Second Amendment, Militia, (comma) vs Militia

[Orange_Magnum]

OMDP, the logical consequence to "shall not be infringed" applies to the fire arms as well. Because, if the people can legally be part of a militia but the fire arms are being controlled by the very same authority the militia is set to deter from using tyrani, what does the milita, we, have? Nothing. A militia is only fully functional when the people of the militia, we, have access to the fire arms, that is, our own fire arms. And the politicians shall have no say on those fire arms.

OMDP, the 2nd is there to protect the American people from tyrani from it's own authorities or the English king. Do you have an interest in removing that safety? Wouldn't it be so much easier for you to move to North Korea if so? I bet you can't own and carry fire arms there...

 

[JeepGeeek]

Quote:
If you can find any grant of power in the Constitution to Congress for it to establish any federal police force, please show it to me.


"Such forces as are prudent" I can look up the wording if you like.

Same way they made the Air Force. Planes didn't exist when the Constituition was drafted. Are we to do away with our air power now?

 

[basicblur]

...the logical consequence to "shall not be infringed" applies to the fire arms as well. Because, if the people can legally be part of a militia but the fire arms are being controlled by the very same authority the militia is set to deter from using tyrani, what does the milita, we, have? Nothing.

Which is just another (or part of) the reason when I simply read the 2nd (not digging into historical backgrounds/writings/etc) I take it to mean the 2nd establishes a clear distinction between the Militia and the people, NOT the Militia is the people.

 

[basicblur]

Considering most americans don't seem to understand it, and considering the supreme court is considering a case where both sides don't seem to understand it, could be simpler.

I dunno ‘bout that…most Americans are idiots (there, I said it), and most have no idea what’s going on around them.
AFA both sides seeming not to understand it, I kinda doubt that. I think at least one side understands it (it means what it says), and the other side probably does also, but they’re trying to squeeze something out of it that’s not there.
Only a lawyer would try to convince you it doesn’t mean what it says…

 

[Orange_Magnum]

OMDP, helping you to clarify your stand point, could you please answer this simple question:

Does it help America and the Americans to have an Obama-approved militia?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So how does the US govt justify the FBI?

The FBI does an important service investigating crime. Its powers are concomitant with Article II, Section 3, in that the FBI works for the President to aid him in taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. The FBI is not supposed to enforce the law, just investigate violations of the law. Any enforcement the FBI does is unconstitutional. Enforcement is up to Congress to call forth the militia to that end, and then the President shall command the militia to enforce the law.

Why has the Supreme Court not done away with the FBI?

As far as I know, no one has challenged the existence of the FBI, or any of its usurpations of power. The Court can't simply look at something such as this. It only has appellate jurisdiction in such matters.

The United States may not enter into any treaty that would run afoul of the Constitution. Treaties must be made under the authority of the United States. The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, therefore, the Union has no authority to enter into any such treaty.

Which is then subject to your interpretation of the 2A, that it protects arms, rather than individuals to keep arms.

The Second Amendment forbids government to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. Banning an arm infringes my right to keep and bear it. It doesn't protect arms at all, but my right to them what ever they may be. If government could forbid me to keep and bear a certain arm, it could do the same thing if there were only one arm in existence. Sorry, no can do!

Quite the opposite. As i have said numerous times, the basic premise of a constitution is that it should be(not?) implode. It should not allow people to be able to destroy it and destory the legitimacy.

It isn't about the state, or government, but about the people in this country. If the government gets out of hand, oppressive, tyrannical, or too self important, then yes, any constitution CREATED AND RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE should have the means in it for the people - at a minimum - to amend it as in Article V, or overthrow it with the arms secured in the hands of the people as provided by the Second Amendment. We created the Union, we can take it out - and make a better one in its stead. The first sign that a government is out of hand, oppressive, leaning toward tyranny, and too self-important is when it starts to disarm the people.

Well you are going to have to argue that with Hamilton, author of the federalist papers. You are also going to have to argue that with the SUpreme Court which upholds these things.

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

Why argue with a man with whom I concur? You've taken two paragraphs out of context and misrepresented what he said! The last two paragraphs in that document show that Hamilton concluded that the term general meant that it should be universal across the Union and not local. He concluded in the last paragraph that one would have to make the supposition that the term "general welfare" meant some sort of power for Congress to do what ever it saw fit to do for the general welfare. He said that such a power to appropriate money with such excessive latitude in explicit terms would not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution. Otherwise, the powers enumerated by which Congress may provide for the common defense are just as meaningless in their specificity as the enumerated powers Congress has to provide for the general welfare would be if Congress had an overarching power to "provide for the general welfare" you seem to see in Clause 1, of Section 8, of Article I.

