And they do, by way of the federal government providing it. States-rights arguments like that may be fun but they’ve been anachronistic since 1865, as you know.
Provided that they are well-regulated as a militia, that is, right?
Yes, it also includes everyone following orders so it can operate as a military force, not as the mob of trigger-happy yahoos that an individual-rights interpretation would result in.
Well, now we know better, don’t we? This isn’t the 18th century anymore.
We can see that may (MAY) be the case today. Was it the case in the 18th century though? :dubious: Try and put this into context…at that time you had a limited number of choices. Either you were a major power, in which case you had a standing army (augmented by…yep, local militia units in your colonial possessions), or you were a satellite of a major power (in which case…yep, you were required by your political masters to contribute to a local militia, augmented, perhaps, by said overlords regular forces (if you were really lucky and they were in the mood)), or you were on your own…in which case, yeah, you pretty much needed a local militia, augmented (if you could raise the capital) by a few regular troops…or you had complete anarchy (which was probably divided between competing local ‘militia’ forces in the form of whatever local warlord could muster enough force to intimidate the locals and force them to contribute to his coffers).
Regardless, you will note that having a militia was pretty much going to happen. Today that may not be the case for a country such as the US, but today there are a few more options (you can align yourself with a nation like the US, which means unless you are having some local insurgent or rebel type issues you can rely on us to pony up for a large percentage of your defense…with the down side being that we will hold that over your collective heads if we want something like basing rights or whatever).
I assume you mean today. The thing is, things have changed somewhat, but you are forgetting one of those changes…you can’t just grab up citizens today and give them a rifle and expect them to do much of anything on a modern battle field. So…you are going to need some kind of organization and training regime, which, if you are a poor nation, is probably going to be ‘militia’ like, even if the name is different. The US National Guard, after all, is a ‘well regulated militia’, strictly speaking…and other countries have similar formations/organizations.
Well…depends, doesn’t it. If you are under the wing of the US (or, say the EU) then I guess it’s not necessary. But if you are a poor nation and you you are unaligned? And you have either an internal or external threat but can’t afford a standing army? What do you do then?
Not every nation is the US though, ehe? And the National Guard acts as a ready reserve of trained and regulated personnel for the military, which is necessary on occasion, even for a country like the US. If you are trying to make the case that it’s not necessary for the US today, then the same argument could be made for much of our military, by those lights.
In the US today may be true…then again, as Iraq and Afghanistan have both shown, sometimes our military really does need augmentation, and having ‘well regulated militia’ formations is definitely a help. Granted, we wouldn’t have needed said augmentation had we not embarked on the foreign adventure that is Iraq, but because THAT was a mistake doesn’t mean we might never need such augmentation in the future. As events have shown, our military can certainly be stretched too far.
Are you asking why it was stated so (if that’s the case then this has already been answered) or asking why we don’t repeal it, since we don’t (in your opinion) need a ‘well regulated militia’ (or any militia at all, I guess) today? Or why we don’t simply change the language to better suit changing times? Or, the real question you are asking, which is ‘can I use this as a trick or lever to get rid of the 2nd’?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you aren’t asking why the language was originally like this, I’d say the answer is since we have ‘militia’ units, we definitely want them well regulated, and I see no reason to change the language, even if we decided tomorrow to do away with stuff like the National Guard, since by doing so we’d also be taking away people’s right to ‘keep and bear arms’.
Yeah…that probably is your point, but you are going to have to do better than this if you want to do an end around and sneak through a repeal of the Amendment (you most likely realize you couldn’t get something like this through the front door, ehe? :p)…
-XT
You are So bad 
To which we might add, never resisted.
a right to have some sort of local security force. The Fed isn’t going to enforce parking laws.
Wrong. Try reading the Federalist Papers #29 and see what Alexander Hamilton thought on the subject. He consistantly refers to the militia as synonomous with the people, and specifically denies that it is either necessary or desirable for the entire populace to be trained to a military standard, but they are all still THE MILITIA.
See above. Also, the very defining feature of a militia as opposed to “troops” is that they bear their own arms rather than the arms of the state. Which they couldn’t do if the Federal government asserted an authority to disarm the population.
You forgot the rest of that paragraph:
.
Please try to post something more persuasive than “The Second Amendment CAN’T be referring to individual gun rights! The sky would fall if that were true!”. You know, like maybe a logical argument based on facts?
Nor is that a security issue. Red herring.
It’s a little more persuasive to read what the Constitution says, isn’t it? 
Even if so, where does that “well-regulated” stuff that sticks in your craw come from?
Oddly, the National Guard doesn’t seem to follow that policy, does it?
