Second Amendment, Militia, (comma) vs Militia

[sailortoo]

"Looks like it only needs one comma" - agreed, but as stated by others, both punctuation and capitalizing was at times a rather random affair. I'm not too sure how important that difference may be. Another aspect to consider: "... to the security of a free state, ..." to me has always referred to a state of being (a state of freedom), rather than as usually presented, as a geographical designation ( free New York, New Jersey, etc.). I would have phrased it as; "A well regulated militia being necessary to a state of freedom, ...", because the state of freedom is the meaning, not a location of freedom. Just my take on one of the more interesting sentences in the English language! Just how many single sentences gets hashed over and over, as does the Second Amendment?
sailortoo

 

[mike101]

"The comma after Militia, it changes the meaning of the Second Amendment,"

No, it doesn't. The militia clause is cited as the reason for providing the guarantee that the "right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

If it was written in modern, common lingo, it might go something like: No matter what else happens, we might need to raise a militia some day, so the right of the people to own guns shall not be messed with.

2A says nothing about the right of the militia.

And, "The People are the Militia, dammit".

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

More tomorrow.

Write all you like tomorrow but two things:

1. I won't be participating as I have said all I wanted to say and don't see much point in us continuing to disagree.

2. Please start a new thread so we don't drag this one off course.

 

[davet]

I am new to THR and as such have followed this topic closely here. I offer up my opinion as food for thought.
The commas are irrelevant.
The Federal government has no authority to make law, regulate or restrict citizens arms. The original ten amendments were out right bans on Federal power. The Federal powers are declared in the articles of the constitution and the founding fathers intended no other powers be implied or assumed by the Federal government unless the constitution was amended.
Most of the delegates at the constitutional conventions thought the addition of the ten amendments unnecessary and would set a dangerous precedent of thought that other rights not described in the ten were subject to law or regulation.
Additionally the States hold no power to make law or regulate arms for the very same reason the Federal government was forbidden that power. The very same men who drafted the Federal constitution went back to their home State and were influential or directly involved in the drafting of their own States constitutions. To assume any state constitution that does not have an amendment similar to the 2nd did not intend to preserve the same rights that were preserved at the Federal level is historically incorrect. The fact that four States did include a right to bear arms amendment in their State constitutions shows the intent at the state level to preserve this freedom unconditionally. I submit to you that those States that did not include a right to bear arms amendment merely thought along the same lines as those men at the Federal level who thought it redundant and unnecessary to declare. The States power is granted and rights reserved in the same manner as the Federal power, by the People.

Davet

 

[OMDP]

"The comma after Militia, it changes the meaning of the Second Amendment,"

I don't believe it changes the meaning either. The founders were clear about what they wanted it to mean.

The views of the founding fathers at the time were quite clear from their debates over the religiously scrupulous clause that might have gotten itself into the amendment.

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia?

This shows us that the founding fathers considered the bearing of arms to be bearing arms within the well regulated militia.

August 17th 1789
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24th 1789
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Two different versions of what would become the second amendment with bears arms and render military service being seen as synonyms.

This suggests that bearing of arms was individual, and it was individuals having the right to be in the militia.

This does not change if there is or is not a coma, the meaning is still the same, the founding fathers still debated the same.
The keeping of arms is simple, individuals have the right to keep arms, this is mostly ownership, the actions permitted by this clause are only those which are aimed at the effective keeping of arms, such as being able to buy at a reasonable price, transportation to and from sale, the ability to buy and sell etc.

The reasons for the amendment are clear. The ultimate check and balance on the govt are armed people fighting in the militia to take down the govt. Therefore the militia has its source of weapons protected and its source of personnel protected. The militia IS protected through the individual nature of the amendment. But comas do not change this.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms means the same thing. It is connected to the well regulated militia and Presser shows this.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Men are allowed to bear arms, but they are not protected in assciating together as military organisations which are not the well regulated militia.

So, you have the well regulated militia which then has a part explaining it after, then you have the main part of the clause which must be seen within the context that the militia exists and is there for the reason it has.
The coma does not change the purpose of the militia, nor does the coma between the RKBA and shall not be infringed change anything. Simply the RKBA may not be infringed upon before due process.

