The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[idb]

I am glad to see QWB agrees with me, finally, on the intent of 2nd Amendment. The rest of what he is writing seems to be that he wants to take a far left activist view of the Constitution, which is surprising, for him. People do change, though.

bigrebnc is dithering on as usual when his OP has gone epic fail. Hey, bub, when you get to buy a heavy weapons system as your own personal weapon, let us know.

PROVE MY POST WRONG MORON
Jake should we do away with the first amendment because what we use now to express our views was not used at the creation of the first amendment. Should we do away with all new laws and legislation of the 20th and 21 st century because they were not written on parchment with a quill? Are you saying the internet is not protected vehicle of our first amendment rights?
What ever the full time soldier is carring the private citizen should have.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

And you still haven't read the link in your own OP!
You've used a document that has drawn a completely different conclusion to what you are saying.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were stupid but now I'm sure you don't even reach that level.

As a hint, when you're copying paragraphs from your NRA and gun club magazines and websites for your argument, as I'm sure you do because I doubt that you're able to string more than two original thoughts together, check your spelling (tyrantical!!!).
Making up your own language as you go along just makes you look like a Sarah Palin wannabe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am glad to see QWB agrees with me, finally, on the intent of 2nd Amendment. The rest of what he is writing seems to be that he wants to take a far left activist view of the Constitution, which is surprising, for him. People do change, though.

bigrebnc is dithering on as usual when his OP has gone epic fail. Hey, bub, when you get to buy a heavy weapons system as your own personal weapon, let us know.

PROVE MY POST WRONG MORON
Jake should we do away with the first amendment because what we use now to express our views was not used at the creation of the first amendment. Should we do away with all new laws and legislation of the 20th and 21 st century because they were not written on parchment with a quill? Are you saying the internet is not protected vehicle of our first amendment rights?
What ever the full time soldier is carring the private citizen should have.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

And you still haven't read the link in your own OP!
You've used a document that has drawn a completely different conclusion to what you are saying.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were stupid but now I'm sure you don't even reach that level.

As a hint, when you're copying paragraphs from your NRA and gun club magazines and websites for your argument, as I'm sure you do because I doubt that you're able to string more than two original thoughts together, check your spelling (tyrantical!!!).
Making up your own language as you go along just makes you look like a Sarah Palin wannabe.

Just because YOU said so does not make it so. Care to cut and paste what you think says something different than I am saying?

Once again the the words in it's orginal intent was a military term which means military grade weapons for American citizens.

 

[idb]

PROVE MY POST WRONG MORON
Jake should we do away with the first amendment because what we use now to express our views was not used at the creation of the first amendment. Should we do away with all new laws and legislation of the 20th and 21 st century because they were not written on parchment with a quill? Are you saying the internet is not protected vehicle of our first amendment rights?
What ever the full time soldier is carring the private citizen should have.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

And you still haven't read the link in your own OP!
You've used a document that has drawn a completely different conclusion to what you are saying.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were stupid but now I'm sure you don't even reach that level.

As a hint, when you're copying paragraphs from your NRA and gun club magazines and websites for your argument, as I'm sure you do because I doubt that you're able to string more than two original thoughts together, check your spelling (tyrantical!!!).
Making up your own language as you go along just makes you look like a Sarah Palin wannabe.

Just because YOU said so does not make it so. Care to cut and paste what you think says something different than I am saying?

Once again the the words in it's orginal intent was a military term which means military grade weapons for American citizens.

Feel free to look back at my earlier post.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you still haven't read the link in your own OP!
You've used a document that has drawn a completely different conclusion to what you are saying.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were stupid but now I'm sure you don't even reach that level.

As a hint, when you're copying paragraphs from your NRA and gun club magazines and websites for your argument, as I'm sure you do because I doubt that you're able to string more than two original thoughts together, check your spelling (tyrantical!!!).
Making up your own language as you go along just makes you look like a Sarah Palin wannabe.

