2nd amendment musings.
 

A current campaign ad has me wondering about implications that the 2nd is an authorization for armed insurrection. Is it possible to endorse the 2nd without endorsing armed rebellion as it's justification?

I feel it's a perversion of the amendment to claim it's purpose is armed insurrection against a duly constituted government. My two centavos.

"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...s_Constitution

How does that apply to the present with established Federal armed forces?

A basic web search on modern relevance yields a lot of good food for thought, fwiw.

This seems as good a backgrounder as anything I've found, if not better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seco...s_Constitution

If you were to read James Madison's Notes on the debates of the Constitution you would realize that the 2nd applies to the formation of a common militia. Each of the 13 colonies had their own militia but they used different weapons of differing calibers, etc. Hence the "well regulated". Mad Uncle Wayne is so full of it , along with the Supremes that it is almost laughable. It is rather unfortunate that no one down here speaks English.

Think the debate on the 2nd has more to do with the selling of guns then fighting the government?

The arms industry ran overtime last year in the hopes of a bonanza after the election. Now are seriously over stocked!


Barney

Oh, I think we can read just fine. We can also think.

Your argument pre-supposes that, in the early days of our country, someone who never used a firearm for their own purposes would simply show up and be prepared to use a firearm in armed conflict. You think Madison believed that militia folks would just show up when called and magically know how to use a gun? Since militia members were expected to bring their own firearms when called, do you think that they were expected to never use them unless the militia was activated? That's BS. They were expected to be proficient in the use of firearms, and were not provided with any formal training on how to use them, so learning how to use them was done as part of their day to day existence.

The Militia Act of 1792 was really the first attempt to "well - regulate" the militia. It codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able- bodied citizens. It also required each militiaman to supply his own arms, and the law didn't provide any funding. So, I'm not sure how "well - regulated" the militias were as a practical matter.

The second comes from the British constitution and exists for three reasons: 1) forming a militia to aid the sovereign in defense of the realm, 2) self defense and 3) overthrowing a tyrant.

It's the third point that concerns me as per the opening post. Up to the present, our system has managed to reign in excessive executive authority without the torches and pitchforks of popular revolt. Armed rebellion in any form has never fared well with this Republic.