Where's the well regulated militia?

[dnsmith35]

Ah, but the second does mention the well regulated militia and the security of the state. So where does that come into the equation? This woman and her son do not fall under those categories.

IF the government agrees to grant us our "inalienable" rights they have a duty to protect us from ourselves as well. Or at least protect the members of our society that cannot consent, i.e. those under 18.

There is nothing in the second amendment which says you have to be an official member of a militia. The intent of the militia at the time was to simply call upon the citizenry in a time of need, thus the citizens needed to be armed. As I said, the change in conditions does not change the fact that the Consitution has not changed.

There is no way to protect us from ourselves. That is what people seem to have difficulty understanding. You are always in harm's way from the moment of conception and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The only way you can be safe from others is to never come in contact with others. So your choice is to be unsafe and free or unsafe and not free. Which do you prefer?

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:

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

There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

Please note that the US Code does not distinguish between organized and unorganized.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ah, but the second does mention the well regulated militia and the security of the state. So where does that come into the equation? This woman and her son do not fall under those categories.

IF the government agrees to grant us our "inalienable" rights they have a duty to protect us from ourselves as well. Or at least protect the members of our society that cannot consent, i.e. those under 18.

There is nothing in the second amendment which says you have to be an official member of a militia. The intent of the militia at the time was to simply call upon the citizenry in a time of need, thus the citizens needed to be armed. As I said, the change in conditions does not change the fact that the Consitution has not changed.

There is no way to protect us from ourselves. That is what people seem to have difficulty understanding. You are always in harm's way from the moment of conception and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The only way you can be safe from others is to never come in contact with others. So your choice is to be unsafe and free or unsafe and not free. Which do you prefer?

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:

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

There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

 

[dnsmith35]

There is nothing in the second amendment which says you have to be an official member of a militia. The intent of the militia at the time was to simply call upon the citizenry in a time of need, thus the citizens needed to be armed. As I said, the change in conditions does not change the fact that the Consitution has not changed.

There is no way to protect us from ourselves. That is what people seem to have difficulty understanding. You are always in harm's way from the moment of conception and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The only way you can be safe from others is to never come in contact with others. So your choice is to be unsafe and free or unsafe and not free. Which do you prefer?

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:

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

There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

His having an assault weapon would not increased the number of casualties.

 

[Ravi]

There is nothing in the second amendment which says you have to be an official member of a militia. The intent of the militia at the time was to simply call upon the citizenry in a time of need, thus the citizens needed to be armed. As I said, the change in conditions does not change the fact that the Consitution has not changed.

There is no way to protect us from ourselves. That is what people seem to have difficulty understanding. You are always in harm's way from the moment of conception and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The only way you can be safe from others is to never come in contact with others. So your choice is to be unsafe and free or unsafe and not free. Which do you prefer?

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:

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

There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

That's your reading of it, of course. But I read it differently and believe that there was never an intent to allow any idiot to own weapons just in case someone needed help warding off the government.

He still could have done a lot of damage but not nearly as much as he did with the weapons he had.

 

[tap4154]

Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.

So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?

It is a Constitutional right.


Read it sometime.

I've read it. Show me where these two were part of a well regulated militia securing the state.

The premise is that a "well-regulated" (a term that in their day meant in good working order, as in a well-regulated mechanical time piece) militia (the term used in general, meaning an armed citizenry) is crucial to the security of the state; SO in order to ensure that premise, the right of law-abiding and competent individuals to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

Hope I helped you to understand it.

 

[PratchettFan]

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:



There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

His having an assault weapon would not increased the number of casualties.

I'm not sure what you see as an "assault weapon". He had a military style semi-auto and I know from experience I can fire it almost as fast as full auto. In the general use of the term, he had an assault weapon.

However, if he hadn't had the rifle, he could have killed as many with just the sidearms.

 

[Politico]

Thread 300. You hate guns. We get it!

 

[PratchettFan]

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:



There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

That's your reading of it, of course. But I read it differently and believe that there was never an intent to allow any idiot to own weapons just in case someone needed help warding off the government.

