A question about the second amendment:

Militia in those days was not the government bases military.

Remember that the second amendment was not based on the US government, but based on problems that the people had with there previous British government.
This was right after the French and Indian war
en.wikipedia.org...

In frontier towns that were having Indian problems the British troops might make it to the towns before the Indians attacked or they might not.
So the towns people formed there own units call militia to protect there town.

Many time when the British troop did show up they would take all the musket powder in town for there own use without payment for it.
They also many times told the militia units that they were no longer needed and to go home.

Then the British troops would leave hunting the in Indians so they would also leave taking the musket powder with them leaving the locals with low amounts of powder for there weapons for hunting or defence.

They also would take much of thee black powder from towns where there was bad feeling or political descent to keep any "militias" from being effective against British troops. (Some towns sided with the french, Some just hated the British [towns of people of Scottish descent])

In some areas the colonist were not allowed to have cannon powder (large grain size black powder)because the British did not want colonist to have the use of cannons.
In these areas all cannon powder had to be stored in British control.

This sometimes even applied to merchant ships because the British believed that some also acted a pirates when the British were not looking.
(a pirate attack against British merchant would/could be blamed on the french or Spanish so a little free-booting by the colonist against the British merchant fleet and There high cost goods was to be expected. All trade with the colonies from the outside world by law had to be by British merchant ships.
The colonial ships could only carry trade between British held American colonies)

So before that time the term militia was a self defence force manned by towns to protect the town and other near by towns
Or a force that fought against the government troops(British)

"Only after the Constitution was written had that term changed to be a term for a local temporary military unit".

So the term militia must be used in the context of the time of the writing of the Constitution and not more modern times.

U.S. code title 10 this is the law:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

This is a later term for the militia and is totally out of context to the definition of the militia at the time of the writing of the second amendment and in no way applies to the term militia as written in the Constitution because it spells out the rights of the people and the US government. no National Guard or Naval Militia was formed under those names untill after the constitution so they are a later term for the militia and not what is described in the second amendment.

the United States Codes did not become law until the 1920s
www.gpoaccess.gov...
that is LONG (over 150 years)after the constitution was written and LONG after the original term of militia had changed in use from that of the writers of the second amendment.
US code title 10 in no way has anything to do with the second amendment.
as it was written over 100 years after the second amendment and under a different context.

when you quote U.S. code title 10 you are using anti gun disinformation that is not based on the Constitution and in no way applies to the second amendment.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by ANNED]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by ANNED]

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
There is a problem with the amendment that some people dont realize.

When it was written, there were things like muskets and cannons.

My point is that the people who wrote it probably didnt realize that muskets would be completely gone and people would be wanting incredibly effective, incredibly deadly assault rifles like the AK-47 and the M-16. Some people use it as an excuse to buy an M134 even, because due to the second amendment, its legal in some states.

Dont get me wrong, I am a huge gun enthusiast, I am just laying some info on the table.

The thing is that most of the guns we know today had a functional equal even when the constitution was written. There were repeating muskets and the early relatives of modern machine guns.

In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high.

The people writing the Bill of Rights knew that there was some pretty nasty stuff on the way. I don't think they could have imagined nuke or depleted uranium. Thus things of that nature should not be considered covered.

However, I fully believe that they understood the advancement of technology. They understood that the muskets of their time would change and evolve. They witnessed the adoption of riffled barrels for accuracy and "repeating" firearms. I do not believe they imagined every citizen owning a gatlin gun (it wasn't invented yet). I do believe that they would be comfortable with the average citizen owning repeating semi-auto weapons. They had put in an order for the same to be used by the militia they had raised to fight Britain.

The framers wanted the people to be able to defend against a corrupt government or invading army. What they considered the best weapons for those purposes most likely would have been the repeating semi auto weapons they had ordered. Thus I believe that the amendment was meant to protect the general population’s ability to own semi-auto weapons incase they needed to supplement the standing army.

This month's issue of "Shotgun News" has an article from Jef Knox that states my idea better than I can. Actually he expands it a bit. I think it is definitely worthy reading for anyone interested in the second amendment.