Just because YOU said so does not make it so. Care to cut and paste what you think says something different than I am saying?

Once again the the words in it's orginal intent was a military term which means military grade weapons for American citizens.

Feel free to look back at my earlier post.

Nope I will not fetch anything for you.

 

[idb]

You may be correct, and I'm certainly not arguing that firearms are not a protected right under the Constitution.
However, bigrednec chose the wrong academic document to link to in his OP to bolster his argument.
If anything, it's conclusion was that the Second Amendment may not have been intended to relate to individual rights.

 

[yota5]

Your argument is accurate and persuasive, idb.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's all very clear. Read on, and keep your liberal mitts out of my gun cabinet.

You may be correct, and I'm certainly not arguing that firearms are not a protected right under the Constitution.
However, bigrednec chose the wrong academic document to link to in his OP to bolster his argument.
If anything, it's conclusion was that the Second Amendment may not have been intended to relate to individual rights.

One more time for the sloath in learning
To bear arms is a military term, which is talking about military grade weapons. Meaning American citizens should be armed with military style weapons. Because we are the militia

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad to see QWB agrees with me, finally, on the intent of 2nd Amendment. The rest of what he is writing seems to be that he wants to take a far left activist view of the Constitution, which is surprising, for him. People do change, though.

bigrebnc is dithering on as usual when his OP has gone epic fail. Hey, bub, when you get to buy a heavy weapons system as your own personal weapon, let us know.

PROVE MY POST WRONG MORON
Jake should we do away with the first amendment because what we use now to express our views was not used at the creation of the first amendment. Should we do away with all new laws and legislation of the 20th and 21 st century because they were not written on parchment with a quill? Are you saying the internet is not protected vehicle of our first amendment rights?
What ever the full time soldier is carring the private citizen should have.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

And you still haven't read the link in your own OP!
You've used a document that has drawn a completely different conclusion to what you are saying.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were stupid but now I'm sure you don't even reach that level.

As a hint, when you're copying paragraphs from your NRA and gun club magazines and websites for your argument, as I'm sure you do because I doubt that you're able to string more than two original thoughts together, check your spelling (tyrantical!!!).
Making up your own language as you go along just makes you look like a Sarah Palin wannabe.

bigrebnc cracks me up. His evidence proves him wrong more than everybody else put together here. Go study the evidence he gave in his "Hitler was a socialist" when his evidence clearly demonstrated Hitler was not anything of the sort.

Notice here the 14th Amendment says nothing about military weapons for citizens.

I love reading his nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You may be correct, and I'm certainly not arguing that firearms are not a protected right under the Constitution.
However, bigrednec chose the wrong academic document to link to in his OP to bolster his argument.
If anything, it's conclusion was that the Second Amendment may not have been intended to relate to individual rights.

One more time for the sloth in learning

To bear arms is a military term, which is talking about military grade weapons. Meaning American citizens should be armed with military style weapons. Because we are the militia[/QUOTE]

Nope, our laws and interpretations have always said that right to bear arms pertains to private fire arms. You do not get a heavy weapons platform. You crack me up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope, our laws and interpretations have always said that right to bear arms pertains to private fire arms. You do not get a heavy weapons platform. You crack me up.

When have I said those weapons weren't privately owned?
To bear arms is a military term, which is talking about military grade weapons. Meaning American citizens should be allowed to own military style weapons. Because we are the militia.

Since you think that the national guard is the militia I have a question for you.
Does the national guard allow their members to take those firearms home with them? Do the guard members own those firearms they carry when serving? The militia was required to own their own weapon used for military service.

This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Lastly the militia was not totally controlled by congress.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

And this argument was used in court. the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are wrong, bigrebnc.

Nothing unusual.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

<snip>.

your opinion is irrelevant. Unless you have something Constitutional to add that will support your opinion you have nothing.

 

[idb]

Nope, our laws and interpretations have always said that right to bear arms pertains to private fire arms. You do not get a heavy weapons platform. You crack me up.

