2. The Arms of the militia should be effective for protecting the free state.

thank you

WELL REGULATED

to regulate: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulation



KEEP - have or retain possession of.


BEAR-(of a person) carry.


we can HAVE possession of and CARRY the weapons, nothing there that states every type of conceivable weapon must be made available or sold ...

4. An assessment of the readiness of the militia should be periodically assessed for effectiveness against possible threats to the free state.

I dont think we can lump most gun holders into one barrel, it could be happy sporting day, or happy eating day, or happy hunting day, or happy protection day.

it frustrates me too that we keep hiding behind the constitution to avoid taking some common sense actions for keeping unstable citizens and mass shooter weapons as far from each other as possible

but it doesnt help if we turn the discussion to personal attacks upon either side.

Except you are equating "Regulated" meaning to todays meaning, regulated back then meant 'trained " or "discipline"

the problem regarding the second amendment was the founding fathers ( madison ) proposed this as a compromise between the federalists and the anti federalists


One camp wanted to arm citizens to fight off the British and the other camp to arm citizens to fight off a tyrannical federal government as they witnessed going on in Europe.

This is one reason why we are divided.

collectivists like yourself interprets the 2nd amendment as only the military should have guns to fight off foreign invaders and domestic terrorists and criminals.

Individualists like myself interprets the 2nd amendment as our rights to bear arms so we can protect ourselves, hence the Militia clause.

Except we know what the meaning of Militia meant back then meant.

Except you are equating "Regulated" meaning to todays meaning, regulated back then meant 'trained " or "discipline"

the problem regarding the second amendment was the founding fathers ( madison ) proposed this as a compromise between the federalists and the anti federalists


One camp wanted to arm citizens to fight off the British and the other camp to arm citizens to fight off a tyrannical federal government as they witnessed going on in Europe.

This is one reason why we are divided.

collectivists like yourself interprets the 2nd amendment as only the military should have guns to fight off foreign invaders and domestic terrorists and criminals.

Individualists like myself interprets the 2nd amendment as our rights to bear arms so we can protect ourselves, hence the Militia clause.

Except we know what the meaning of Militia meant back then meant.

5. The militia should have access to arms during times of low threat as a preparation to protect the free state.
6. The militia should be trained to use such arms as a preparation for when they are called upon to protect the free state.

1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.

2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.

Each community should have an armory where unarmed citizens can obtain weapons in case they need to protect the free state.
Not only should there be a cache of weapons, there should be supporting ammo and people there to train the citizens on their use.
Since the 2nd amendment is part of the government, the government should provide these things equally and freely to all citizens.
So, like a library, when was the last time you visited a free government run armory to learn about and practice shooting automatic weapons?
The police have to qualify with their weapons. They have access to armory and shooting ranges. They get trained on weapons handling. They practice.

The intent of the 2nd amendment is for our citizens to be ready to protect our free state. This is not being done on many levels and gun restrictions are merely one part of a bigger problem.

Right now, with needing a license and a permit to keep and bear arms our 2nd amendment rights are being removed.
If only those who can afford a gun and pass a test and buy a license can be armed, it goes against the intent of the amendment of PEOPLE having the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. The requirements are in themselves an infringement.


WELL-REGULATED refers to the militia not the arms.

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.

Without free access to arms, the training to use them and the ability to practice using them, the militia is not being well-regulated.
People implies all citizens. Not just citizens that have money to buy the arms or pay the fees to gain a license. All citizens.
If we deem someone unfit to own a firearm or use a fire arm are those people still citizens? Are we not taking away their rights? Should we?

The amendment also assumes a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Is it? Is there a way to guarantee the security of a free state without a militia?
The whole idea of the right to bear arms hinges on the citizens being the militia needed to protect the free state.

and I would be fine if every gun holder had to go through militia like TRAINING and other militia like 'regulation'(dont militias regulate their members based on many factors?), unfortunately as it stands we let too many joe and jill schmos carry them 'just because' they can afford to buy them.

Does all this mean I CAN'T have my cruise missile?

"too many joe and jill schmos" are citizens too and are part of the intended militia.
You are part of the intended militia.
Your neighbor is part of the intended militia.
In the event of needing to protect the free state even convicts can be part of the intended militia if they still have citizen status. However, having your freedom revoked does imply that your citizen status is revoked. Once you serve your 'time', 'pay your penance' and are released from prison to once again be a free citizen, you have the same right as any other citizen to keep and bear arms as part of the militia.
Or, are you saying that our rights are only valid for those you select?

I agree every gun holder should be trained. I also think every non-gun holder should be trained. I also think non-gun holders should have ready access to the same types of weapons that attackers have.
Meaning YOU and every other citizen should be able to walk into a community armory and learn about, shoot and practice with a machine gun, free of charge.

tom there is also a secondary reason for the second and the reason a well regulated militia was included there.
the constitution clearly stated the fed would not keep a standing army.
and as evidenced by reading correspondences and meeting minutes of the time. the intent was for said militia to be called up armed and ready to become the fed army in times of war. which supports arms of a comparable level of the times.

as for msharmony's last control of manufacture and sale of said arms i simply a blatant attempt to side step the second.

i would suggest better results could be had by researching the events and causes of them and their increase. then try applying all this effort to changing the cause not the means

not so much these days tom.

tho i didn't mean recent research as much as i would have figured you to have done the side bar reading in the past

Go For It...

Well, at least I can still have my grenades and my tank.