Unfortunately, the US Congress is a failed institution: proudly ignorant, uncooperative, and inwardly focused.
It pains me to say it, but that failure is one eventuality the second amendment to the US Constitution contemplated.
It pains me to say it, but that failure is one eventuality the second amendment to the US Constitution contemplated.
[0]outside forums where such things are on topic, I guess.
I don't think "LOL the internet is a series of tubes" quite qualifies.
And the very same Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights also defined the militia in law, and basically that same definition holds to this day in 10 U.S. Code § 311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311, modulo modern interpretation that holds "men" equals men and women, folding in the National Guard, etc.
Note also that the Founders were hardly of a single mind on the subject, with, say, Jefferson being the most noted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (see e.g. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_l... ), but he had plenty of company. We've always had seriously ornery factions in the nation....
But anyways, the reasoning is just reasoning. The right is pretty clearly spelled out and stands on its own.
It certainly isn't conscripts, or people being loaned weapons to defend someone else's holdings - it's free people defending themselves with their own tools.
The main point that differed a "militia" from an "army" was that it was a part time affair, and not a standing army. The threat antifederalists cared about was a standing federal army imposing its will on the state government. It was never about random dudes getting upset at the government. Although there was plenty of that too. (The Whiskey and Shay's rebellions come to mind.) It's just that the founding fathers would send the militia in to arrest them. To romanticize the colonial and early state militias as rugged individualists ready to stand up to The Man is simply ahistorical.
[0] http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Mil... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Now that I know is not true, there were (wealthy) private individuals owned canons. Heck, that the Congress has the power to "To ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" acknowledges that private entities had armed ships.
Partly armed is correct, and a screwup there helped ensure that Washington, D.C. got burned in 1814 (too much bureaucracy in issuing flints etc.).
But it's also the case that, as you note, "all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia", and as is still the law, all who are 17-44 years of age are members of it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 (and in modern legal interpretation, men is generally read as men and women).
But these quibbles aside, your general thrust is correct. So much so, per Galvin's The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution http://www.amazon.com/The-Minute-Men-Realities-Revolution/dp... the British in Massachusetts were completely outclassed in war fighting experience, they'd put garrison troops there, and many of our men had gained experience in what we call the French and Indian War.
How would a governmental Militia (ie British) have proven useful to the Americans and warranted this specific clarification?
I'm not an American, but it seems pretty clear that the people on the ground at the time meant "because we won our freedom from tyranny by being able to call up an army of the people, and may need to do so again, everyone shall be able to keep arms handy".
And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies (we didn't really have much of one until the Cold War) and "select militias", which were groups of armed men selected by some criteria (like being a loyal Tory) instead of "everyone" answering the call up.
Some of the Founders wanted us to depend entirely on a militia system, but others, including the supremely important George Washington, commander in chief during the Revolutionary War, said no way, Regulars are required for serious wars. And his and the other experienced commanders opinions could not be denied, so the dependent clause, very unusual in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, was a sop thrown to the pro-militia only group.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. This line implies you think it is not a dependent clause but later you say it is...? Also, what is the impact you're implying?
But anyways, the only actionable piece of the 2nd is "the right shall not be infringed".
> And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies [...]
Rightly so. But the original reasoning behind the laws aren't the laws. For better or worse.
It's been acknowledged that people have this right (to keep and bear arms) and you cannot take rights away.
For instance, we can't reinstate slavery, even with another amendment. It's not like the 13th amendment made it illegal; the amendment forced the government to acknowledge that it does not have that power and cannot enact slavery - those orders would be illegal.
A vote to repeal the 13th would be unconstitutional in its very nature because it recognizes a right. Unlike repealing the 18th establishing prohibition, for example.
But I think long before violently overthrowing the government, people would first try electing different people.