In short, an individual can keep arms and bear them in the militia, this shall not be infringed and the militia is there for a reason.

 

[OMDP]

Davet

The Federal government has no authority to make law, regulate or restrict citizens arms.

The US govt does have the authority to make law. It also has the authority to regulate and restrict citizens arms. The main authority is over those convicted of crimes and the insane and a few other groups, all after due process.
But also, what exactly is prevented through the 2A?
The federal govt cannot prevent individuals from getting guns. That does not mean they cannot ban certain guns, as long as they don't raise the price artificially so they are prohibitive then there is not much of a problem.
Basically, what they cannot do is prevent the militia having its source of weapons that individuals buy. If individuals can still buy a selection of guns for a decent price, then the govt is within constitutional law.
The same for bearing arms. An individual has the right to be in the militia, but the US govt can declare how the militia is run. So an individual can be put as cook or something like this, as long as the effectiveness of the militia is not reduced by the federal govt.

The original ten amendments were out right bans on Federal power. The Federal powers are declared in the articles of the constitution and the founding fathers intended no other powers be implied or assumed by the Federal government unless the constitution was amended.

Yes, but that does not mean the US govt is not allowed to make laws that concern guns. That would be like saying that the thrid amendment protects soldiers, houses, owners, war and law, ie, a house exists and the US govt cannot order it to be knocked down because the 3A says house.

 

[hugh damright]

It seems to me that the federal government does not have gun control powers, and that is why federal gun laws refer to the interstate commerce power.

 

[Ieyasu]

The comma after Militia, it changes the meaning of the Second Amendment...

I don't think so: http://guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

If it was written in modern, common lingo, it might go something like: No matter what else happens, we might need to raise a militia some day, so the right of the people to own guns shall not be messed with.

You said it dead on man!

 

[VPLthrneck]

Just wen tback through my bookcase and found this neat little book that I got through the NRA a few years back: The Second Amendment Primer, by Les Adams. It's published by Palladium Press http://www.palladiumpress.com

It's does a good job on explaning wording, meaning, and intent through historical persepctives, Federalist papers, and even the seperate State Constitution conventions prior to the U.S. Constitution Convention. I noticed alot of the wording in these State's Constitutions are worded very closely to the 2A.

Gunsby_Blazen: Don't worry my toes ain't hurt. It just seems alot of poeple (in and out of the military) don't fully understand the purpose of the N/G and what "illegal orders" mean.
That being said, since you're in Obama county--when you going to run against him? At least you understand our rights.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Your answer to "Why did they list it separately if there is no difference between ordnance and arms?" was "There is no need to list the two separately."

You essentially sidestepped my question and gave me a dictionary response.

My response to you is that you've taken me out of context. I merely pointed out that ordnance is not an animal all by itself, but is a subset or a certain class of weapons; all being arms. If the Founding Fathers wished to exclude any subset or class of arms from the protections of the Second Amendment, it would have been so scribed in the amendment. If the Founding Fathers intended to include only certain classes of weapons under the protection of the Second Amendment, they would have listed them specifically; same as the Founding Fathers specifically listed the powers granted to Congress in Article I. The Second Amendment would have been constructed much differently.

My use of a single dictionary is that in those days, it was the only comprehensive dictionary around. (I'm still researching to find if there was a copy of that dictionary in Tom Jefferson's possession. If he or any one of the other Founding Fathers had one, it's been a well kept secret.) Nevertheless, perusing nearly any dictionary contemporary to today, you'll find the same definitions of "arms" and "ordnance" as in [/i]Johnson's[/i]. "Ordnance" is weapons and "weapons" are arms.

One must remember that many cannon were privately owned back then, too, and I can personally vouch for no less than one of my ancestors - many of them whalers - up to and including my great grandfather, William Jenkins Macy (1827-1903), captain of his own whaling ship. I do not believe any of them were charged with any crime for arming their vessels.