When have I said those weapons weren't privately owned?
To bear arms is a military term, which is talking about military grade weapons. Meaning American citizens should be allowed to own military style weapons. Because we are the militia.

Since you think that the national guard is the militia I have a question for you.
Does the national guard allow their members to take those firearms home with them? Do the guard members own those firearms they carry when serving? The militia was required to own their own weapon used for military service.

This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Lastly the militia was not totally controlled by congress.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

And this argument was used in court. the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson

Despite what you say, every reference I looked up referred to the National Guard as the state militia.
But, there are also references to a reserve or unorganised militia which is every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, pretty much as you said.

Certainly the United States Code believes that the National Guard is a militia;

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

* (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 -
o (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
o (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Another thing that I found though, that no-one seems to have mentioned.
The Constitution Section 8 gives Congress the power to 'call forth the Militia' and to 'organise, arm and discipline the Militia'.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power ....

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Just for discussion;
Wouldn't this reinforce the notion, in the document that you cited in your OP, that the 'right to bear arms' is for the purpose of being available to the state, not for personal use?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope, our laws and interpretations have always said that right to bear arms pertains to private fire arms. You do not get a heavy weapons platform. You crack me up.

When have I said those weapons weren't privately owned?
To bear arms is a military term, which is talking about military grade weapons. Meaning American citizens should be allowed to own military style weapons. Because we are the militia.

Since you think that the national guard is the militia I have a question for you.
Does the national guard allow their members to take those firearms home with them? Do the guard members own those firearms they carry when serving? The militia was required to own their own weapon used for military service.

This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Lastly the militia was not totally controlled by congress.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

And this argument was used in court. the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson

Despite what you say, every reference I looked up referred to the National Guard as the state militia.
But, there are also references to a reserve or unorganised militia which is every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, pretty much as you said.

Certainly the United States Code believes that the National Guard is a militia;

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

* (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 -
o (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
o (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Another thing that I found though, that no-one seems to have mentioned.
The Constitution Section 8 gives Congress the power to 'call forth the Militia' and to 'organise, arm and discipline the Militia'.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power ....

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Just for discussion;
Wouldn't this reinforce the notion, in the document that you cited in your OP, that the 'right to bear arms' is for the purpose of being available to the state, not for personal use?

Despite what you say, every reference I looked up referred to the National Guard as the state militia.
But, there are also references to a reserve or unorganised militia which is every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, pretty much as you said.

So the members of the national guard own their own M-4 automatic rifle or the M249 SAW? After all that’s what a militia is to be prepared at a moments notice to pick up their weapon at a moments notice and go. What we have now is a perversion of what the framers of the Constitution envisioned
the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

The beast called the national guard was not created until 1903

The Militia act of 1792
IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

Meaning military weapons and further they would want those weapons to be advanced as possible.

 

[idb]

When have I said those weapons weren't privately owned?
To bear arms is a military term, which is talking about military grade weapons. Meaning American citizens should be allowed to own military style weapons. Because we are the militia.

Since you think that the national guard is the militia I have a question for you.
Does the national guard allow their members to take those firearms home with them? Do the guard members own those firearms they carry when serving? The militia was required to own their own weapon used for military service.

This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Lastly the militia was not totally controlled by congress.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

And this argument was used in court. the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson

Despite what you say, every reference I looked up referred to the National Guard as the state militia.
But, there are also references to a reserve or unorganised militia which is every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, pretty much as you said.

Certainly the United States Code believes that the National Guard is a militia;

Another thing that I found though, that no-one seems to have mentioned.
The Constitution Section 8 gives Congress the power to 'call forth the Militia' and to 'organise, arm and discipline the Militia'.



Just for discussion;
Wouldn't this reinforce the notion, in the document that you cited in your OP, that the 'right to bear arms' is for the purpose of being available to the state, not for personal use?

Despite what you say, every reference I looked up referred to the National Guard as the state militia.
But, there are also references to a reserve or unorganised militia which is every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, pretty much as you said.

