Essey "On the Militia Argument"

[Six &Twenty]

“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.” (1)
 

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is stridently debated in this Nation. There are two divergent camps, each trying to fit a camel through the eye of a needle, with arguments that basically break down to correctly diagramming a sentence, and who sits The Court.

Full Story HERE:

[ReeferMac]

I for one firmly believe the purpose and scope of the 2nd amendment is to act as a leash on government, and ensuring the populace has the means, and capability, to defend their freedom against a government who's grown too big for it's britches!

If one knows even a smattering of history, then you know it ain't about deer rifles, and if you're paying attention to the news today, you know it's as appropriate as ever!

[ehull20000]

The essay is ill informed.  

United States v Cruikshank was decided in 1875.  

Presser v Illinois was decided in 1886.

 

I understand neither is viewed as a relevant decision of the court, but the ideas in those cases I believe are the earliest on what the 2nd Amendment means.  They clearly show that the intent of the framers was not clear.  

 

Presser v Illinois does address who the militia is and why citizens should have weapons of war.  It is a decision best read twice before being employed in a debate of your own.  

Overall I enjoyed the essay and I thank the OP for sharing it.