On to the commas:

Grammatically, the only necessary comma in the Second Amendment is the one separating the dependent clause from the independent clause. If we approach the amendment in that fashion, we see that we cannot have a well regulated militia if the people are in jeopardy of losing their arms. Without arms in the possession of people, there is no militia. The existence of the militia is dependent upon the existence of armed people; just as for the militia clause to mean anything in the Second Amendment, it is dependent upon the "the right...shall not be infringed" clause. Strip away the dependent "militia" clause in the Second Amendment, and the result would be the same - government may not infringe upon the right.

The Second Amendment doesn't need a reason such as the militia clause to exist for it to provide the protections it does. Government is just as prohibited either way. If the militia clause in the Second Amendment meant something concrete toward it being the only reason that the people should keep and bear arms, it would state it as such. The militia clause wouldn't be a dependent or separate clause and the amendment would read something like this:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia."​

Wouldn't THAT make the anti-gun-rights crowd happy!

So you see, my friends, one comma in the amendment does have a purpose. It separates the advertisement from the sales contract. Once you sign the contract, the advertisement is useless.

"(T)he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the contract.

The "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is nothing more than a sales pitch. It became useless once the amendment was ratified.

Woody

 

[OMDP]

Constitutioncowboy

If the Founding Fathers wished to exclude any subset or class of arms from the protections of the Second Amendment, it would have been so scribed in the amendment.

I think this takes away from the general purpose of the second amendment. It was a citizens army, made up of working people. The 1792 militia act forced people to own weapons and i believe that what they were protecting were arms that were commonly used by citizens at the time. I hardly think cannons were usual.
Not all speak is protected by the 1A, but that does not mean they had to specify. Not all protest is protected, and again they have not specified. The basic rule is that the the govt could not prevent the people joining the militia and arming the militia with weapons that are of the day.

This also conflicts with the govts power to provide of the common defence and general welfare of the people. Presser is an important case because it shows that individuals are not protected in forming their own militias. WHy? Because then the US armed forces might have to cope with an illegitimate army.

The issue of the dictionary to be used i think is a valid point, however i don't think it is that important. Arms generally does mean all different types of arms, but the 2A merely says that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, it does not say the right to keep and bear all types of arms. As long as they can get their hands on arms then there is no problem, ie it prevents the US govt distorting the market, but not preventing them from banning certain types of guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't need a reason such as the militia clause to exist for it to provide the protections it does. Government is just as prohibited either way. If the militia clause in the Second Amendment meant something concrete toward it being the only reason that the people should keep and bear arms, it would state it as such.

I think you are right, it can stand on its own. Basically the right to keep arms is there for a reason, so these arms can be used in the militia if needed. However the first clause changes the amendment slightly in this case by allowing the federal govt to ban certain people after due process, ie they might not actually give their arms to the militia as they cannot be trusted to follow the american way.
The bearing of arms, i think, might make a lot more difference. Bearing arms can mean two things, the first is carrying, the second is using them militarily. The first part of the amendment clarifies that it is the latter it protects (the fact that the supreme court and present day laws also back this up is evidence of this).

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I think this takes away from the general purpose of the second amendment. It was a citizens army, made up of working people. The 1792 militia act forced people to own weapons and i believe that what they were protecting were arms that were commonly used by citizens at the time. I hardly think cannons were usual.

You may, of course, think or not think whatever you choose, but the fact is that in Colonial times the militia's cannon were often owned by the wealthier landowners in the area. It was not unheard of that he who owned the cannon was made the colonel.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Basically the right to keep arms is there for a reason, so these arms can be used in the militia if needed.

That is one reason, but it is not the only reason, Tom. It is Tom, correct? Read chapter 1 Of Blackstone "The absolute rights of individuals".

The bearing of arms, i think, might make a lot more difference. Bearing arms can mean two things, the first is carrying, the second is using them militarily. The first part of the amendment clarifies that it is the latter it protects

Can you articulate what exactly the individual right protected is if the right to bear arms has a military context?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

A Bit Of A Ramble:

The issue of the dictionary to be used i think is a valid point, however i don't think it is that important. Arms generally does mean all different types of arms, but the 2A merely says that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, it does not say the right to keep and bear all types of arms. As long as they can get their hands on arms then there is no problem, ie it prevents the US govt distorting the market, but not preventing them from banning certain types of guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't say individuals have the right to keep and bear anything. It says that government may not infringe upon the right. The right is preexistent to the Constitution, and not granted by it. The amendment need not say all types of arms. "Arms" IS the word that covers all types of arms, including armor. Interpolation only serves to confuse or attempts to alter a specific meaning. The Founding Fathers said "arms" and I think they meant "arms". They didn't say "small," or "except yadda yadda".

