weapon Categories 1475
1. Scope 1475
a. The “Usually Employed in Civilized Warfare” Test 1476
b. The “Descended From Historically Personal-Defense Weapons” Test 1477
c. The “of the Kind in Common Use” “by Law-Abiding Citizens for Lawful Purposes” Test 1478
d. An Unusual Dangerousness Test 1481
2. Burden 1483
3. Danger Reduction 1487
4. A Quick Review of Weapons Bans 1488
5. A Special Case: “Personalized Gun” Mandates 1491
B. “Who” Bans: Bans on Possession by Certain Classes of People 1493
1. The Bans 1493
2. Burden 1496
3. Scope and Danger Reduction 1497
4. Bans Justified by Individualized Finding of Likely Past Criminal Behavior or Future Danger 1498
5. Bans Without Individualized Findings of Likely Past Violence or Future Danger 1503
a. Side Effects of Attempts to Disarm the Dangerous: Bans on Gun Possession by People Subject to Restraining Orders Without Findings of Misconduct or Dangerousness 1503
b. Proxies for Likely Inadequate Judgment: Bans on Gun Possession by Under-18-Year-Olds, the Mentally Ill, Mentally Retarded, the Drug-Or-Alcohol-Addicted, and 18-to-20-Year-Olds 1508
c. Bans on Gun Possession by Noncitizens 1513
C. “Where” Bans: Prohibition on Possession in Certain Places 1515
1. Bans on All Gun Carrying 1516
2. Bans on Concealed Carry, Revisited 1521
3. Bans on Carry Into Places Where Alcohol Is Served or Sold 1524
4. Bans on Carry Into Places With Effective Security Screening and Internal Security, Such as Airports and Courthouses 1526
5. Bans on Carrying in Other Privately Owned Places 1527
6. Bans on Carrying Within One Thousand Feet of a School 1528
7. Bans on All Gun Possession on Government Property (Setting Aside Streets and Sidewalks) 1529
D. “How” Restrictions: Rules on How Guns Are to Be Stored 1534
1. Requirements That Guns Be Stored Locked or Unloaded 1534
E. “When” Restrictions: Rules on Temporarily Barring People From Possessing Guns 1535
1. Restrictions on Possession While Intoxicated 1535
2. Restrictions on, or Sentence Enhancements for, Possessing Firearms While Possessing Drugs or Committing Another Crime 1536
3. Waiting Periods 1538
F. Taxes, Fees, and Other Expenses 1542
G. Restrictions on Sellers 1545
H. “Who Knows” Restrictions: Government Tracking Regulations, Including Nondiscretionary Licensing, Background Checks, Registration, and Ballistics Tracking Databases 1545
Conclusion 1549

 

[dystopian]

Good grief. Just because you're a chicken shit doesn't mean everyone else is. You can't do that! There much to strong! Step aside Mary and let the men through.

You really have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?

Also an internet tough guy complex

But sure, sure. Go ahead, keep pretending you're going to go all rambo on some fictional future evil government. All you need is an M16 and gusto! You can do it! Shoot that gunship with an explosive tipped arrow! Have you and your rag-tag group of rebels fight your way through the implausibly incompetent government forces protecting the central AI computer core so you can destroy it and take back your country! Raaawr!

I, meanwhile, will be preparing my one star review for the shitty movie you're writing in your head.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Good grief. Just because you're a chicken shit doesn't mean everyone else is. You can't do that! There much to strong! Step aside Mary and let the men through.

ISIS are well trained and highly disciplined. They're not a disorderly rabble. They're winning for a reason. The success of ISIS also proves that just having the fanciest toys isn't necessarily the most important factor. Discipline trumps hardware (to a point). In the power vacuum that followed the collapse of the Syrian government ISIS sucked the least.

"A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house"

- Socrates


Winning wars has very little to do with bravery. It's got to do with training and discipline. Also with intelligence gathering. Having secure ways to collect and analyse intel without giving away too much to the enemy. That requires extreme discipline and clear and agree upon decision hierarchies. Simply put, a commander who is 100% sure each unit will obey his orders is a much more effective commander than one who isn't. Any war is extremely chaotic. It goes with the territory. Why the Assad regime went tits up in spite having a well trained and disciplined army is because they obviously weren't disciplined enough.

So the amateurs don't have a chance to the pros. It really doesn't matter how well trained they are individually. It's how well trained they are as a group that counts. War is a highly collectivistic activity. Something freedom-loving libertarians up in the Rockies... I mean militias... suck at. Lol.... "bravery".

Also... bravery can be a liability. Bravery and stupidity are very closely related. In WW2 the SS divisions had a reputation of being Germany's bravest. They took lots of unnecessary risks at the dismay of the military high command. So pretty quickly they found themselves in the least critical theatres of war. They were simply not a reliable fighting force. Not compared to the regular army.

 

[dismal]

Just a general point: The constitution was written in the 1790s and the parts we are talking about have not been amended since. Whether an armed citizen militia could beat a standing army today is entirely irrelevant to what the Constitution says. Feel free and try to amend it if you think it is no longer of relevance.