Leftforge Doesn't Understand the Second Amendment...

So I will help them.

Let’s break this down.

A well regulated militia.

This means the militia should be well trained, regulated in this sense means trained and disciplined, not the arms themselves, but the militia.

Being necessary to the security of a free state.

The well regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state. The only way a state can be free and its citizens rights protected is to have an established militia. The militia can be called by Congress and or the President, but the officers are appointed by the Governors by their own discretion. Madison envisioned a well armed citizenry that would outnumber a smaller standing army. The militias would be responsible to the people and standing armies would belong to the Federal government and the executive. During the ratification debates, this was one of the main points that the Anti-Federalists made. They also pushed the issue during the amendment process. The whole point of the second amendment is there to ensure that the rest of the Bill of Rights are enforced. The militia is to be equipped with military equivalent arms, which is why each state had arsenals. Citizens were also expected to be armed and properly trained, which is why it was mandatory. The militia could come together voluntarily as well, when a threat was posed. This too is a way to ensure that one state won't invade another. These were long held beliefs, which is why you had people like Robert E. Lee who saw his state of Virginia being invaded and chose to fight for Virginia and not the Union, it was unthinkable. The militia is for the purpose of securing a free state, it is their to secure our rights.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Though the supreme court never ruled on this until recently, it was generally accepted in common law during the colonial period that individuals not only have the right to keep their arms, in their house or whatever, but can bear them, as in keep them on their person. When you add the Constitution, then it further reiterates the point of the militia. If you are required to be a part of the militia and the militia is necessary to the security of the free state, then citizens must be allowed to keep their arms with them and not have to sign them in and out or what not, not to mention the purpose of personal protection and hunting purposes.
Shall not be infringed.

Pretty straight forward here. The Constitution limits what the Federal government can do. Congress cannot make any laws infringing on these rights. That's not to say that states can't. The whole point of the Constitution is to leave a lot of issues up to the states and their policing power. States had and have their own Constitution as well and have traditionally been the ones to "regulate" in the modern sense of the word, fire arms. The states gave the individual right to own guns and regulate them and that is really where this debate should be taking place, not on the Federal level.

That's not to say that state powers are unlimited, but they surely are more justified than Congress.

Here's What Madison said about the size and scope of the militia:

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
- James Madison, January 29, 1788
Source: The Federalist #46

The second amendment isn't just about the militia, it's about the people and an individual right to bear arms. It's not two separate issues, it's one issue. The People have the right to bear arms in order to secure their individual freedom and a free state, whether through the militia or their own personal property. It's the only way to secure the rest of our rights. People like Tererun who wishes to take away this right will by default take away all of our rights. This is why the second amendment is so fundamental to liberty because without it we lose our freedoms. The statists know this, which is why they want to take our guns and erode the second amendment. They will use ever incident as an excuse to do so. When they can't get Congress or the states to do so, they will use the various departments and their various rules to stretch the definitions to restrict gun use in this country. They know they can't take them out right, so they use any other tactic to do so.

What's a militia?
nevermind, you covered it:

Well, then. That clears it up for me. Any other questions?

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
     • 
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

If the people are the militia, then everyone should have to get licensed the way they are for automobiles.
And part of that licensing should be some testing to see if you're a wackaloon.

I'm seeing a gap between right to bear arms and militia.

Can you help with that too? And where's that militia today?

I've no problems with that.

Although ironically, I think the only way you can ever do that is by federalizing all gun laws.

Why would they need a license since everyone is in the militia anyway? Here even non-US citizens are in it.

My commanding officer, John Roberts, is a Republican, but he answers to a Democrat governor. It works out.

That "well regulated", part.

The militia's were trained and all able bodied men were supposed to show up for training, but with the progressive era, the militia's were replaced by the National Guard. People are no longer required to show up for training. I personally believe a short training course would be fine, but that should be up to the states to decide standards, not the feds.