The Militia Act of 1792 is not the Constitution nor any amendment thereof.

The lack of commas between bear and keep says something vis-a-vis the OP's query as well. In the light that the Founding Fathers considered the right to include both keep and bear, it tells me that our Founding Fathers intended us to be both armed and ready. Without "keep" in the right, our arms could be required by law to be stored in armories. Without "keep", we couldn't bear our arms as we see fit without permission to access our arms being kept by government. Without "bear", what good would all the arms that we have be if we couldn't carry them for our protection or as a deterrent to tyranny? No, "keep" and "bear" are inseparable.

A deeper look at "bear" shows us that it isn't a matter that an arm must be bearable by one person. (The same will hold true to crew served arms.) "Bear" is defined today as : vt to carry; to endure; to support, to sustain; to conduct(oneself); to produce or bring fourth. (Websters Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus(1993))

In 1755, it was defined as:

1. This is a word used with such latitude, that it is not easily explained.

We say to bear a burden, to bear sorrow or reproach, to bear a name, to bear a grudge, to bear fruit, or to bear children. The word bear is used in very different senses.​

2. To carry as a burden.
3. To convey or carry.
4. To carry as a mark of authority.
5. To carry as a mark of distinction
Etc, Etc..​

Johnson's carries on with a total of 49 definitions and uses of the word "bear", but interestingly, the second definition( #3) seems to say it all. "To convey" would match "to produce or bring fourth" from Webster's of today. To convey or bring fourth is not limited to that which you can carry. I can bear up a cannon behind my truck. Same for any crew served weapon. Though such a crew served weapon might require more than one person to operate it, operation of the weapon is not a "bear" activity, but a "use" activity. I can bring any weapon I wish to bear, but I can't pull the trigger unless it's lawful or just.

So, the lack of a comma between "keep" and "bear" in the amendment(keep and bear listed as separate clauses and separate rights) cements the two into the overarching right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We keep our arms and we bear them in our defense and of our country.

This is one more way to look at the comma between "... free state," and "the right to...": With the "militia" clause and the "right to keep and bear" clause separated in the amendment, "shall not be infringed" is singularly applicable to only "keep and bear", and not applicable to any militia. A militia is under the control of the civil authority; "keep and bear" is not. A militia can be governed. Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be governed.

Woody

 

[ctdonath]

what they were protecting were arms that were commonly used by citizens at the time. I hardly think cannons were usual.
Not all speak is protected by the 1A, but that does not mean they had to specify. Not all protest is protected, and again they have not specified.

The notion is so vile I know not where to begin.

The speech not protected is that which demonstrably harms others without reasonable cause.
The protests (to wit: assembly) not protected is that which demonstrably harms others without reasonable cause.
Likewise,
The USE of arms not protected is that which demonstrably harms others without reasonable cause.

Possession of pen, paper, and dictionary ARE protected - as is ownership of an industrial-scale printing press, kilowatt radio transmitter, and web server.
Possession of a protest sign IS protected - as is assemblage of a thousand (or million) people into a protest group (only "restriction" is making arrangements for reasonable use of public spaces, plus refraining from violence).
Possession of a handgun IS protected - as is ownership of a howitzer, F18, and MOAB.

"Usual" does not enter into the discussion.
That most folks did not show up for militia duty with a cannon did NOT mean that the government could, in any way whatsoever, prevent ownership of cannons.