For what you intone to be true, all Section 8 would need to say is:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."​

Clauses 2 through 17 would not be needed; clause 18 being incorporated. Here is what Hamilton concluded :

... The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

However, the ability to regulate commerce is important, ie, faulty guns should not be sold.

Why not? Let the free market and suing the pants off the manufacturer put such arms manufacturers out of business. It works against crappy autos, ineffective drugs, and slipshod doctors! Why should arms manufacturers be treated any differently?

I also don't see much of a dramtic change in the make up of the court in quite a while for there to have been a bias against the 2A, in fact i would assume that all would want to put their stamp on this amendment.

Wow.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[H088]

lol, OMDP you keep arguing a stance which you have no base. Who is going to decide what arm is "legal"? If people like the Brady bunch had there way nothing but a single shot musket would be legal. Is that acceptable?

Clarify your views instead of repeating a talking point.

->

Anyone find it funny that OMDP is from the UK but arguing a talking point which effects Americans?

He really has no ground to tell Americans what the US constitution "should be".

And for the last time, it clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

IE no banning of guns to citizens.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

I have seen various arguments on here that argue that specific arms can be banned as the Second does not specifically mention which arms are allowed. It is my understanding that it is meant to be general. This leads me to the understanding that all specific arms should not be banned. By not being specific, the Second restricts the government from banning any one type. Perhaps being general is the genius of the text. But, it also makes it difficult to interpret….

About nukes, I don’t think that it would be a good idea for people to own them. It is such a dangerous weapon that governments are unsure if they should have that power. It is such an awesome power that at times I am not sure if it is wise for it to be in human hands. But, it does help maintain peace throughout the world. And that is a good thing.

I am just glad that OUR government has them......

 

[yokel]

The one would assume that the US won Vietnam and the soviets won Afganistan.

Everyone knows that the NVA and the Muslim rebels, known collectively as the mujahideen, were prepared when a situation demanded more firepower than small arms could deliver.

 

[ranger335v]

"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 infringe."

Dragging out arguments over what is meant by "well regulated", "Militia" and maintaining "the security of a free State" are red herrings to obscure and confuse the issue.

Well "regulated" at the time meant men would come with their own personal arms as specificed by regulations to serve in a civil guard. It could have included cannon, or machine guns, but that was not expected of the members of a largely informal milita of the period, nor since.

"Militia", at the time, was considered to include all men of serviceable age and in good health. Meaning such service was understood as be a common duty of all patriotic men. (Perhaps it still does?) But, for sure, they knew the difference between the army and militia and they did not make constitutational rules to protect the rights of those in the formal military service.

"(T)he security of a free state" means it is not just the responsibility of the military to protect us, we all share that duty. Anti-gun (anti freedom) "liberals" not withstanding, our forefathers never expected to field and maintain a large enough professonal army to absolve the common MAN of the duty and means to protect himself, his family, his freedom and his nation from attack from any threat. They understood that corageous MEN would require the means to make that defense possible and sought to secure that means against the power of an over bearing government. It still takes MEN, in the classic sense, even if some of them are female today, to insure the freedom of liberals to stand on every street corner and before every classroom to chant whines. And the founders knew that too.

Only lunatics could conceive of the argument that some of them promote, that the founders only meant to guarantee for itself the privilige of arming it's armed forces and not to insure the government respect the right of an individual citizen to provide for his own defense. But, they propose we assume the fonders injected the Second as a government right for protecting itself in a list of amendments otherwise specified for individuals.

I ask, is their position rational?

 

[Ieyasu]

Dragging out arguments over what is meant by "well regulated", "Militia" and maintaining "the security of a free State" are red herrings to obscure and confuse the issue.

Well "regulated" at the time meant men would come with their own personal arms as specificed by regulations to serve in a civil guard.

Really?

Got any quotes contemporaneous to the Founding period that jives with the above?

The following quotes from the Founding period (and prior) suggest a different meaning:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

I don't think the following quote is referring to sea-horses showing-up with personal arms:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops.
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

 

[Ieyasu]

Anyone find it funny that OMDP is from the UK but arguing a talking point which effects Americans?

I don't.

He really has no ground to tell Americans what the US constitution "should be."

He's merely giving his opinion as are other posters. Do you think this forum should be restricted to U.S. citizens? (Rhetorical question)

lol, OMDP you keep arguing a stance which you have no base. Who is going to decide what arm is "legal"?