He still could have done a lot of damage but not nearly as much as he did with the weapons he had.

Desptie what many people think, the intent of the 2nd amendment was never to make sure people had the equipment to commit treason. But it does give private citizens the right to keep and bear arms. That is how the SC reads it.

 

[Ravi]

It is a Constitutional right.


Read it sometime.

I've read it. Show me where these two were part of a well regulated militia securing the state.

The premise is that a "well-regulated" (a term that in their day meant in good working order, as in a well-regulated mechanical time piece) militia (the term used in general, meaning an armed citizenry) is crucial to the security of the state; SO in order to ensure that premise, the right of law-abiding and competent individuals to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

Hope I helped you to understand it.

It doesn't say competent though and maybe that is the problem.

 

[SniperFire]

Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.

So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?

Because the Constitution gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people. I understand conditions have changed, but the Constitution has not. Until such time as it is, that is the law of the land.

That being said, there is no way for the government to make life safe. It can certainly take away your freedoms, but life is and always will be an iffy proposition. So you can live in an unsafe world with limited control over your life or you can live in an unsafe world with many controls over your life.

Ah, but the second does mention the well regulated militia and the security of the state. So where does that come into the equation? This woman and her son do not fall under those categories.

IF the government agrees to grant us our "inalienable" rights they have a duty to protect us from ourselves as well. Or at least protect the members of our society that cannot consent, i.e. those under 18.

She could not ever be part of a militia, then?

 

[SniperFire]

Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.

So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?

Because the Constitution gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people. I understand conditions have changed, but the Constitution has not. Until such time as it is, that is the law of the land.

That being said, there is no way for the government to make life safe. It can certainly take away your freedoms, but life is and always will be an iffy proposition. So you can live in an unsafe world with limited control over your life or you can live in an unsafe world with many controls over your life.

Ah, but the second does mention the well regulated militia and the security of the state. So where does that come into the equation? This woman and her son do not fall under those categories.

IF the government agrees to grant us our "inalienable" rights they have a duty to protect us from ourselves as well. Or at least protect the members of our society that cannot consent, i.e. those under 18.

First, gubmint does not grant 'inalienable' rights. The Bill of Rights only points out that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Inalienable rights are presumed to exist independent of gubmint. They couldn't be inalienable if granted from gubmint authority.

Secondly, the government has no duty to protect you from lawful gun ownership, any more than it has the duty to protect you from lawful toaster ownership.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't know how you know. I do know that if we as a society institutionalize children (and that's part of what school is) we have an obligation to make them safe.

i agree.....but a Teacher or a Janitor could have gone nuts and done the same thing.....some people who you think are nuts and you keep your eye them never go off....and then the one who everyone thinks is great.....goes nuts....some of these shooters in the past have been described by those who knew them as....nice people....would never have thought this would happen with them.....

So you are suggesting that nothing be done?

about "Weird" people or protecting the kids?....

 

[Valerie]

There is nothing in the second amendment which says you have to be an official member of a militia. The intent of the militia at the time was to simply call upon the citizenry in a time of need, thus the citizens needed to be armed. As I said, the change in conditions does not change the fact that the Consitution has not changed.

There is no way to protect us from ourselves. That is what people seem to have difficulty understanding. You are always in harm's way from the moment of conception and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The only way you can be safe from others is to never come in contact with others. So your choice is to be unsafe and free or unsafe and not free. Which do you prefer?

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:

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

There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...

 

[Ravi]

i agree.....but a Teacher or a Janitor could have gone nuts and done the same thing.....some people who you think are nuts and you keep your eye them never go off....and then the one who everyone thinks is great.....goes nuts....some of these shooters in the past have been described by those who knew them as....nice people....would never have thought this would happen with them.....

So you are suggesting that nothing be done?

about "Weird" people or protecting the kids?....

Protecting the kids.

 

[PratchettFan]

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:



There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...

I don't know why it is that regardless of which side of this issue someone stands on, they all have the same difficulty in dealing with the fact that the 2nd amendment is a complete sentence. Yes, the intent of the amendment was for a well-regulated militia but that does not change the fact that the people, private citizens, have the right to keep and bear arms. The SC has made it abundantly clear that this means while the states, and even the feds, can regulate this they cannot prevent private citizens from owning weapons.

