Your interpretation of this statement?

Post #33,359 by mmoffitt 3/25/02 12:21:45 PM Reply	Your interpretation of this statement? [Emphasis mine] See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia") The implication is clear, the right to a firearm is directly tied to, and requires that the firearm in question has some reasonable relationship to the militia. If it's just a plain old gun to go shoot some cans with, it is not a constitutionally protected right of ownership. And I've not done any research, perhaps you have, how many of the privately owned guns in your state (or mine for that matter) have anything at all to do with your/my State National Guard?
Post #33,398 by Brandioch 3/25/02 3:26:24 PM Reply	Depends upon the definition of "militia". (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia") I think that such a statement can be taken any number of ways depending upon whether you view a "well regulated militia" as being: #1. ONLY the regular armed forces -OR- #2. including the National Guard and Reserves -OR- #3. including inactive reserves -OR- #4. including every able bodied man (white, land owner) in the state. -OR- Whatever other breakdown you want to give it. From your previous post, there was an example of every able bodied man being assigned a weapon by the city. That would seem to support #4. But that was also pre-Constitution, so things could have changed.
Post #33,522 by mmoffitt 3/26/02 4:32:23 PM Reply	C'mon you know better than that. 1. Not possible, the Continental Army was clearly distinguished from the "militia" even in Washington's era. 2. Not the reserves, only the State Militia's, just like the Amendment says. 3. Nope. See #2. Number 4 was originally supposed to be the SOURCE of the arms for the State's militias. Amendment 2 was supposed to arm the states, not the individuals. For, it this were not the case, then the "A well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free State" part of the amendment would not be necessary. If what was intended was for "private ownership" then take the first part out (like all the NRA propaganda does) and you have a right to private ownership.
Post #33,524 by drewk 3/26/02 4:41:33 PM Reply	Something I never thought of before And I haven't seen anyone else point this out either. As you quote the ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free State ... At the time it was written, "State" actually meant the multiple individual and independant states that were organizing into the United States. "State" typically means a sovreign nation. Our hundreds of years of history has accustomed Americans to thinking of the "states" as just divisions of the actual nation, called the United States of America. That was not the original intent. It was actually more like the European Union. This being the case, the wording in the 2nd Ammendment seems to be suggesting that it was intended to guarantee the freedom of the states against the threat of ... the federal government. === I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #33,527 by mmoffitt 3/26/02 4:47:17 PM Reply	FABULOUS! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE INTENT WAS!
Post #33,543 by Brandioch 3/26/02 7:17:11 PM Reply	States rights vs. Federal Wasn't this effectively squashed by the Civil War? Or am I reading this too broadly?
Post #33,603 by mmoffitt 3/27/02 12:17:33 PM Reply	No, you're reading fine. The South's abandoning the Union would have been okie-dokie with the Founders (er, maybe some of them...Jefferson at least). But, let's don't start that up ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!