Hogwash! A militia iS all the a ble bodies men between certain ages , usually 15 - 60. Armies were composed of selected men from the militia. A state is a political unit with absolute soverainty, such as Germany or Ohio before the civil war. Now,go read the second amendment again.

Excellent article with its historic ties. This assumes that all able-bodied men (and willing women), of a certain age, who comprise the various States´ "militia" of the people, have their own private military grade firearms and are proficient in their use.

At one time, the various local elements of "the militia" would be mustered and inspected to ensure their were ready and properly equipped. The citizens of Lexington and Concord and those along The Battle Road would be the most familiar to us now.

It is a similar system to what has kept Switzerland free.

Whether we are mustered from time to time, and therefore "well-regulated" or whether we are not mustered, able-bodied citizens retain their right to keep and bear arms.

It´s the difference between a Citizen and a Subject or a Slave.

It is my belief that we should have universal conscription at age 18 with no deferment whatsoever, and that everyone be trained in the use of firearms and general military discipline for two years.
Those that conscientiously object can go wipe butts in a VA nursing home for two years instead.
We would accomplish many things.
We could station a goodly portion along the Mexican border. They would get good experience dealing with infiltration and interdicting them- in a desert environment.
It would be a method of breaking up gangs.
They would all know how to handle a firearm, and in the process be subject to two years of non-liberal, non-union education.
Many would take the unlikely turn to republicanism.

Hi folks. This 91 year old military veteran from 1942-1972 has a personal interest in the 2nd Amend. In researching my ancestors (paternal), I learned that 10 generations ago, my grampa was fined 1/2 shilling for having a dirty musket!. I am sure that he must have just returned from a hunting trip, where he almost saw a rabbit. Oh my.

I think the author of the article is guilty of what he accuses others of in his second sentence. Nevertheless, the article is interesting.

If you go to the NRA museum in Virginia you´ll see a lot of the state constitutions that preceded the US Constitution and in many cases they define the militias as being the people - not a pre-organized army of some sort. Taken in that context, my sense is that the term "militia" at the time meant the general population - albeit a population capable of organizing quickly into a fighting force - and the better argument is the one that conservatives have today on the meaning of the second amendment.

Another thing - lots of state constitutions grant more explicit and perhaps broader gun ownership rights than does the US Constitution. People should pursue state constitutional amendments guaranteeing gun ownership if they want to protect against federal laws. The Constitution´s Supremacy Clause can dilute their impact but the words of state constitutions should not be overlooked as another barrier to tyranny.

A well written article that makes the real point of the 2nd Amendment. I know nothing about making a long-bow so I can´t argue whether or not it takes 4years. I also know that hitting what you are aiming at with a bow is not an easy skill to learn as I hunt with a compound bow. But that´s not even the point. The real point of the article can be summed up in Dr. Suzzana Hupp´s testimony before congress on the 2nd amendment back in 2010. It is a compelling testimony and I encourage all to view it. The purpose is not to protect our rights to hunt. The real purpose is to protect the citizens from their government.

The Second Amendment means we get to shoot back.
I personally believe that gun ownership should be mandatory....and the "list" that gets madeshould be composed of those who opt out of such.
Tables turned, and the gun ban crowd will shut up.

As a youth, I belonged to an archery club. We made our own bows, usually from lemonwood staves purchased through an archery supply catalog. We made our own strings of linen thread or sometimes bought hemp string on a roll. We made our own arrows out of birch or cedar dowels and turkey feathers. The point is, it may well take four years to “make” a bow, if you cut and age the wood, then shave it into shape. I think the English used Yew but I may be wrong. Just as making a pencil would be easy if someone handed you all the components, making a bow wouldn’t take long if you have the tools and are handed the components. It only took me a minute to “make” my present Bear Grizzly, but Amazon helped me out.

The right to defend one´s own life and that of his family is God-given. The rest is just technicalities.

I just returned from a week in Mexico where I have some customers (soon to be most of my customers). I feel so intensely naked without a handgun that it is unnerving. There is a movement in Mexico to change gun policies so people can protect themselves. I hope so, they are left nearly helpless against the gangs and the same would be true here with out the 2A.

#1 wikipedia is not a credible source of information. At times it can tack up to 4 years to craft an English Long Bow.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/englongbow.htm

#3, back in the day it was written, the phrase "well-regulated" referred to someone who knew their trade and was competent, such as, "The blacksmith, Mr. Jones, is well-regulated". So a "well-regulated militia" was men who knew their ´trade´ with regard to militia weapons (including artillery at the time) and tactics, and could hit what they aimed at. It had nothing to do with government control or bureaucracy of any sort. The men who wrote it were not in the mood to give the federal government powers it couldn´t be trusted with, given what they had just gone through.

..and of courses everyone forgets the Third Amendment - which was really a ban on having a standing army in times of peace. It had nothing to do with putting soldiers in people´s homes.

Try making one out of green wood, #1...

An excellent article with some really fine comments after it, also.

Tracing back to the situation in England is useful. The author makes important points. It was unique that the English barons trusted their common men to own the powerful longbows, and that they wanted the common man to be armed for the common defense of the country. The longbows had shockingly high pull weights, 100-150 lbs - much doubted in modern times, but verified from bows recovered from Mary Rose. Without years of training and continuous work these bows were useless, the untrained could not pull them or hit anything.

Developing this trust of the commoner to have weapons powerful enough to kill the armored nobles was a unique situation. These commoner archers enabled the great victory at Agincourt which slaughtered the French nobility and ultimately shifted the power towards the people, recognized by the Magna Carta.

The concept of trusting the populace with powerful military weapons (as the musket was in the day) is now limited to a few countries, the US and Switzerland may be the only remaining countries.

We must guard this right closely, it is exceedingly rare in the long sweep of human history that the commoner can be armed and have the right to protect himself. If lost, it will not soon return.

Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment made by both sides revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms. What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!

What the Constitution does do is identify what powers the people grant to the government. This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the government what it can and cannot do.

That is why Marxists Democrats like Obama hate our Constitution because it is a limitation on Government not a limitation on We The People.....the right to keep and bear arms was considered a ´´Natural Right´´ by our forefathers.

Read the Second Amendment closely, it doesn’t say the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the
government cannot infringe on that right.

I don’t know about you, but I sure as heck don’t want to live in a country where the only ones with guns is the government.

Amendment II

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.

Thet’s it, that is the whole 2nd Amendment...where does it say that the government gives us any right? It doesn’t, it only says that the government cannot infringe on our rights.

New rule for neighborhoods:

All dwellings will have 1 of 2 signs in front stating
(1) This is a gun free home or
(2) This is a 2nd amendment friendly home.

Where will the criminals go first?