In the sense that Congress declared it to be so in the Militia Act of 1903.
In what active legal sense (no matter what anyone would prefer to believe) is the Guard not the “well-regulated militia” of the Second?
What about the unorganized militia, from that same Militia Act of 1903?
The crux of your arguments here and in other recent threads seems to be that if someone isn’t a trained solider in a regimented body under the military authority of the government (which keeps their weapons locked up when they aren’t on active duty), then they aren’t part of the militia. Or that if that wasn’t originally true it’s since become true. Not only isn’t that argument an undebatable done-deal, it’s considered more widely refuted with every passing year, and quite possibly will be officially refuted by the Supreme Court in the near future.
Nope. Can’t be well-regulated if it ain’t even organized, right? The organized, and therefore the only well-regulatable, militia is the Guard. Has been for over a century. Just a fact there. Well, I’ve heard stories from some Guardsmen about what really happens in training exercises that might cast some doubt on the term, but we should probably let those stories pass. 
The well-regulated (I know you hate that term, but so what) militia mentioned in the Second, yes, of course. The law is what it is. If you don’t like it, go file a challenge. Or go work for more court-packing; that’s been more effective for social conservatives recently anyway. Or, as you’re doing here, try to change enough minds to get the Constitution amended. But don’t waste any more time denying what the Constitution and the law are, okay?
The Second Amendment doesn’t say “the right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, it says the people. It’s well accepted (except by, well, you) that the first half of the Second is explanatory, not restrictive. You’re the one who’s denying what the Constitution and the law are.
The original bill, proposed by Madison, actually said this:
It’s pretty clear that Madison was talking about two separate things here (i.e. that there was a right to keep and bear arms by the people, and that a well regulated militia was important to a free nation).
-XT
Can I just reach through here and grab that beer, guys?
Guys? Guys!
Oh, shit . . . CRASH! BAM! Don’t step on it! SPLURSH!
Aw, man.
Would the Third be invoked if, say, there’s a national emergency and a lot of soldiers are rushed to the area to handle it? Even if they get to live in tent cities, the tents still have to go on somebody’s land.
That doesn’t appear to be what the bill you quoted says, though:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Why? Because a well armed and well regulated militia is the best security of a free country.
But I’m a Quaker, and my religion forbids me from bearing arms! Well, no person with religious scruples against bearing arms will have to be part of that militia and render military service.
I mean,“being” in that is a conjunction,
Actaully, a participle in an ‘absolute’ construction, but the point you’re making is nonetheless valid.
Well, no…probably because I didn’t add in the extra words. 
Seems pretty straight forward, and without any caveats added. From what I recall, the ‘keep’ was the key part of the phrase…IOW, you could keep your personal firearms. And you also had the right to ‘bear arms’, which meant you had the right (duty really) to join a local militia unit, or volunteer to serve in the Continental Army.
See, there was no ‘why?’ in the one I quoted. Here it just says 'a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country ', which seems to simply be a statement of truth.
Of course, this part got later dropped:
I think that by this version of the bill (his first), it’s fairly clear that his intent was to separate the right of the citizen to ‘keep and bear arms’ (i.e own weapons and be allowed to serve in the armed forces). In the second part he briefly lays out the importance of the militia to nations that would be free. In the last part (later dropped) he allows that people of religious convictions may be excused from military service.
We know from other writings by Madison and others involved in the Revolution and the creation of the texts that form our government, that they DID feel it important to stress the individual ownership of firearms as a check on the government. I wish I was sober enough to remember, but I vaguely remember one of the FF’s picked up a lot of interesting points concerning the ownership of personal weapons by free citizens from several ancient Greek (and possibly Roman) philosophers and writers, and that this also heavily influenced their attitude on this.
I also remember reading somewhere that there was a draft version of the first bill I quoted above that was several paragraphs long, and MUCH easier to read and understand. I just can’t remember where I read it now…maybe in the Federalist Papers, or some of Madison’s personal letters.
-XT
Forced, maybe. But there are gay men around San Francisco who have been voluntarily doing this for decades! A patriotic love for our military, no doubt.
“The only way I would quarter a soldier is if I could draw him first!” 
Under the law that has been in place for over a century, “the people” are represented by the Guard. Once again, you don’t have to like it, but so what?
No, it is hardly well-accepted except by whose who wish that to be the case. Even if it were, that argument would still be fallacious.
:shrug: I already linked the text of it for you.
There is an implied “why”, which is the word “being”.
Being hungry, I ate dinner.
Being cold, I put on a sweater.
Being upset the Nationals lost yesterday, I planted a dirty bomb in Philadelphia.
You use that construction, and the word “being” when you’re drawing a connection between the clauses. Because of the first clause, the second clause.
I do so love the claim that part of the Constitution *itself *has no actual meaning, don’t you?
No, the Guard does not “represent” the people in the sense of “completely substitute for”, it is a subset of the people. And again, I point out the fact you seem determined to willfully ignore, that the Militia Act itself by it’s own language does not shut out the rest of the population from being considered “the Militia”.
The fact of the matter is that the letter of the Constitution, multiple contemporary documents discussing and debating the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it, proposed drafts of both, legal and judicial commentary on the subject in the following centuries, ordinary logic, and the plain meaning of the English language, are all flatly against you. You haven’t presented an iota of evidence to your claim except to baldly assert that the Constitution and the Militia Act of 1903 self-evidently mean exactly how you want to frame the debate. And when it’s pointed out to you that the very letter of those documents contradicts your position, you respond with denial and ridicule. Even if my position is wrong, it’s not due to any proof you’ve offered.
If one single poster wants to support you in this thread ElvisL1ves I’ll respect you for their sake. Otherwise please go away, the grownups are trying to have a discussion.
I guess I could frame my OP differently. Let’s say that we all are in universal agreement that militias, well-regulated or otherwise, are no longer necessary for the security of a free state.
Does that mean that the “right to keep and bear arms” that goes along side of it disappears?
Does the phrasing of the clause mandate that arms keeping and bearing must be as a result or related to militia service?
Can only militia members keep arms?
Could the federal government have decided in 1800 that 80 year old men were not good militia members and forbade them to own guns?
:shrug: Go read the law for yourself, then.
The only “willful ignorance” there was of the words “well-regulated”. Already addressed, friend.
Address the *entire *short sentence of the Second and you can use those terms. Dismiss it and there’s no point in continuing with you. The other stuff you mention is not law. But you know all that.
Go read the damn thing for yourself, then. Sheesh.
Functionally, yes. The reason for the Second is explained in the Second itself. If it goes, then the rest becomes hypothetical.
Even now, the only way to conclude otherwise is to pretend that phrase doesn’t have any meaning, and never did.
That’s not addressed either way in the Constitution.
Sure. Why not?
Nope. This argument has already been raised before the Supreme Court, and found unpersuasive (Eldred v. Ashcroft).