The Second Amendment

[MODU]

The problem I have with the National Guard is that it was a ploy by the federal government to retain their power so they can never be threatened by "insurrection" again.

Possibly, though the states still have control over their uses as well.  Personally, I find it nearly impossible for any independent group to take over the nation through military force these days.  Even if we were invaded by Germany (for example purposes only), they would lack the number of personnel needed to physically occupy the nation.  It's like if the US were to go and invade Russia without the use of Nukes.  We just could not hold it.  There are just too many people and too many square miles which make any kind of conventional uprisings effective.

[Emsworth]

What the Constitution says is 'militia.' That doesn't tell us what militia means. The federal Bill of Rights is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which defined militia as the populace, trained in arms, not a select group of citizen-soldiers. This was also the definition of militia entertained by Madison, as well as the Father of the Bill of Rights himself, George Mason.

A fairly reasonable textualist argument could be made in support of defining the militia as the whole populace, rather than a select group of citizen-soldiers.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 declares, "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress ... keep Troops." What is the difference between a "select group of citizen-soldiers" and "Troops"? Of course, there is no distinction. They are exactly one and the same.

If a militia is only a select group of citizen-soldiers, it would follow that no militia may be maintained without the consent of Congress. However, such a result would contradict Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, which entrusts the government of the militia (when not in the national service) to the states. The clear implication is that militias may be maintained in the first place, without congressional approval. When the Constitution specifically declares that a militia is "necessary to the security of a free State", can anyone claim that a militia's existence is dependent on the consent of Congress?

Thus, if we accept the premise that a militia is a select group of soldiers maintained by the state government, we reach the illogical conclusion that no militia may exist without Congress' permission. Hence, by reductio ad absurdum, one may establish that a militia is not a select group of soldiers.

[John Dibble]

Yeah, that only contradicts the opinions of the people who wrote the constitution - they obviously had no idea what they were talking about.

But we can't go by what their opinions were, but by what was approved in the Amendment and by what the Supreme Court has ruled.  Like Liberty provided for us, there were many various bills and laws on this issue before the Amendment was approved.  That's why I've been a proponent for having the second amendment "revised."  People from both sides of the argument can look at the one sentance and see two different things.

1. The opinions of the people who wrote the damn thing matter - their opinions are what the amendment is based on, and are important in its interpretation because they knew exactly what it was supposed to mean.

2. The Supreme Court can be wrong - what they rule isn't worth squat if they don't interpret the constitution in accordance with how it was supposed to be interpreted. I mean, the Supreme Court has ruled that growing of wheat for your own personal use constitutes interstate commerce for crying out loud!