You may well argue that conditions have changed and our society can no longer operate under a law created in the 18th century. That is certainly an issue ripe for discussion. I think you would be wrong, but the debate would be healthy - at least amongst the adults. The children who just want their toys or their John Wayne fantasies will never react rationally. However, the solution is never going to be to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says. The solution is another amendment. For until that happens, gun ownership is on the same level as free speech. The people who want a radical change are going to first have to come to grips with that simple fact.

 

[Valerie]

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...

I don't know why it is that regardless of which side of this issue someone stands on, they all have the same difficulty in dealing with the fact that the 2nd amendment is a complete sentence. Yes, the intent of the amendment was for a well-regulated militia but that does not change the fact that the people, private citizens, have the right to keep and bear arms. The SC has made it abundantly clear that this means while the states, and even the feds, can regulate this they cannot prevent private citizens from owning weapons.

You may well argue that conditions have changed and our society can no longer operate under a law created in the 18th century. That is certainly an issue ripe for discussion. I think you would be wrong, but the debate would be healthy - at least amongst the adults. The children who just want their toys or their John Wayne fantasies will never react rationally. However, the solution is never going to be to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says. The solution is another amendment. For until that happens, gun ownership is on the same level as free speech. The people who want a radical change are going to first have to come to grips with that simple fact.

No one is advocating taking away people's right to firearms for lawful purposes.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...

I don't know why it is that regardless of which side of this issue someone stands on, they all have the same difficulty in dealing with the fact that the 2nd amendment is a complete sentence. Yes, the intent of the amendment was for a well-regulated militia but that does not change the fact that the people, private citizens, have the right to keep and bear arms. The SC has made it abundantly clear that this means while the states, and even the feds, can regulate this they cannot prevent private citizens from owning weapons.

You may well argue that conditions have changed and our society can no longer operate under a law created in the 18th century. That is certainly an issue ripe for discussion. I think you would be wrong, but the debate would be healthy - at least amongst the adults. The children who just want their toys or their John Wayne fantasies will never react rationally. However, the solution is never going to be to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says. The solution is another amendment. For until that happens, gun ownership is on the same level as free speech. The people who want a radical change are going to first have to come to grips with that simple fact.

No one is advocating taking away people's right to firearms for lawful purposes.

I really disagree with your statement. There are quite a few people advocating exactly that. In a free society, they have every right to advocate that. I was simply pointing out the appropriate venue if they wish to acheive their goal.

However, it seems you are not advocating that. What is it you are advocating?

 

[Sallow]

Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.

So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?

It is a Constitutional right.


Read it sometime.

I've read it. Show me where these two were part of a well regulated militia securing the state.

They don't get that part.

It's too hard.

We were never meant to have a permanent standing army. Only "citizen" soldiers that stood at the ready in case of insurrection or invasion.

You didn't have to be part of a militia. But you did have to be ready to join one in the event of a need to defend the country.

Hence the right to arms.

What was have today is a corruption of that amendment.

 

[SniperFire]

But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:



There is nothing remotely related to this shooting that relates to a) well regulated or b) the security of a free state. Quite the opposite, it is a threat to the free state, i.e., the ability of children to congregate in a public building relatively free of harm.

I believe there is a compromise somewhere between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free and we have not tried hard enough to find that place.

So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.

Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.

No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not presuppose the free state to be 'well-regulated.'

 

[SniperFire]

It is a Constitutional right.


Read it sometime.

I've read it. Show me where these two were part of a well regulated militia securing the state.

They don't get that part.

It's too hard.

We were never meant to have a permanent standing army. Only "citizen" soldiers that stood at the ready in case of insurrection or invasion.

You didn't have to be part of a militia. But you did have to be ready to join one in the event of a need to defend the country.

Hence the right to arms.

What was have today is a corruption of that amendment.

You just buried his argument, that the citizen's right to bear arms is to be 'well-regulated' as they are part of the militia.

The militia does not even exist until called up.