Why don't we have to change the Constitution to get around that quirky claus

Question: Why don't we have to change the Constitution to get around that quirky clause in the gun amendment!?

that says "A well regulated militia, being necessary!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!."!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

"Scalia spent most of his 64-page opinion explaining why history was on his side!. He cited the Stuart kings of England and how they had used their militias to disarm their opponents!. "By the time of the founding [of this country], the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects," he said!. "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms!."
http://www!.latimes!.com/news/nationworld/!.!.!.

It is doubtful in the late 1700s that the militia clause would ever be considered a problem, or they would have simply left it out!. But it is also one of the few times that the language in the Constitution has been the cause of such a long-standing conflict of opinions!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If the Second Amendment had said "!.!.!.the right of the members of the militia, to keep and bear arms!.!.!." it would be necessary to change it!. Those who wrote, proposed, and ratified the amendment were fully capable of writing that, if that was what they meant!.

They didn't!.

Besides, "the militia" is, in essence, that portion of the people who are armed and can be organized if necessary for military duties!. In particular, a Supreme Court ruling in the 1980s explicitly removed the National Guard from the Constitutional meaning of "militia" by declaring that National Guard training is NOT (unlike that of the "militia") under the control of state governors!.

(The Minnesota governor, Rudy Perpich, was trying to stop the administration from sending Guard troops to Honduras on alleged "training" missions!.)Www@QuestionHome@Com

The key word is "militia," which refers to an organized, para-military group!. Gun ownership in the USA has always relied on a very VERY loose interpretation of what that word actually means, which is why people who are completely uninterested in defending themselves against a corrupt government (the whole reason the amendment was put in at all) are carrying concealed weapons!.

All you'd have to do is have your highest courts revisit the definition of "militia" and the gun toting masses would be forced to surrender their firearms!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

First off, we have to answer two questions:

1 "what does 'well regulated' mean!?"
2!. "what is 'the militia!?"

Fortunately, both questions are easily answered!.

Start with 1!. Many people assume that "well-regulated" meant in 1787 what it does today, mainly "governed by a lot of laws and regulations!."

This is incorrect!. Many of the founders were Freemasons, and in the language of Freemasonry is the truth: In Freemasonry, a "well regulated" Lodge of Masons is simply one lodge that is indistinguishable from the others in form of structure, order of business, passwords, etc!. A Mason entering a Lodge in one state should find everything that goes on within it essentially identical to everything that goes on in a different lodge in another community entirely!. So a "well-regulated" militia is simply a militia in which every unit is equipped and run in a similar manner to every other unit!.

2: Militia!. This is actually far easier to pin down than the first, because the writers, in their own correspondence, made the answer abundantly clear to all but the most bullheaded thinkers:

"The great object is that every man be armed!. Everyone who is able may have a gun!." -- Patrick Henry

"Every citizen should be a soldier!. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state!." -- Thomas Jefferson!.

"[The governments of Europe] are afraid to trust the people with arms!. !.!.!. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors!." -- James Madison

"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country!.!.!.!? I ask, who are the militia!? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers!." -- George Mason

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself!. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence!. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related!. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable!. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands!. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good!. When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour!." -- George Washington!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If you were to try to take away firearms from law abiding citizens, that would be the start of the next revolution!. Considering that 99% of them don't commit crimes, the problem must lie elsewhere!. Passing more laws is stupid since criminals by definition don't obey laws!. And the police only come after the crime is committed or in progress!. So it seems that those people that want to protect life and property from the criminal element that the justice system, or so called justice system is supposed to protect us from, should be granted a fundamental right!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Because the military don't have to have owned their guns to have one in the military; they are issued them!. Therefore, that phrase is obsolete!.Www@QuestionHome@Com