2nd Amendment... How long has this REALLY been applicable?

Well Said. There was the "militia" and then there was the "organized militia" The militia being every able bodied male to defend their locale, and the Organized militia being those who volunteered to drill, and to be used as an organized force for the defense of the State. It is this second group that was "necessary to the security of a free state" and the former, the people, who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, to act as a defense against such a militia (under a tyrannical rule, or against a foreign force that happened upon their locale.) Far too many wish, or try to equate the "militia" with our National Guard, simply not the case.

Nowhere in the amendment does it say individual people have the right. The right went tip the militia. The case I cited talks about this.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Written in the context of the time, a militia man is a citizen soldier who uses his own individual / personal weapon in the defense of his home. This is politics. There are many ways to look at the second amendment, and not all of them are right or wrong.

To further hit on this, yes it does say the right of the people shall not be infringed. Just because a case came out to clarify this, doesn't mean it didn't exist before.

1LT Aaron Barr I think we are merely having a "nuanced" disagreement.

Where you say the law is creating Rights, I am saying they are defining Rights. A slight but important distinction.

All the Power that Government has comes from the People. Power is delegated or granted, and can be revoked, it falls under the realm of "privilege." When using terms like Legal Rights, those are privileges or more often Protections (to Rights), as opposed to the Rights themselves. An important distinction.

The (Protections to) Bill of Rights is a misnomer. They aren't Rights in and of themselves. They are merely lines the Government cannot cross. Restrictions of Power. A Legal Framework, as you say. The Right would exist with or without them.

As an example, would we still have the presumption of innocence without Amendments? It isn't Explicitly mentioned. It's more "implied" than anything.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS and 1LT Aaron Barr, one fundamental concept which both of you overlooked is that, by definition, rights cannot be revoked. Only privileges (such as voting or driving) can be revoked.

In essence, the Constitution and its amendments did not create any rights, it merely recognized them as such.

1LT William Clardy - Absolutely. Product of too many active "similar" threads.

1LT William Clardy - That depends on what types of rights you're talking about. If you're talking about Natural Rights then yes, the Constitution created nothing. However, if we're talking about Legal Rights, then yes, the Constitution did create those. However much the natural right to self-defense existed before the Constitution was ratified, nobody would've referred to a 2nd Amendment right prior to that ratification. Nor a 1st Amendment right nor anything else within the Constitution.

Sorry, that should read "Heller", not "Geller"

Cpl Mark McMiller - Corporal; You are wrong. Owning a gun has absolutely nothing whatsoever with being a member of "the militia" - nor does a felony conviction, nor does homosexuality, nor does only having one leg, nor does anything else except being male and between the ages of 17 and 45.

Corporal, although I do appreciate the speed with which you spin off spurious theories to support what you want to be true, the truth is MUCH simpler than you are attempting to make it out to be.

[1] The Constitution of the United States of America speaks for the whole of the country and it would have been grammatically incorrect to refer to "the militia" when there wasn't one and/or when referring to the nation's militia. (You will note that the "Militia Act" is a federal statute.)

[2] Congress has the constitutional authority to direct the training of "the militia" and the several states are constitutionally bound to train the militia units in their geographic jurisdiction in accordance with the directions from Congress.

[3] The fact that Congress has not bothered to address itself to the training of the militia does not detract one bit from the fact that it has the constitutional right to do so.

[4] Firearms ownership has nothing whatsoever to do with militia membership.

[5] Both Congress and the several states have the legislative authority to revoke a person's "inalienable/constitutional right" to possess firearms and have had that right as long as the Constitution of the United States of America has been in existence.

[6] Laws BANNING the ownership of firearms simply don't work - which means that they are bad laws. [The fact that criminals will ignore them is irrelevant.]

[7] Laws regulating the ownership of firearms do work - which means that (provided that the regulations are not unduly onerous and have as their main purpose to ensure public safety from ignorant and/or unskilled gun owners) they are potentially good laws. [The fact that criminals will ignore them is irrelevant.]

[8] Totally unrestricted firearms possession means that there is not even the slightest check on the mentally deranged from obtaining firearms - which means that the lack of a law is not exactly a good thing.

You will also note that the Founding Fathers attached "well regulated" specifically to the militia and NOT to the possession of arms.

COL Ted Mc What? I never said the right to own a firearm had anything to do with being in a militia. Read your original post. It was you that based your assertion that gun owners should have to be "trained and drilled" on the prefatory "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment. It has always been my assertion that that clause is irrelevant and my "second post" proved it is irrelevant. And since that clause is irrelevant, there is no requirement under the 2nd Amendment for gun owners to be "trained and drilled" and, therefore, the definition of "well regulated" is irrelevant. So I'm done arguing about what "well regulated" means because it's a non issue.