You forgot to say much more there than “I don’t know”. Not even how it matters.
I am. It just isn’t making it through your shields, obviously.
What red herring? Localities need some sort of armed force for day-to-day police purposes. My point was, how does a local armed force refute the claim that they are unconstitutional state troops?
The whole debate is over what the letter of the Constitution means. You insist that “milita” means a regimented body of militarily trained persons, organized and commanded by the state, that it’s obvious that’s what it means, and that therefore there’s nothing to debate. I have tried to fight ignorants by pointing out that there are rational reasons to dispute this, and you respond with condescension.
Umm… from the people who debated and ratified the Constitution and it’s first ten amendments.
And to all intents and purposes, the modern National Guard is simply a branch of the US Army Reserve.
I was pointing out that there are at least as many, if not more, examples of modern nations that seem to be explicit examples of what the Founding Fathers were warning about when they talked about standing armies and disarmed populations. UNLIKE some people, I was willing to admit it when my point of view isn’t 100% airtight.
“I am right and you are wrong, and you’re too stupid to see it.” THAT’S your argument?
If you want to get called to the Pit for threadshitting, keep it up.
But not for “security” in the sense of a militia. Red herring.
And when it means it, too. We are not, as some dearly believe, bound by the understandings of the 18th century, including the one about states’ rights. You assume we are.
I respond by pointing out that they are not rational.
Under law, specifically the National Guard Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916, the Guard IS the militia referred to in the Constitution. You don’t have to like that, but, well, so what?
You also, to your credit, pointed out that there are many other examples of just the opposite, that an 18th century sensibility couldn’t conceive of that, but not that that undermines your argument oriented toward the individual-rights conclusion.
IOW, “Shields up! Red Alert!” Please.
Before the US Constitution was ratified, and the amendments were written, the nature of military power had changed rather significantly, especially in the Colonial parts of the world. The preeminent weapon of war was available, and already in the hands of the populace. Raising and supplying an army is a difficult, and expensive undertaking, and a locally based militia was expected to provide defense for the citizens from possible invasion, or even military action by our own, as yet unrealized government. In the aftermath of the victory over the largest, and most experience military power in the world, many thought it might be important to maintain that advantage. Of course in that time the entire male adult populace comprised the local militia.
Also, as pointed out, most folks did not expect the US to become a major world military power nor the weapons of war to evolve into things which even a local government could never hope to maintain. The National Guard does have such power, but it is a far cry from what the writers of the amendments had in mind, and in most of its organizational infrastructure is simply one arm of the federal military.
I think liberals would serve their own interests if they abandoned the fight against possession and purchase of firearms, and concentrated instead on laws governing illegal use of such weapons. If possession during the commission of a felony were a separate, and separately chargeable offense in state law, and penalties for it were legislated to be served consecutively to any other sentence, it would be a deterrent to that part of weapon ownership that is detrimental to society.
The fact that it would politically disable one political particularism that is predominately aligned against liberals would be just gravy.
Tris (Gun totin’ leftist.)
Your premise that state and local police forces have all necessary functions covered is false. The Supreme court has ruled that they are not liable for our safety in the case of Castle Rock V. Gonzales. We are allowed the responsibility of protecting ourselves if not chartered to do so by our constitution.
At the time there was considerable hostility to a standing army in Britain too, a legacy of the (English) civil war. Outbreaks of peace saw heavy cuts in military strength, while the nation’s safety was (rightly) seen as guaranteed by a strong navy, not an army. The 1688 Bill of Rights declared, inter alia,
" the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law "
The Militia was embodied several times in the Revolutionary Wars with France. Later in the 19th c. it decayed considerably. As late as 1939 the name, at least, was briefly revived.
Just how exactly are you defining the word “security” here? If a militia means regimented soldiers acting under orders of the state, they’re troops. And the Fed can ban states from having their own troops. So what exactly is the Second Amendment for then? So the state can have a militia? But you refuse to allow that a militia can be anything other than what any person would ordinarily call troops. Just how exactly do you reconcile the Second Amendment with A1S10C3?
Why do you keep repeating “states rights” like I was trying to defend slavery? It’s a false association, and you damn well know it.
If you’re going to play that game, then I’ll just say yes they are.
I’m disputing your reading of the Second, and offering evidence why.
So provisions of the Constitution can simply be ignored as sensescent? Let’s toss out that annoying rule about double jeopardy while we’re at it.
The “organized” Militia, according to the document itself. Everybody else is the “unorganized” Militia.
No, what I described is exactly what your responses have boiled down to: Baldly asserting that your position is unassailable, logic and evidence be damned. Go ahead and offer another witty insult, that’ll really show everyone how you pwned the debate.