It's the Guns.

[shmogie]

So when the Constitution uses the term "militia," it just means "a group of citizens coming together in crisis?"

The Constitution (in Article 1, Section 8) gives Congress the power to organize and discipline the militia. It also gives the states the power to oversee training of the militia.

Do you think that Congress - and the states - have these broad powers over any citizen who might group together in a crisis?

" Article 1, section 8, only applies to a militia in one way, giving the federal government the right to activate it in an emergency.
Nowhere is it stated that the government has any responsibility in regulating it.

" the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "

Why doesn't it say that the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ?

Because THE PEOPLE are the militia, or a part of them.

The amendment mentions a militia, then gives the right to be armed to the entire people. These boys were highly intelligent, if they meant only members of a militia could be armed, they never would have said the right applies to the people, all the people.

THE PEOPLE is used in other parts of the Constitution, check and see if it applies to only certain people.

In Federalist 46, James Madison emphasized " the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over almost all the PEOPLE of every other nation".

If only militia members could be armed, he certainly would know, and would have said so.

He said AMERICANS, and PEOPLE. no militia..

Every American has the right to be armed, all the People

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

" Article 1, section 8, only applies to a militia in one way, giving the federal government the right to activate it in an emergency.

The word "emergency" doesn't appear in the clause giving Congress the power to organize and discipline the militia.

Nowhere is it stated that the government has any responsibility in regulating it.

You don't think that "organizing" and "disciplining" are "regulating?"

" the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "

Why doesn't it say that the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ?

Because THE PEOPLE are the militia, or a part of them.

I'm not sure I accept that, but I'm pointing out what it implies: "the militia" are a group that Congress has quite a bit of power over. If you're going to argue that "the militia" in the Constitution means "the people," then you need to deal with the implications for Article 1, not just for the Second Amendment.

THE PEOPLE is used in other parts of the Constitution, check and see if it applies to only certain people.

Like non-citizens?

In Federalist 46, James Madison emphasized " the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over almost all the PEOPLE of every other nation".

If only militia members could be armed, he certainly would know, and would have said so.

He said AMERICANS, and PEOPLE. no militia..

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. And capitalizing words is not an argument.

Every American has the right to be armed, all the People

Including convicted felons? Children?

 

[shmogie]

The word "emergency" doesn't appear in the clause giving Congress the power to organize and discipline the militia.


You don't think that "organizing" and "disciplining" are "regulating?"


I'm not sure I accept that, but I'm pointing out what it implies: "the militia" are a group that Congress has quite a bit of power over. If you're going to argue that "the militia" in the Constitution means "the people," then you need to deal with the implications for Article 1, not just for the Second Amendment.


Like non-citizens?


The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. And capitalizing words is not an argument.


Including convicted felons? Children?

 

[shmogie]

The word "emergency" doesn't appear in the clause giving Congress the power to organize and discipline the militia.


You don't think that "organizing" and "disciplining" are "regulating?"


I'm not sure I accept that, but I'm pointing out what it implies: "the militia" are a group that Congress has quite a bit of power over. If you're going to argue that "the militia" in the Constitution means "the people," then you need to deal with the implications for Article 1, not just for the Second Amendment.


Like non-citizens?


The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. And capitalizing words is not an argument.


Including convicted felons? Children?

Please cite word for word where a militia is regulated and supervised by the government.

There are numerous citizen militiaś in the country, they are not illegal and they have no association, by design, with the government. Do these groups exist because the government is not doing itś duty re the Constitution, and hasn´t since the founding of the government ?

What are the implications of article 1 on the people right to own and bear firearms ?

Non citizens is an interesting question. Over and over again courts have held that aliens are included in the people when used in the Constitution. Thus they have all the rights granted to citizens. Perhaps a case will be brought that establishes clearly where they land re the second amendment.

Certainly the Federalist papers are not the constitution, yet they go a long way in establishing the original intent of the constitution.

Madison was there at the adoption of the Constitution, made contributions to it, and clearly understood what was written and why it was written in the document.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please cite word for word where a militia is regulated and supervised by the government.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power [...]

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;

So Congress has the power to discipline "the militia" and the states have authority over training of "the militia."

There are numerous citizen militiaś in the country, they are not illegal and they have no association, by design, with the government. Do these groups exist because the government is not doing itś duty re the Constitution, and hasn´t since the founding of the government ?

Of course not.

Since your question suggests you've missed my point: I'm not saying that the Constitution gives Congress this power. I'm saying that the Constitution obviously doesn't do this, and therefore your interpretation of "the militia" as the entire people is wrong.