And again here's garamet using a ridiculous and exaggerated example to make all gun owners look like loons.

So according to your interpretation, the 2nd amendment makes it illegal to disarm the National Guard. You are much more restrictive and authoritarian in your interpretation than I would be.

But since we've had this argument over and over again, let's cut to the chase. If the point is establishing through private ownership of weapons a militia that can outweigh a standing army, and the relevant opposing armies have nuclear capabilities, does your reading allow private citizens a nuke of their own?

The "well regulated" part means the state legislature has to approve the officers.

You obviously can use the internet, I don't understand why you can't look these things up yourself.

The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units, and the "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45, with the exception of certain officials and others, which is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 311
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

So there's really no need for these guys, right? Except for the lulz:

Um, no, I have the right to bear arms, the government doesn't grant rights, we grant them rights on what they are free to do and not do. That is how our system works. We the people run the government, We the people own the government, not the other way around. Rights do not come from the government, they are inherent and are endowed by our creator.

You're a fucking moron.

Scintillating riposte, Sparky. Stairs got you winded?

Seriously, you have anti-gun people seriously suggesting new "militia regulations" when the early history of this country, when the Founding Fathers were out there founding, is full of actual, Founding Father Approved, militia regulations. Early state laws are full of them, down to what kind of hat to wear. There is absolutely no way any gun restrictions based on militia service would survive the slightest court scrutiny. In fact, some of the gun laws we do have are based on the fact that particular weapons would never be used by the militia, such as sawed off shotguns.

Was there any restriction on "must weigh less than 300 pounds and be able to climb a flight of stairs without having a coronary"?

Dan has a point. A serious application of the 2nd amendment would allow citizens to possess the equivalents of light anti tank weapons (LAWs) and Stinger SAMs.

I'm not saying I'm for that of course.

And nukes. Don't forget the nukes! That's where the real fun starts. I'm sure both Donald and Hillary could afford a few.

Nope, but back then almost nobody was obese. The drills didn't involve much, if any, firearms training because it was assumed that everyone already knew how to use a gun. Instead it was lots of close order marching and formation maneuvers, and people who didn't bring their guns used sticks instead. The idea was to be able to form up as a unit, follow orders, and know who was who and who was in charge (chain of command stuff). State control only extended down to the officer level. Everything below that was up to those appointed officers.

After the Civil War the soldiers were pretty sick of fighting and military life and the militias for the most part fell into disuse and decay, with obsolete weapons. The job of running them as organizations was generally given to drunk relatives of a governor as a "no show" job, and things got worse. Attempts to improve the situation with more money just saw the money going down various rat holes of corrupt state politics.

The Dick Act of 1903 was passed in response to the abysmally non-uniform equipment and training of the various state militia forces that were sent to Cuba in the Spanish American war. The two options were either to sink of ton of tax money into the state militias, which everyone in Congress knew would just breed more state-level corruption, or to create an entirely new, federal version of the state militias under the War Department's supervision, thus ensuring uniform equipment and training. Thus was born the National Guard, and that's why it's called "national".

The nukes are all built by militia members.

No, trying to have a meaningful conversation with you that doesn't involve stupid memes, mockery and insults has me winded. It's like you and chardman are the same person.

I bet a nickel that both of the pics you posted are of Airsoft players and not "militias".

From the Articles of Confederation:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
----------------
States liked their well-regulated militias and wanted to keep them after the Constitution was enacted, but the Constitution was unclear on whether they could do so, at least until the Second Amendment came to pass.

It's also worth noting that people who insist on putting modern intuitive meanings on the phrase "the people" or the word "arms," without regard to historical context or even equivocation within the Constitution itself, but who refuse to put modern intuitive meanings on the commas in the Second Amendment are full of shit.

Ah, you are reading a different version of the Constitution. That clause regarding appointment of officers seems to be missing from my copy.

Excellent, when does the training and discipline commence?