2257 arguments

[Linkster]

lassiter - that kinda glosses over what the real intent (as has been proven in actual supreme court cases over the last 200 years) of the 2nd amdn. really means - every case that has ever come up falls back to the right of the citizens (this was very important in the Dred Scott case as at that time the blacks were not considered "citizens") to possess arms that could be used in forming a state militia to protect the US, the people of the US from themselves - an insurgency , or against tyrannical government takeover. This has been decided in so many cases by the supreme court when it came to things like sawed-off shotguns (the court felt that these are not really military arms that could be used in a militia) and other arms that - again wouldnt be a normal military weapon.
Keep in mind that at the same time, there was no standing army - as a matter of fact that was prohibited by law - the idea was to have all male citizens between 18-50 available for an army if the need arose. It was also echoed throughout the states laws and in some cases, even more stringent.
It really was not singularly put in there for the protection against government oppression - it was there for any states' needs to protect itself.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Linkster

l(this was very important in the Dred Scott case as at that time the blacks were not considered "citizens")

Exactly - which is why every subsequent decision ruling against the right of free citizens to bear arms was based on the precedent from the tortured logic of an explicitly racist Supreme Court decision, not on the intent of the founders. Jefferson had quite a few things to say on the topic, including that of an armed revolution being necessary every 20 years or so to keep government power from becoming too entrenched or oppressive.

As for the states, the "National Guard" as the "militia" is another erroneous and tortured reading. The state National Guards were mainly formed in the early 20th century, not in the 1700s, as a way to get around the "posse comitatus" act that forbade the army from being used against the citizens. The Guards were formed to threaten and kill striking citizens who were protesting against working conditions in the factories and mines - again, not a militia of the "people" but merely another arm of state
oppression. And of course, since President Reagan and Congress federalized all state National Guards in the 1980s, they are essentially illegal and unconstitutional forces, since they are now de facto federal military forces used against US citizens in direct violation of Posse Comitatus.

But I won't bore everyone with more of this - there's plenty of info to be found by Googling the topics.