Who is going to decide what searches are "unreasonable?" (Again, rhetorical question)

 

[hugh damright]

Only lunatics could conceive of the argument that some of them promote, that the founders only meant to guarantee for itself the privilige of arming it's armed forces and not to insure the government respect the right of an individual citizen to provide for his own defense. But, they propose we assume the fonders injected the Second as a government right for protecting itself in a list of amendments otherwise specified for individuals.

I ask, is their position rational?

I think it is rational up to a point ... I don't see how the USBOR is specified for individuals ... when Madison proposed the USBOR he said that one of the things a BOR does is to declare fundamental maxims of government ... and one of these fundamental maxims is that a standing army is a danger to liberty, that the proper defense of a free State is militia composed of the people of that State, and that the military power must always be subordinate to the civil power.

The Second Amendment does not regard personal defense, it regards collective defense. But where their position becomes irrational is when they claim that the militia is a select group and separate from the people. The whole point of militia is that it is inseparable from the people.

I think it comes down to this: who has a right to rise up and take over Virginia? Is it the National Guard? That seems to be the vision most people have of the US, but I think the intent of the Second Amendment was that the people who have a right to rise up and take over Virginia are the body of Virginians. In a free State the sovereignty resides in the body of citizens, not in the State Legislature or National Guard or any other select group.

 

[Orange_Magnum]

The soul of America springs from the people who live in America. It's the people of America who need a defense, not it's politicians. The greatness of America springs from the people who live in America. The politicians are only dragging America down. It's ironic that they, the politicians, generally considered imbecilles by the people, should have a say over the people. The Constitution alone makes sure America runs smoothy. Politicians repeatedly screw up. Lessen the taxes and in that way remove power from the politicians. Vote McCain for lower taxes.

 

[basicblur]

But where their position becomes irrational is when they claim that the militia is a select group and separate from the people. The whole point of militia is that it is inseparable from the people.

“Irrational” though I may be, I take exception to that remark!

As stated earlier, when I simply read the 2nd (no background references, etc) I take it to mean militia (particularly “well-regulated”) and people are separate. After all…we’re not simply talking militia, we’re talking “well regulated” militia…

So

If one believes as I that the purpose of the 2nd is the people have a means to overthrow a government that has gotten tyrannical/out of control, is that going to be accomplished by a militia, especially a “well-regulated” one?
Is there a difference between a militia (which may be the people) and a “well-regulated militia” (which may be an instrument of the government)?

Anywho…I smell a poll coming on?
Been thinking ‘bout posting one to see how many think the “well regulated militia” and “the people” are the same or separate, simply by reading the 2nd-no background references etc.

 

[Ieyasu]

As stated earlier, when I simply read the 2nd (no background references, etc)

Maybe that's part of the problem.

I take it to mean militia (particularly “well-regulated”) and people are separate

They are but... the militia is drawn from the people.

If one believes as I that the purpose of the 2nd is the people have a means to overthrow a government that has gotten tyrannical/out of control, is that going to be accomplished by a militia, especially a “well-regulated” one?

James Madison thought so (Federalist #46):

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Madison is expressing the idea that the citizens' right to arms, and protection against tyranny, is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.

Edited to add:
By the way, when I read the 2A without historical references, I take it to mean that it is the well-regulated militia (from which the people are drawn) that was one means of ensuring a "free state."

 

[H088]

Its better to have all Americans get arms/combat training but remain unaffiliated from any specific group. Once you have people in groups with one leader, one person can cause allot of damage.

 

[iiranger]

the uneducated, "legally educated"...

The preceeding reflects the opinions of the legally uneducated. Many of the founding fathers were lawyers.

Bottom line, the "law business" particularly the judges are there to adapt things to changes in times. At one time unions were totally illegal. But then a judge decided otherwise... Abe Lincoln, lawyer, suspended "writ of habeus corpus" (bring the body before the court), 'cause the southerners could have so fouled up the legal system when rebels were arrested. [b). There was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting cesession. Had the southerners had the good sense and self control to NOT fire on Fort Sumner... The legal battles would have dragged on for decades, but slavery was dieing anyway, bad economics. Lincoln was "putting down" a rebellion and protecting the rights of honest citizens to live peaceably (ha, ha)... burning down their homes to save them... like Nam]

As has been pointed out many, many times... there were no computers (or typewriters) when the First Amendment was written. Yet, they have little trouble finding protection for "expression" whatever the technology.

The Second is the Teeth in the Constitution. By the way, the Constitution was never ratified until the Bill of Rights had been added. It is not "to" the Constitution, but rather "of" the Constitution. It was ratified WITH the bill of rights.

