Why is the Second Amendment worded that way?

solus said:

let's split some hairs here shall we...
as you have regurgitated the USC once again...
1. all males, hummm... under the 14th that is inclusive of all males, regardless of ethnicity who are US citizens!!!
2. intentions to become citizens statement ~ here ya go, research at its finest: quote Generally, if a person is not a U.S. citizen, they need to be a green card holder, i.e., a lawful permanent resident, to join the military. unquote. http://stories.avvo.com/rights/immi...-us-military-8-rules-non-citizen-service.html
3. Females ~ already covered...see # 2 immediately above!!

Click to expand...

Your reading is severely flawed, particularly with your point #3.

Once more, the definition in 10 USC 311(a) states:

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.

Click to expand...

Let's break it down into its three separate clauses.

The militia of the United States consists of:
1) all able-bodies males at least 17 years of age and ... under 45 years of age who are ... citizens of the United States.
2) all able-bodies males at least 17 years of age and ... under 45 years of age who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States.
3) female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

A few important things to note with this.
1) Membership in the militia of the United States does not follow the same criteria for membership in the military. For example, while my older brother was rejected for military service due to a medical issue (medication he was on at the time, which would not have been disqualifying had it been prescribed after he had joined, but disqualified him from signing up in the first place), he is still a member of the militia of the United States because he is able-bodied, between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen. In the same way, while the military generally requires citizenship or a green card, membership in the Militia only requires a declaration of intent to become a citizen of the United States. A green card is one way to make such a declaration, but that does not mean that it is the only way.
2) Females who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States are not included in the definition, even if they are members of the National Guard. Therefore, your claim that #3 was answered by #2 is outright false.

solus said:

finally...civics 101:
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. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution)

finally, the first militia act was consummated on the 2nd of may and they changed their mind when congress reconvened and SIX days later on the 8th of May pushed the second act with provided for conscription of white males. the first was to cover their butts over, quote: There was a widespread fear that the Western Confederacy of American Indians would exploit their victory during the recess of Congress. unquote. previously cited in first post!

Click to expand...

The legislative history simply doesn't bear you out. The two Militia Acts of 1792 had different purposes, and were in the works long before they were passed. As can be seen from The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, First Congress, First Session, Volume 2 (pages 1851-1857), discussion of the Militia Acts started on December 16, 1790. The two Acts addressed separate powers granted to Congress over the Militia, the First to define how the President could call them into service, and the Second to address the organization, operation, and equipping of the Militia. There's no evidence that the Second Militia Act of 1792 was passed because the Congress "changed their mind when [they] reconvened".

The historical record is extremely clear that both Acts were in progress long before either one was passed. They were both well over a year in the making each.

countryclubjoe said:

In heller the court opined that the term "militia" equated to the federally organized militia and the citizens organized militia...

What is a federally organized militia? What is a citizens organized militia? -- I clearly have no idea what either militia is or where they are operating...

Click to expand...

Well, I'm pretty sure that Heller didn't state that there exists a "citizens organized militia." I'm pretty sure that the Heller Court observed that, likely in concert with 10 U.S.C. 311, the citizen's militia is "unorganized."

mikeyb said:

Well-regulated meant supplied.

Click to expand...

Not according to George Washington, it didn't. He equated it with "disciplined" when he wrote, "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government"

In the vernacular of the day, it meant several things, and "disciplined" and "properly trained" were chief among them. Other associated meanings include "organized" and "routinely practiced/exercised."

Screw Title 10. It wasn't written with a valid understanding of the vernacular of the day.

The term "well-regulated" has NEVER meant "legislated" or "controlled," and no finer evidence exists than the Second Amendment itself, which prohibits any sort of infringement on our right to keep and bear arms i.e. "shall not be infringed."

For that matter, screw any "precedent" which supports any conclusion other than the above, which is based on the many writings of our Founding Fathers themselves. Most such precedents are so stacked on top of one another it's like trying to balance the Washington Monument on top of a piece of baklava.

As for the term "militia," relying on anything other that period observations is similarly misleading, almost certainly because later observations were often intentionally misleading.

According to the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the term "militia" as it appears in our Second Amendment means, quite simply, "armed people," and mention was made in several period documents to include able-bodied men, women, and children capable of bearing arms against an enemy. Referring again to period documents, the term "militia" was distinctly contrasted against "soldier" and "sailor," both of whom were considered regular forces, whereas the militia was considered to be a reserve comprised of all U.S. citizens.

At this point, the historical record gets a little confusing, only because different factions of our nation's early leadership had two different thoughts on the matter. One faction wanted everyone to remain fully armed whereas the other faction thought it best to secure arms in an armory unless/until needed. Many others occupied the continuum between these two philosophies. When the conflict, which involved several other areas of interest, came to a head, those who favored a citizen militia prevailed and established not only our Second Amendment, but the the first twelve amendments, which were whittled down to ten amendments before consensus and subsequent ratification.

Well, this has been a short (very) summary of a 34-year on-and-off and back on again exploration into our nation's early history.

The 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that since9 links us to also affirms that the feds have no power to regulate as I pointed out in the link below.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Delineation&p=2197445&viewfull=1#post2197445

The 1982 Congressional Report also points out that the states don't have much power to regulate either.

Nightmare said:

We have only the legal rights that we defend.

Click to expand...

and die for.....

Nightmare said:

Yes, and will die for. Die a citizen or kneel as a subject. Allahu Akbar, hallelujah!

Click to expand...

God gave me free will. He did not give me authority to take some ones life just because...