You GRAVELY miss a core concept:
The Founding Fathers fought a revolutionary war to achieve a Constitution whereby anything not expressly prohibited was allowed - and the government was, directly and indirectly, obligated to protect the exercise, even if unpopular or uncommon, of natural rights.
Your gross error is the presumption that if something were uncommon/unpopular, it could be prohibited - a view which, to put mildly, I and others find horribly offensive and objectionable.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

I have to say that while we have the right to arms, this does not mean we have the right to use them. IT IS A LAST RESORT PROVISION. While I believe that this right should never be infringed, I don’t think people should be in a rush to use them.
Isn’t preparing for such an event as revolution be considered kindling for revolution? We must remember that we have a democratic nation in which we elect representatives to vote in issues on our behalf. We have interest groups (freedom of speech and freedom of assembly) to get our message across to the decision makers. We have to vote and get our message out, and I am not talking about only firearms here but rather all of our convictions. As citizens, we have to partake in our governmental process and work within the rules. Remember, speech is the most powerful weapon. I hope we all have as much faith in our system of government as I do…
While we all have the right to own weapons, we also have the duty to ensure they are never used.

Hostility should always be avoided.

 

[H088]

While we all have the right to own weapons, we also have the duty to ensure they are never used.

Some times they need to be used(WW2), being in a position to take action is not the same as actually following through with it.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

I was talking domestically, not the US Armed Forces taking action against a foreign aggressor.
My entire comment is about one topic........

also, my comment went in conjunction with my earlier posts within this tread.

 

[OMDP]

Aguila blanca

You may, of course, think or not think whatever you choose, but the fact is that in Colonial times the militia's cannon were often owned by the wealthier landowners in the area. It was not unheard of that he who owned the cannon was made the colonel.

This may be so. But now looking at the constitution you have to distinguish between the the powers of the govt to provide for safety and the need for the militia to have arms.
What weapons are allowed and what weapons are not allowed? Nuclear bombs? I would say a definate no, they pose too much of a threat to the citizens of the country against the actually need of the militia for such weapons.
Certainly the courts do not seem to have a problem with the US govt banning certain types of guns, or other weapons. How much of a threat do modern cannons pose to the legitimate govt of the USA?

The nature of the militia has also changed. The militia is no longer there supplement the militia (with the exception of the national guard) as a military force like it was, it serves the purpose of being there if the need arises to take over the US govt, and would more than likely use guerilla techniques.

If the militia does need modern weaponry apart from basic firearms, then you would have to assume that they would be provided for by either the federal govt or the state govts.

It is not easy to get the fine line between safety from the govt and safety from citizens. The founding fathers more than likely left this to be vague so that it could be decided on by the people in their time, because the founders could not imagine a world with our weaponry.

 

[OMDP]

legaleagle

That is one reason, but it is not the only reason, Tom. It is Tom, correct? Read chapter 1 Of Blackstone "The absolute rights of individuals".

Yeah how's it going?, long time no... write!

I think it is the only reason why it was introduced, that does not mean to say it is the only thing it protects. An individual person can have a gun, regardless of the nature of the militia, but the right was given for the specific reason of safeguarding the nation from bad govt.
The ability to be able to use your gun for other purposes is not protected by the keeping clause. It may well be possible to do many things legally.
A man may have the social duty to keep arms, so the militia has them, however this has to be prescribed by law, otherwise it is merely something they can do if they choose.
From the individual point of view, they can merely keep a gun at home.

Most actions that are protected, though, come under the bearing of arms.

The bearing of arms, i think, might make a lot more difference. Bearing arms can mean two things, the first is carrying, the second is using them militarily. The first part of the amendment clarifies that it is the latter it protects

Can you articulate what exactly the individual right protected is if the right to bear arms has a military context?

The easiest way to say it is that an individual has the right to be in the militia. This was made quite clear by the founding fathers and i also believe by Thomas Cooley and Joseph Story.
Just as the keeping of arms is not just the protection of keeping arms, but all those actions which are necessary to the effective keeping of arms.
The bearing of arms can also be considered in such a fashion.

But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Cooley said this. It is something that can be interpreted in a few different ways, but i think that what is important here is he says that a person may learn to handle arms so they are ready for efficient use.
However he does say that this means that people meet for vouluntary discipline of arms. This suggests something organised and more than likely something controlled. It does not mean a hunting trip with the boys, it does not mean carry and conceal. It is merely training of the militia.

 

[OMDP]

Constitutioncowboy

The Second Amendment doesn't say individuals have the right to keep and bear anything. It says that government may not infringe upon the right. The right is preexistent to the Constitution, and not granted by it.

