Exactly what does it mean for a militia to be "well regulated"?

[Procrustes Stretched]

but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is a powerful statement in a time when citizens did not rely and depend on the types of law enforcement we have in modern societies. You may even call the old view antiquated.

If the right was to protect oneself because of how society functioned back ages ago -- and the well regulated militia is now taken to mean different things as the retired sgt says, we should be able to say there is no need of this right anymore. as a society we should be able to change the US Constitution :

Stevens: "His solution is to amend the text of the Second Amendment so that it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”" -- Former Justice Stevens Change 2nd Amendment to Improve Constitution - Breitbart

You CAN change the Constitution. That is what the Amendment process is for. If you believe the 2nd is no longer a good amendment then create a new amendment get it through Congress and then get 37 States to agree. We keep telling you to do tha, you keep making shit up about how you wish it would change.

"We keep telling you..." who is 'we' and who is 'you'?

you suffering a mental illness?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

mostly crazy pro gun and anti gun folks posting shit that carries no weight in serious argument

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've been trying to figure this out for months now. Does the "well regulated" specification refer to having military supplies, an organized chain of command with government control, or something else? Does the militia just refer to the old colonial militia system, their state defense force successors, all of the inactive components of the armed forces together, the unorganized militia the Selective Service draws from, or another group or combination of groups?

'“Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See,e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades … and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”)[.]' DC v. Heller (2008).

Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller might one day become the law of the land, as we saw in Lawrence, for example. But current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right to self-defense is not contingent upon militia service:

“[T]he Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms [...] it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” ibid

 

[Abatis]

Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller might one day become the law of the land, . . .

What reversal in foundational rights theory do you see happening in the SCOTUS that would permit Stevens' taffy-pulling to become the "law of the land"?

You seem to be arguing that Stevens' dissent in Heller deserves a similar recognition that Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v Ullman received. I find it amusing that Stevens embraces penumbral rights theory and Harlan's dissent and then ignores / dismisses the right to keep and bear arms as being a link in the "rational continuum" of individual liberty protected by the Constitution.

As Justice O'Connor said in Planned Parenthood v Casey:

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
​

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)​

Can a right like privacy, that is found to exist in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (including the right to arms) be more respected, more vital and more secure than the right to arms that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

 

[natstew]

"As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]

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."

My plain-text reading of this is the amendment's intent was to ensure states could resist a tyrannical federal government.

Since all laws or constitutional rights giving the people a right to keep and bear arms is so that the government can't arrest them for doing so (criminals will do whatever they want regardless of laws so it's not for them,) giving your citizens the right to own weapons had to have been about ensuring they and their states remain free for any unjust government that came to be. Of course, back when it was written (1791) everyone's armaments were pretty much equal. Now of course the government has technology and weapons civilians do not making the citizens being armed or not moot. So the original intent has gone the way of the dodo.

A "well-regulated militia" would have been a state's national guard like entity, not a federal government's regular military. And presumedly in the worst case scenario, this state military would be going up against the federal military if a tyrannical government came to be.

Unfortunately, now the state government is indistinguishable from the federal government insofar as there being any appreciable difference between them becomming tyrannical.

Delta, I agree with you, but would like to clarify something. The Second Amendment puts the power of the Constitution behind a right that already exists.

The way I read the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms already existed before the Amendment was written, " 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." If it "shall not be infringed, it had to exist prior to the Amendment being written.

 

[Abatis]

Hello??

Where did all the experts go?