You may be aware of the language, but you clearly do not understand it and the intent and application of it, as witnessed below.

–which
doesn’t alter the fact that in the formative years we did not have a
standing army, and that the militia that the Constitution expected
Congress to raise was a civilian citizen militia that was to be called
up AS NEEDED.

As I pointed out above…

The state power to maintain militias(of which the Constitution does NOT expect Congress to raise) vis-a-vis the federal military power was already treated in the text of the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was proposed. Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress “to declare War, … to raise and support Armies … [and] to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces …. ” Congress is also empowered:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

The 2nd Amendment was written in for two reasons, and
two reasons only: to ensure that the citizens called up for serve
in the militia would have firearms, and second: there were these things
called “Indian attacks” which settlers were subject to as they encroached
on Native American lands. Guns came in handy.

We came to this country armed. The Colonists were armed. They used arms for self defense and defense of family, neighbors, and community. They hunted and provided for themselves with arms. They fought for Independence with arms. They were required by law to carry arms to Church and to be armed at all other times including at home. They were required by law to have functioning arms and sufficient ammunition. They had an inalienable right to same.

The 2nd Amendment can not give what is inalienable and had already existed. It can only prohibit Government from infringing on that right, thus… “shall not be infringed”.

The Bill of Rights is restrictive to the Government and protects the pre-existing rights of the people.

Try to stay away from the strawman… you are only wasting your time.

You are the only one who has brought up the “Old West” and vigilante justice of which neither one has anything to do with this conversation.

And just for SAG, tell me your definition of a “civilized society”.

I’m not even going to get into the sheer idiocy of the position that
wants to take us back to some romanticized version of the Old West,
where quick vigilante “justice” was the norm, rather than the rule of
law. The logic that makes you believe that that scenario is the mark
of a civilized society is right out of the Anarchist’s Handbook.

The state power to maintain militias vis-a-vis the federal military power was already treated in the text of the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was proposed. Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress “to declare War, … to raise and support Armies … [and] to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces …. ” Congress is also empowered:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress ….[4]

…the Supreme Court decided two cases in 1990 which contribute to an understanding of these issues. First, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez,[6] a Fourth Amendment case, the Court made clear that all law-abiding Americans are protected by the Second Amendment as follows:

“the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution…. The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by (p.133)and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. Const., amend. I, (”Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble”); U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1 (”The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States”)(emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.[7]

In his dissent, Justice Brennan argued even more broadly that “the term ‘the people’ is better understood as a rhetorical counterpoint ‘to the government,’ such that rights that were reserved to ‘the people’ were to protect all those subject to ‘the government’… ‘The people’ are ‘the governed.’”[8] Justice Brennan also reviewed the drafting history of the Fourth Amendment, noting that the Framers “[c]ould have limited the right to ‘citizens,’ ‘freemen,’ ‘residents,’ or the ‘American people.’ … Throughout that entire process, no speaker or commentator, pro or con, referred to the term ‘the people’ as a limitation.”[9] Similarly, the Framers could have limited the Second Amendment right to select state militias, but instead used the terms “the people.”

Finally, Justice Brennan pointed out that rights are not “given to the people from the government…. [T]he Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to ‘create’ rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing.”[10] This statement is particularly applicable to the right to keep and bear arms, which has been recognized as a personal right for centuries.[11]

[4] U.S. Const. art II, § 2 provides: “The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States….” This provision makes clear that there is no national militia, but only a “Militia of the several States.” Similarly, the Fifth Amendment provides for grand jury indictment “[E]xcept in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger….” Thus, the militia of the several states always retains its status as such, even though it may be called in the “actual service” of the United States for specified domestic purposes.

[5] Comment, Assault Rifle legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional, 17 Am. J. Crim. Law 143 (No. 2, 1990).

[6] 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (holding the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement inapplicable to the search of a home in a foreign country).

[7] Id. at 265.

[8] Id. at 247.

[9] Id. at 288-89.

[10] Id. at 288.

[11] See generally Stephen Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right 7-54 (1984) [hereinafter That Every Man Be Armed].

Read the entire article gary and educate yourself.

So instead of trying to find what supports your anti-constitutional, anti-freedom, anti-rights agenda; try finding what our Framer’s original intent was, and correct that ignorance that you so tenaciously cling to!

You seem to think that more guns provides
a deterrent to testosterone-poisoned nut-cases. No, what you get is
escalations in gun violence with an ever-escalating number of
innocent young victims caught in the cross-fire.

Cite the stats and sources to support your claim!

If you’re not able to see, in the VT massacre, the desire and right of the people to arm themselves for protection, the state infringing on their right to do so, resulting in a psychotic-nut taking their lives and liberties without resistance and recourse… you’re not fit to live in a free and open society. If you want to claim the right to do so… then exercise the responsibilities that go with it.

What amazes me is that this psyCho had a Professor that threatened to resign if he wasn’t removed from her class, the tutor he was then assigned referred him to Psychological Services, an entirely different class of seventy students was reduced to seven, who wouldn’t attend for fear he was going to shoot the class up. Police received complaints from two female students for stalking them. Police picked him up on a detention order and committed him to a mental institution for evaluation. He consistantly exhibited anti-social behavior in his writings, words and actions… yet the University did NOT see fit to expel him.

The student with a Concealed Carry Weapons permit from the State of Virgina, who carried a gun on campus for self defense (And who was one of many who could have stopped this) is expelled.

There is some liberal logic for you!

If you want to place your life and safety in the hands of a government that wasn’t there to protect and defend the 32 “innocent young victims” that perished, and denied them the means to do it themselves …knock yourself out.

Admitting, as you do, that you support the concept of everyone walking
around packing heat, displays a juvenile fixation on wild west
mythologies and/or a complete disregard for real consequences when
people walk around with guns. You seem to think that more guns provides
a deterrent to testosterone-poisoned nut-cases. No, what you get is
escalations in gun violence with an ever-escalating number of
innocent young victims caught in the cross-fire.

But I’m sure that makes no difference to you, so long as you retain
your right to hold onto your precious and deadly phallus-substitute.

What part of “shall not be infringed” are you struggling with gary?

The Virginia Tech shooting could have been minimized or prevented had the Virginia Tech hierarchy allowed conceal carry on it’s campus. A similar incident happened in January 2002 without the consequences of Virginia Tech’s Tragedy. This was at the A…

I believe that Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine HIgh School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, answered that question in his address to the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

“The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:
Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

” Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational
systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your
own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!”

— Posted by Al Montreuil