As the theory goes. But here we are dealing with the way the constitution works. It does not matter if there is a preexisting right or not, the fact is the constitution merely prevents the govt from doing something.

The amendment need not say all types of arms. "Arms" IS the word that covers all types of arms, including armor. Interpolation only serves to confuse or attempts to alter a specific meaning. The Founding Fathers said "arms" and I think they meant "arms". They didn't say "small," or "except yadda yadda".

Yes they said arms, and they probably meant all arms. However, they wrote freedom of speech, does that mean an individual is free to say everything they want without reproach? No it does not.
The problem is that each part of the constitution is equal, what happens when two parts clash? Also a constitution is not designed to implode on itself. The bearing of arms cannot be for all individuals, because otherwise that would mean people would have their own militias, meaning a threat to the legitimate govt of the USA.
At what point does the security of the constitution, legitimate govt and the people itself get over taken by the keeping of all arms? The logical example here as i have used before is nuclear weapons.

The Militia Act of 1792 is not the Constitution nor any amendment thereof.

No, of course it is not. But then the constitution does not live in a vacuum of history. What happened before and immediatly afterwards have a bearing on how we view the second amendment.
What were the founders thinking when they passed this? Well we can see that they believed that individuals should be in the militia and forced to be in the militia, we can also see this from the debates in congress. They were asked to arm themselves with:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed,

This seems to suggest that the founders believed these weapons to be the mainstay of the militia at the time. But they would also realise that in the future the terminology might change. If they write rifle only, would it be possible for the US govt in 500 years time to ban all weapons because there was no such thing as a rifle. The vagueness in the term "arms" is logical. However i cannot see that it can protect all arms.

The lack of commas between bear and keep says something vis-a-vis the OP's query as well. In the light that the Founding Fathers considered the right to include both keep and bear, it tells me that our Founding Fathers intended us to be both armed and ready. Without "keep" in the right, our arms could be required by law to be stored in armories. Without "keep", we couldn't bear our arms as we see fit without permission to access our arms being kept by government. Without "bear", what good would all the arms that we have be if we couldn't carry them for our protection or as a deterrent to tyranny? No, "keep" and "bear" are inseparable.

Except the fact that three state cnstitutions prior to 1791 had bear arms clauses without keeping clauses. Also the fact that only bearing arms seems to have been discussed in the debated in congress. That is not to say i disagree. I do believe that both are important and work well together as you have described.

A deeper look at "bear" shows us that it isn't a matter that an arm must be bearable by one person. (The same will hold true to crew served arms.) "Bear" is defined today as : vt to carry; to endure; to support, to sustain; to conduct(oneself); to produce or bring fourth. (Websters Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus(1993))

I'm not sure this is relevant. A fighter jet with nuclear missiles is quite easily bearable by one person. Many modern pieces of artillary are not. Should the modern govt be using this as the basis for any argument? They could claim that a machine gun requires two people, considering some of the arguments they have used in the past, especially with the interstate commerce clause.

In 1755, it was defined as:

In Emerson, and being used by others, they claim that bear means to carry. Ie, that carry and conceal is protected. However there is nothing that backs their claim up, just because it could mean that, does not mean it does. The fact that bear arms is used as a synonym for carrying out military service, suggests this is what it means. This is how the founders used it.

So, the lack of a comma between "keep" and "bear" in the amendment(keep and bear listed as separate clauses and separate rights) cements the two into the overarching right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We keep our arms and we bear them in our defense and of our country.

I also believe that from a grammatical point of view that it makes no difference. The English language is not the German language. We can use or not use commas and it will not really make a difference.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

With or without the comma the second part is relevant to the first. There is no way to read this in any other way, regardless of the comma being there or not.

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

Again, it is the same, the RKBA shall not be infringed. The nearest you can get to a difference is that what shall not be infringed is the whole amendment up to this point, rather than just the RKBA, but then there is nothing to be infringed before this point.

 

[OMDP]

Ctdonath

The notion is so vile I know not where to begin.

The speech not protected is that which demonstrably harms others without reasonable cause.