Yes, this is "word games" and "splitting hairs."

While the "injuns" and other bad guys were a problem when the Constitution was writ and you needed "self defense"... Ghee, I think the District of Columbia still has the highest crime rate in the country even when Congress is not in session... but you have the police to defend you (ha, ha. Life member, founding member of LEAA...)

The argument needs to turn on the "need" and "right" (GOD GIVEN right) to self defense. This is what the constitution enshrined. The Congress can amend with 2/3's I think. No convention needed.

The NRA is a money hungry lobby group. They are over paid to do what they do. Do it well, but when the tidal wave comes... Brady One, last???

I suspect (I am a paralegal at present with law school ambitions), the court will narrowly rule. Prohibition, while loved by the fools who think the government can do everything for you--when do the cops show up? AFTER the crime!!!, prohibition is "too much" for our land as yet. But Obama and his kind, liberals, want to leave us all as "wolf bait" for the bad guys... Bad guys who are only misguided and with 30 or 40 years of counseling by liberal "shrinks"

Let see, I think it was Jane Fonda that met reporters with a pistol in hand when her father went to the hospital and they came calling late at night for a comment. Then there was that supreme court justice with a handgun...

Question is how much "rights" can we have for "everyone." The rich will always have firearms and about anything else they want and can buy. Happieness? And if your neighbor wants to kill you because of wrongs sufferred by his/her grandfather, or the aliens told him/her to... You should throw your arms around them and not defend yourself... [In Kung Fu, there is a style "Drunken Monkey" that works this way--Chinese have had this kind of problems for centuries]... But use a gun??? No, there are courts, where clowns like this will appear by remote or in chains... to be dealt with fairly...

The argument needs to turn on the God Given right of self defense with best options possible. A bazooka is a little much. A small .38... Even a woman can hang one between her chest projections. (ha, ha).

 

[hugh damright]

By the way, the Constitution was never ratified until the Bill of Rights had been added.

The US Constitution was ratified without a BOR, and then the USBOR was ratified by the State Legislatures.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"Such forces as are prudent" I can look up the wording if you like.

Please do. Please specify the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution where you find it as well.

Woody

 

[Ieyasu]

iiranger wrote:

At one time unions were totally illegal. But then a judge decided otherwise...

Got a cite?

 

[Nolo]

The comma after Militia, it changes the meaning of the Second Amendment, but does it change what it means for people, really?? The people still have the right to arm themselves. At least with my understanding.

The Founders knew about as much about Modern English as the antis think they knew about machine guns: that is to say, they didn't follow the rules we now follow in accordance to grammar. "Man," some might ask, "I sure wish the Founders were alive to tell us what they meant." Well, you're in luck. See, they thought of that. Their solution is a document called the Federalist Papers, and it explains in great detail exactly what they meant when they wrote the Constitution. Guess what? It's an individual right. But, don't take my word, go read them!
By the way, the Founders (Jefferson in particular) were grammar gods compared to Andrew Jackson. Ever read any of his stuff? I did once. He misspells things twice two different ways in the same paragraph, just for a taste. It's almost hard to read...
While you are correct in saying that the comma is important (that's why we have grammar rules, and I'm more of a grammar Nazi than most everyone I know), one has to compensate for the fact that the Founders didn't follow our rules. So the anti argument about the comma is moot.

 

[OMDP]

Orange Magnum

OMDP, the logical consequence to "shall not be infringed" applies to the fire arms as well. Because, if the people can legally be part of a militia but the fire arms are being controlled by the very same authority the militia is set to deter from using tyrani, what does the milita, we, have? Nothing. A militia is only fully functional when the people of the militia, we, have access to the fire arms, that is, our own fire arms. And the politicians shall have no say on those fire arms.

The point is that the federal govt is not prevented from banning arms up to a certain point. They cannot effect the market, ie banning arms to force the price up preventing people being able to buy them.
On the other hand the US govt and constitution cannot allow itself open to illegitimate attack. It is a balance, get it wrong either way and you can have a dictator.

OMDP, the 2nd is there to protect the American people from tyrani from it's own authorities or the English king. Do you have an interest in removing that safety? Wouldn't it be so much easier for you to move to North Korea if so? I bet you can't own and carry fire arms there...

If US citizens were able to trade in and own nuclear material freely without any licensing from the US govt, do you think that the legitimate govt of the US would stand a hope in hells chance of surviving. Imagine if the 9/11 plotters had been able to get their hands on nuclear material in the US.

