Why do neocons ignore the 2nd Amendment's reference to "a well organized militia" ?

Question

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to bear arms refers to the 2nd Amendments clause "a well organized militia", to wit, the National Guard. In other words , if you want a gun you will be provided with all sorts, howitzers, mortars etc. Of course you might also be provided with the opportunity to really use them, ie Iraq.

Answer 1

...yet another closet gun abolitionist. Your head is lodged firmly in your a*s! Don't attempt to over interpret an amendment that is "black and white", for your own self serving socialist agenda...the 2nd Amendment is not negotiable!

Answer 2

the amendment says "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." (this exact punctuation was used in copies of the amendment circulated to the states for ratification)

...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

seems pretty clear that the intent was that people could do exactly that...

it should be noted that the rights of the states were being addressed here...

america was a breakaway colony from imperialist england...

the necessities of free states was addressed here as well as the right of individual citizens to bear arms...

and it is clear that the intention was that the federal government be held in check by the power of states to raise armies of thier own...

without citizens who had thier own firearms this was simply not possible...

of course you insinuate that all militias should be controlled by the federal goverment... " to wit, the National Guard(isn't that federally controlled). In other words , if you want a gun you will be provided with all sorts, howitzers, mortars etc. Of course you might also be provided with the opportunity to really use them, ie Iraq"

so what is with your ignorant remarks?

your fundamental complaint is that others pick and choose what to believe correct?

what do you think you are doing?

Answer 3

Militia is a complex term, which can also include civilians. Anyway, I have always believed that taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only leaves them in the hands of the ones that are not law abiding. IE - Criminals. I don't know about you but with the rate of home invasions on the rise. I'll gladly hide behind my right to keep and bear arms. And I will stand toe to toe with my brethren should the evocation of a military militia be required as a result of an act of war.

Answer 4

I know this will puzzle your tiny brain but if, by intent or not, the government fails to organize that "Well regulated militia" then they will have de-facto removed your second amendment right, simply by not organizing your local militia. And the law cannot be permitted to remove a right which it guarantees. So "militia" must be taken in the most liberal and non-government context.

So tell us, why do all puppet liberals want us to give up our civil rights? first free speech and now the right to bear arms.
Grow up, learn how to think for yourself, and stop being a Stepford Liberal, its ignorant, sophmoric, and boring.

Answer 5

It says "A properly regulated protection rigidity being mandatory to the protection" and "the the main suitable option of the folk to maintain and bear hands". If this grow to be meant for the protection rigidity it could have reported the the main suitable option of the protection rigidity to maintain and bear hands. that is for the folk, electorate, individuals - no longer purely the defense force. it relatively is leaving out the actuality that protection rigidity is an prepared team of electorate apart from a militia/military.

Answer 6

Sorry- wrong again.
''The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.''
Fairly difficult to do, what? Even for the Founders.

''These phrases: "right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble," "right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the PEOPLE," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the PEOPLE" all refer to individuals, but ---"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arm" refers to the state--- nope.

It's always been the individual people-even when they form a militia.

Answer 7

The National Republican Party's righteous wing presents a picture of dominance and power against the liberal whiney Democrats and until the Democrats get a 'pair' they will be subjected to this kind of comparison. Generally, the National Republican Pary's righteous wing seems to attract more of the same kind of voters in these United States, and that helps present a more viable force to protect the interests of the United States.
Which would you rather have in power, someone who seems able to kikass or someone who wants to 'negotiate' a peace settlement with known killers and terrorists who have already shown that they will kill anyone who stands in their way including themselves by strapping explosives to their bodies?
Strike a pose with a long gun, i.,e., rifle or other weapon and a menacing stance is more likely to get votes than a whiney weepy, reasoning tone.
Thanks

Answer 8

Except, as written the militia is not the NG but all males in the country able to bear arms.

Answer 9

The supreme court has not always been a republican majority court so even if republicans see it a different way the democrats have the opportunity to see it their way when they have the court.

Answer 10

What are you advocating... depriving citizens of their right to bear arms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?