The 2nd Amendment is not age specific.
It simply deprives all governments of any authority
to interfere with the citizens' possession of guns.
This is a patently false statement, for the following reason:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
One would then naturally ask what is the meaning of a well regulated militia. [ ad hominem vilification deleted ]
This is answered in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution, to wit:
"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."
Therefore, the Constitution very clearly grants to the Congress the right to provide for the arming of the militia. If the Congress were to decide that machetes were to be the specified arm of the militia, no appeal to the second amendment would have any legal force--it says the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep any damn fire arm i please.
Of course, i'm not so foolish as to believe that any of this will have an effect on your opinion. I just like to stir the pot now and again . . .
Stirring the pot is good and u have my thanx for joining,
n making an effort to reason,
however many flaws there are in your logic.
To begin with:
An amendment is a CHANGE; the purpose of a change is to make something DIFFERENT
than it was before the change.
Thus, anything that existed in the Constitution of 1787
that was inconsistent with the changes set forth in the Bill of Rights
was ALTERED to accomodate the changes.
We know from history that there was NEVER any dispute
demanding the repeal of Art. I §1O sub-§3,
against states keeping troops or ships of war.
Article I §8, was OBVIOUSLY concerned with GOVERNMENT militia,
called "selected" militia up to and including that time,
whereas "well regulated militia" referred to the guys in the neighborhood,
like the merchants who armed themselves in defense of their stores,
(free of any taint of government control)
when the LAPD, or in earlier years, the NYPD, fled the scene of riots.
like the Free French, doing what they dam pleased,
free of any government control. A "well regulated militia" was like
a volunteer fire dept., or a volunteer library.
Indeed, during the Civil War, southern neighborhood militia
were brought into military conflict with those of the Union.
Like the Fairfax Militia organized in 1774 by George Mason and George Washington.
They had no permission from the King of England to do it.
They joined by their own volition; (or SOME Colonists joined the Royal Militia,
not a well regulated militia).
They elected their own officers, n enacted their own regulations.
SETANTA, u will scrutinize Article I sec. 8 in vain,
looking for any reference to the "well regualted militia"
to which u referred hereinabove. U posted in error. (q.v.)
YOUR OWN QUOTE fails to mention "well regulated militia".
It does NOT concern private militia.
The New York Constitutional Ratification Convention REFUSED
to ratify, unless that was in there. Virginia n New York were the 2 leading states.
That fact is particularly significant in light of the fact that there
were NO POLICE in the USA, nor in England, in the 17OOs.
It was just u and your neighbors against the bad guys.
Try it THIS way,
(See next post to U
for ease of understanding)