 

[OMDP]

Ornage Magnum

OMDP, helping you to clarify your stand point, could you please answer this simple question:

Does it help America and the Americans to have an Obama-approved militia?

I don't know what you mean by this.
The US govt can choose to support the militia, or it can choose not to. It can choose to arm the militia, it can choose to disarm the militia (of the arms it supplied).
Because this is possible the 2A was written. A militia approved by a president is better funded and armed than one opposed by a president.

 

[OMDP]

ConstitutionalCowboy

The FBI does an important service investigating crime. Its powers are concomitant with Article II, Section 3, in that the FBI works for the President to aid him in taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. The FBI is not supposed to enforce the law, just investigate violations of the law. Any enforcement the FBI does is unconstitutional. Enforcement is up to Congress to call forth the militia to that end, and then the President shall command the militia to enforce the law.

The president is the executive and has the executive powers of the US govt.
If he can check to see whether the laws are being carried out or not, but not act on this, then what would the point be?
Surely the system of checks and balances allow the president to do this for a reason.
What happens when state law enforcement bodies cannot provide for the safety of the USA as a whole? Is it the job of the militia to do this?
(Though i do not doubt it would be quite easy to move the FBI over to the militia and have it permanently in the power of the president).

As far as I know, no one has challenged the existence of the FBI, or any of its usurpations of power. The Court can't simply look at something such as this. It only has appellate jurisdiction in such matters.

Surely being arrested by the FBI could be considered reasonable grounds to claim the arrest was illegal. But no one has done this.

The Second Amendment forbids government to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. Banning an arm infringes my right to keep and bear it.

No it doesn't. You can still keep and bear arms if one gun is banned.

It doesn't protect arms at all, but my right to them what ever they may be.

Your right to keep and bear arms is protected, your right to keep and bear any arms you choose does not exist.
Bearing arms is limited to the militia. Keeping arms can be considered to be limited to arms that can serve a purpose in the militia, depending on how you view Miller, but the fact is, what is protected is the militia through individuals having arms. Shall not be infringed does not mean you cannot be prevented from having your right infringed upon after due process.
The right to religion still applies in prison, the RKBA does not apply after prison. There is a difference here, and that difference is the reason for the 2A, to protect the 2A. Now, as long as there is a good enough market for arms, then the govt is not acting unconstitutionally in banning certain types of arms.

If government could forbid me to keep and bear a certain arm, it could do the same thing if there were only one arm in existence. Sorry, no can do!

No, it could not. As i have said, it cannot change the market to force up the price of weapons to a prohibitive level for example. It can ban certain types of arms, but arms have to be available for the normal citizens to be able to buy. Ie, that is more than one type of weapon.

It isn't about the state, or government, but about the people in this country. If the government gets out of hand, oppressive, tyrannical, or too self important, then yes, any constitution CREATED AND RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE should have the means in it for the people - at a minimum - to amend it as in Article V, or overthrow it with the arms secured in the hands of the people as provided by the Second Amendment. We created the Union, we can take it out - and make a better one in its stead. The first sign that a government is out of hand, oppressive, leaning toward tyranny, and too self-important is when it starts to disarm the people.

Yes, but also a legitimate govt should not be taken down by an illegitimate force. That is why bearing arms outside of the militia is NOT protected. That is why certain types of arms can be banned.

Clauses 2 through 17 would not be needed; clause 18 being incorporated. Here is what Hamilton concluded :

Not at all. The General Welfare and Common Defence part do not grant total power to carry these out without regard to what is written below. Hamilton is saying that "the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money", ie the power to raise taxes for this purpose exist within article 1 section 8.

Now look at the other parts of the section.
To provide for organising, arming and disciplining the militia.
This gave congress the power to arm and disarm. Now, if an individual were called up into service it could be assumed the feds could disarm this person. Hence the 2A.
This section deals with arms. The power to disarm exists. Consider that the feds can decide who is in the militia, ie, most americans are in the unorganised militia.
Without the 2A, individuals could have been disarmed. Now they cannot before due process. But there is a difference between disarming and reducing what guns they can and cannot buy.
The commerce clause deals with the sale of arms. The feds can ban gun from being bought, sold and manufactured if they have anything to do with interstate commerce.
Neither of these go against the 2A, however the 2A exists because of these.

Why not? Let the free market and suing the pants off the manufacturer put such arms manufacturers out of business. It works against crappy autos, ineffective drugs, and slipshod doctors! Why should arms manufacturers be treated any differently?

There are many cases when they are not treated differently. The free market does not reign supreme in the US, anti-competative laws and the like exist.