dksuddeth

I guess you've never bothered to study and understand any US history because those 'nutjobs' defined it as exactly that..meaning that everyone and his brother, father, cousins, and sons. It goes back to before the country was even formed.

The America of 1791 was not a superpower. National pride aside, it was a backward, recently colonial frontier. Its entire history had been one of war and threats of war. The French in the north, the Spanish in the south and the Indian Nations had all threaten the initial settlements. Moreover the colonies, from their various origins, had been "independent states" loosely tied together by their collective master the British Crown. In every case they had begun their precarious existence without a standing army of any kind. (Not unusual, in the early colonial period even the British Crown tended to raise its armies "at need" and disband them after the crisis had passed.) The colonies had followed their English traditions and organised their defence around a governor's guard (usually very small - more a personal defence force than an army), an organised "watch" to perform police duties (police in the modern sense are a hundred years in the future) and a levee en masse of every able bodied man in times of emergency.

As time went on and the colonies grew this initial arrangement was supplemented by garrisons of regular British troops, part time colonial reserves - of various levels of service and organisation- and Indian alliances. By the time of the Revolution the old practice of levee en masse was going out of use, at least in the more settled areas. Wars, for example the French and Indian War (1755-60), were conducted by regular British Troops supported by American "Militia" regiments mobilised for the war.

However, the early levee en masse tradition of the Militia, what might be called the "people's militia" continued. (We might note here that the Militia of formed bodies of troops was sometimes called the "regular", "standing" or "formed" Militia. The levee en masse Militia was often referred to as the "unorganised" Militia. The fact that there were two "types" of Militia both referred to as "the Militia" can be confusing.) As late as the 1860's we see Americans, North and South, responding to a military emergency by spontaneously forming regiments and electing their own officers. This is normally presented as a quaint example of Civil War enthusiasm. However, in reality this is the living continuation of the old levee en masse tradition of the American citizen soldier.


You are sorely mistaken. The intent of the framers in guaranteeing the natural right of all free men to keep and bear arms was so that they COULD be an impromptu standing force which means that they could indeed have uzi's IF the standing armies used them. Since the current standing army does NOT use uzi's, this is irrelevant, HOWEVER, they do use automatic weapons and thus, according to the intent of the framers, so should the 'militia', which is all able bodied free men.

well regulated was not defined as all the people getting out and marching or practicing close combat drills. All it meant was that the people would have their readily maintained arms and know how to use them properly when necessary, being able to gather together and freely elect their officers and when done, go back home to the farm. As far as your statement about the 'urban gangs', this is your strawman. The framers wrote the bill of rights for free law abiding citizens, not criminals.

Americans of this generation were well aware that their success in the Revolution had rested on them having the means to revolt i.e. arms. Further, the Crown had responded to their civil disobedience with direct attempts to disarm the colonists i.e. Lexington and Concord. Hence the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had a keen awareness of the political implications of armed vs. unarmed. Their intense last straw reaction to the British attempt to seize their arms was based on the realisation that a loss of arms meant that the colonists would be helpless. Helpless before the Crown, or the Indians, or bandits or anyone else who wanted to take a swipe at them. This condition of unarmed defencelessness and the subservience to any armed party that it implied was the match that set off the Revolution. It is also a major driving force in the current desire of many Americans to retain their arms.

In the colonial period, to men representing semi-autonomous states and very nervous about an over-powerful Federal Government, the right of individuals to arms was essential. Hence the need they felt to re-assert the individual right to keep and bear arms by including it in certain "declaratory and restrictive clauses" designed to prevent the Federal Government from any "abuse of its powers."

all statements in italics are courtesy of "The 2nd Amendment: A Historical Understanding" by Bruce Gold


Would you not agree that when individual states are in violation of the constitution by denying constitutional rights to its citizens, that it would be the responsibility of the federal government to step in and restore those constitutional rights according to the 14th amendment?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."