Yes. Now compare this to the second amendment. You have weapons inthe USA which would couse harm to others without reasonable cause. Nuclear weapons for example. Keep them in your room and you will kill or harm others with the radiation.
But again, the point that say a person in a one bedroomed flat in a big city with a howitzer. How are they going to practice using it?
You have to remember that the 2A is the ultimate check and balance, it is also the one that could be abused the most.
You do not want a legitimate govt being taken over by a minority of people. Now, you have a group of people which claim to be a militia, they store arms, they have enough arms to form a decent sized army. They are obviously a threat to the security of the USA and a legitimate govt. At what point does the power of the federal govt kick in to prevent their constitution being destroyed by people who are not fighting on behalf of the militia?

Possession of a protest sign IS protected - as is assemblage of a thousand (or million) people into a protest group (only "restriction" is making arrangements for reasonable use of public spaces, plus refraining from violence).

Like burning the US flag? for example.

"Usual" does not enter into the discussion.
That most folks did not show up for militia duty with a cannon did NOT mean that the government could, in any way whatsoever, prevent ownership of cannons.

I am not sure this is the point. There is an obvious difference between the militia today and 200 years ago. It does play a part. What did the founders want? This leads me back to the argument i have made before, that the constitution should not protect things that will lead to its destruction.

You GRAVELY miss a core concept:
The Founding Fathers fought a revolutionary war to achieve a Constitution whereby anything not expressly prohibited was allowed - and the government was, directly and indirectly, obligated to protect the exercise, even if unpopular or uncommon, of natural rights.
Your gross error is the presumption that if something were uncommon/unpopular, it could be prohibited - a view which, to put mildly, I and others find horribly offensive and objectionable.

This is not my point. However the question is not what is prohibited is allowed, it is what is allowed to be prohibited by the US govt.
I am not saying that just because a cannon might have been unpopular or uncommon it could be banned.
I believe that the second amendment does not protect all weapons. An individual on a low wage, for example, can buy a gun with the money he earns. The US govt is not allowed to ban many guns so that they change the market, leading to a rise in the price of a gun and preventing many people buying guns.
Now, many individuals would be unable to afford the price of a howitzer for example. The US govt is under no obligation to not ban many different types of this weapon, because they cannot put the price of this weapon out of the reach of many people, because it already is.
Now you could claim that it is protected because it meets the requirement of arms. However i am saying that the requirement is on the US govt to not ban all arms, but certainly they are under no obligation to allow individuals to buy all arms. Again the case of nuclear weapons comes up.

Surely the US govt is allowed to ban faulty weapons. The Miller case suggested that he weapon in question was not protected. It suggests that not all arms are protected, just that arms as a singular term is protected, individuals have to be able to get their hands on arms. Though it is not as simple as this, this is a general way of looking at this.

 

[OMDP]

Gunsby Blazen

I have to say that while we have the right to arms, this does not mean we have the right to use them. IT IS A LAST RESORT PROVISION. While I believe that this right should never be infringed, I don’t think people should be in a rush to use them.

This depends. I think the use of them has a requirement that the militia organises. From a merely military operations point of view it is so, a state appointed officer has to give the orders, otherwise you could just get a group of people taking over the country and setting up a dictatorship. Not what is wanted.
From the point of view of practice, it seems to be more, individuals are allowed to practice, but this does not mean just shooting a gun, but also military tactics and the like.
The problem here is the unorganised militia is unorganised. You could argue either way that going to a range is protected or not.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

I would say going out to the range is just fun....
hahaha

I see your point, but I have been thinking on this for the past few days and I came to the conclusion there are a few people around that at least have the perception that this WILL happen one day. We really don't need renegades on the loose trying to spark problems, causing panic, or breaking the law.
You know there are groups of people out in the boondocks who are training for such a case and hoping for the opportunity to strike down our government. These militia have a name, domestic terrorists. And, these are the bad guys.
We need to preserve our system and our government because lets face it, its pretty darn good. To get your message across, we need to work within the system and not be overly drastic.
I know that is not what you mean, OMDP, but continuous paramilitary training could result in a misunderstanding. We need to have more faith in our government.