So the members of the national guard own their own M-4 automatic rifle or the M249 SAW? After all that’s what a militia is to be prepared at a moments notice to pick up their weapon at a moments notice and go. What we have now is a perversion of what the framers of the Constitution envisioned
the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

The beast called the national guard was not created until 1903

The Militia act of 1792
IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

Meaning military weapons and further they would want those weapons to be advanced as possible.

So the members of the national guard own their own M-4 automatic rifle or the M249 SAW? After all that’s what a militia is to be prepared at a moments notice to pick up their weapon at a moments notice and go.

No, as I read it, there are two classes of militia, the organised militia also known as the National Guard and the unorganised militia.
The National Guard are subject to oversight and training similar to the military.
Members of the military are not allowed to take their weapons home (as far as I can tell from this distance) and the National Guard are governed by similar rules.

What we have now is a perversion of what the framers of the Constitution envisioned
the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

That's why I was so interested when I found Section 8.
It seems to be somewhat at odds with the Second Amendment, or at least it's supposed intent.

The beast called the national guard was not created until 1903

The Militia act of 1792......etc etc

This was replaced with the Militia Act 1903 which established the National Guard.

In any case, you don't want a literal meaning of the 1792 act (There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt......etc) but you do insist on a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment as you see it?
Surely you can't have it both ways?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb simply does not understand the 2nd Amendment and the national laws concerning the "militia."

No where in law is he entitled to his own gunship.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb simply does not understand the 2nd Amendment and the national laws concerning the "militia."

No where in law is he entitled to his own gunship.

I want something other than your opinion. Do you have anything besides your opinion to disbute my source?
I may have a lot of strength but I cannot carry a gun ship

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Despite what you say, every reference I looked up referred to the National Guard as the state militia.
But, there are also references to a reserve or unorganised militia which is every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, pretty much as you said.

Certainly the United States Code believes that the National Guard is a militia;

Another thing that I found though, that no-one seems to have mentioned.
The Constitution Section 8 gives Congress the power to 'call forth the Militia' and to 'organise, arm and discipline the Militia'.



Just for discussion;
Wouldn't this reinforce the notion, in the document that you cited in your OP, that the 'right to bear arms' is for the purpose of being available to the state, not for personal use?

So the members of the national guard own their own M-4 automatic rifle or the M249 SAW? After all that’s what a militia is to be prepared at a moments notice to pick up their weapon at a moments notice and go. What we have now is a perversion of what the framers of the Constitution envisioned
the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

The beast called the national guard was not created until 1903

The Militia act of 1792
IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

Meaning military weapons and further they would want those weapons to be advanced as possible.

No, as I read it, there are two classes of militia, the organised militia also known as the National Guard and the unorganised militia.
The National Guard are subject to oversight and training similar to the military.
Members of the military are not allowed to take their weapons home (as far as I can tell from this distance) and the National Guard are governed by similar rules.

What we have now is a perversion of what the framers of the Constitution envisioned
the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

That's why I was so interested when I found Section 8.
It seems to be somewhat at odds with the Second Amendment, or at least it's supposed intent.

The beast called the national guard was not created until 1903

The Militia act of 1792......etc etc

This was replaced with the Militia Act 1903 which established the National Guard.

In any case, you don't want a literal meaning of the 1792 act (There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt......etc) but you do insist on a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment as you see it?
Surely you can't have it both ways?

Surely you over looked the part of "furnished at their expense" Keep and bear arms.

 

[peach174]

You over look the part that says the right of the people to bear Arms.
The Amendments are for the rights of the people of the United States, not the Government.
The National Guard is the Government.
The reason for this is to have an armed populace to over throw a tyrannical, or dictatorial government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither of you guys are experts on the Constitution, that's for sure.

Now offer some law and rulings for your OP, bigreb. Don't look to Peach, who has no clue at all.

You have only given other peoples' opinions, now give the law.