Regarding your points 1,2, and 3: See my statement above. Again, they are irrelevant.

Regarding your point 4: See my statement above. I wholeheartedly agree.

Regarding your point 5: I'm not aware of any such clause in the Constitution and, in fact, the 2nd Amendment would be contradictory to any such clause. If you're saying that the Constitution allows Congress or the states a procedure for amending the Constitution, you are correct.

Regarding your point 6: I wholeheartedly agree.

Regarding your point 7: Give me a example of a law regulating the ownership of firearms that does work? Define "does work." What is your factual basis for measuring that the law does work? I'm not saying you're wrong; I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

Regarding your point 8: I agree. I just don't know how to fix the problem and not violate the 2nd Amendment.

In your last paragraph you seem to be contradicting what you were saying in your original post. Nevertheless, see my statement above; I wholeheartedly agree that 'well regulated" is irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Cpl Mark McMiller - Corporal; You are flailing. I have never said that "gun ownership" has anything whatsoever to do with "belonging to the militia". Every American male AUTOMATICALLY becomes a member of "the militia" the minute they turn seventeen. That's the law.

Congress has the legislative authority to prescribe what training "the militia" will undergo and how that training will be accomplished. That's the law.

My position has always been that there would be howls of anguish if ALL of the Second Amendment were to be enforced.

Your response simply tells me that my position is correct - you want your guns, but you don't want to do your constitutionally mandated duty.

Regarding my "Point 5" - ask any felon if they have the right to keep and bear arms.

Regarding my "Point 7" - ask any certifiably insane person if they have the right to keep and bear arms.

If you had been reading for content - rather than parroting knee-jerk "arguments", you would have known what my position was - but I'll restate it again. There would be great howls of outrage and anguish if ALL of the Second Amendment were to be enforced because the "pro-gun nuts" wouldn't like actually being in a 'well-regulated' militia because that would mean that they wouldn't be able to watch "Duck Family" or "NASCAR" due the fact that they were drilling (without pay, the way "the militia" did when the Founding Fathers set up the Constitution of the United States of America).".

Your position is "I want my guns, but I don't want to do anything else and if the law says that I might have to then the law is irrelevant.". For a legal reporter you don't appear to have much exposure to the law.

COL Ted Mc Hey, Ted, you're the one who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.

Regarding Point 5, the law barring felons from owning firearms was enacted in 1968 and is part of the U.S. Code, so it definitely is not as old as our Constitution.

Regarding Point 7, since the law has not stopped all certifiably insane persons from obtaining firearms, the law does not work, does it?

At the beginning of your most recent post, you say you have never said gun ownership has anything whatsoever to do with being in a militia and then, at the end of that same post, you say that if all of the 2nd Amendment was enforced it would require membership in a well regulated militia. WTF, Ted? Arguing with you is like trying to hit a moving target. At this point, I really don't know where you stand and, apparently, you don't either. If you think gun ownership has nothing to do with being in a militia, that has always been my position; so what are we arguing about? If you think the 2nd Amendment somehow requires membership in a military, you are wrong, which I proved by showing that the prefatory militia clause of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. But I'm done arguing with you about this issue because it seems you either lack the capacity for sound reasoning on this issue or you just can't stand being proven wrong.

Good day.

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. Well, even in the big cities in the states, a lot of government officials either didn't know better or didn't care much for Constitutional rights. And the towns you listed were in U.S. territories far removed from polite society and the law was whatever the town authorities said it was.

I agree.

SSG (Join to see), the Constitution was never intended to identify individual rights -- it was written to clearly delineate the limits of the national government's authority. One of the most fundamental arguments against the Bill of Rights was that adding a list of rights to the Constitution obfuscated the legal principle that Congress has no power not explicitly granted within the Constitution, an d that argument seems to have been born out over the years as legal arguments have shifted from the presumption that the government lacks authorities not explicitly mentioned to the perception that the people lack rights not explicitly recognized (e.g., some Constitutional scholars' assertion that there is no Constitutionally recognized "right to privacy").

Thank you Sir, not many will take time to help understand. Many of the people of this nation forget or are ignorant of what the Constitution means and it,s impact on their lives.

1LT William Clardy - Lieutenant; One of the strongest safeguards for an individual's rights (and I'm not going to even both to differentiate between "inalienable" and "statutory" rights) is the traditional power of the judiciary to say words to the effect of "Counselor, do you actually expect anyone to believe that drivel?".

American courts have abandoned that judicial right.