washington and the right to bear arms

did he make being armed dependent on a militia, or a militia dependent on bearing arms?

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite"

i guess he didn't say 'prerequisite', which would no doubt say people having guns is dependent on militias. 

but what if there is no militia? couldn't we infer from him that there isn't necessarily a right to a gun? 

here is a founding father who said the militia of the founding days can change...

" I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. "

it seems fair to say if there is no militia there is no right to a gun

here is an overview of gun control science and policy

"The people" have the right to "keep and bear" "arms", and the language suggests the right is recognized from a preexisting order, rather than simply confered by the writers of the constitution. "The right of the people" not "people shall have the right". What you are suggesting would be contingent upon the militia service being a requirement to be among the people.  If you aren't subject to a foreign power, property owner, or maybe otherwise lacking in citizenship, that is what "the people" refers to.  The intention of a well regulated militia is noted opening the 2nd amendment, but not as the sole prerequisite which is being among "the people".  

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.

To contend that the founding fathers of the United States intended to lay out how to disarm the people or some loophole for the government requires an unfair vantage to have a fighting chance.  The second amendment was thought to be necessary for securing independance.

I should word the first sentence differently so as not to extend inappropriately for the current context. There is a right and that right is recognized in "the people"

the people have the right to have a gun for a militia. that looks like the best reading of the text. it's noted that if they wanted the people to have the right to a gun without regard to the militia, they would have at least made mention of this at the constitutional convention. instead, all we see there is talk about the need for a militia. it's stretching it to say they added the word 'keep' and absolute right to a gun, as an after thought. 

Washington didn't make anything. The Bill of Rights were drafted by James Madison based upon input from other states and his vast knowledge of history and governments.

To he issue at hand, the amendment is a restriction on the government. Basically, so that militia may be organized, the general right for people to bear arms may not be infringed.

people owned guns since they were invented w/o licence, needs test or permit.  Until fairly modern time were restriction implemented.  At no time that I'm aware of, after the signing were guns rounded up from individuals, restrictions of sales and ownership.ever implemented to anything resembling to modern day.  Why is that do you suppose?  If the 2a is interpreted by anti 2a views why was there never a disarmament of non militia private citizens and or all the restrictions of ownership, manufacture and sales of?  Shouldn't have been too difficult if it was constitutional.

Yay kill more school kids.

Orange man bad.

Guns bad.

Many many school kids.

Funny that many of the killers of school kids ask those kids if they are Christians, and then shoot the ones who answer affirmatively.

Tell me, are those tattooed, goth, eyeliner wearing, trenchcoated killers of kids conservative or liberal?

too bad so many places don't take school security seriously, or mental heath, but go bury your head in the sand like all good little progressives.

I'm not able to understand your last sentence

The right is traditionally held by Americans who believe in the ideal of righteously ordered liberty, not to be dependent upon the bill of rights for its existence.  The 2nd amendment itself pertained to the purpose of neutralizing the political matter after consolidating the confederate government in line with the aspirations people had of the necessary discipline for a free society, whilst the natural rights are expected outside of the political fray by Americans to just be taken as obvious and accounted for.  It is safe to say that the second amendment refers to the small arms of a militia and the means of organization and exercise.

  Should you reserve half the truth in false testimony is that not a sin?  

the only way you can say the second amendment protects an individual right to a gun regardless of a militia, is to spin your way into it with the word 'keep'. the phrase 'bear arms' always meant to use a gun in a militia, so that would be stretching it to use that phrase. it would be one thing if the founding fathers talked about the need for a gun for its own sake, but all they talked about was the need for a milita. so, the only way you can say there's a right to a gun, is to assume they added that right as an afterthought while writing the amendment. the most natural reading of the text take 'keep and bear arms' together, especially given the whole context of the amendment with the preface and 'bear arms' all have to do with a militia. 

What are you talking about?

I'm sure Plisken is referring to your over-exaggerations and fabrications you so often offer.

What are you now, troll for hire?

Nations and their right to as many nuclear weapons they choose to have.

Welcome to Earth!

My nukes bigger than your nuke, my nukes bigger than yours! Sung to the tune of...

Orange idio-ump wants to increase nukes.  He will, he will, KNOCK YOU!

I dont see humanity on a path that leads to long term survival. Do you?

In economics we have seen balloons inflate on false premise and then they burst.

Is humanity growing/inflating itself  on a false premise unlimited resources with no consequences?

Nuclear weapon = peackeeper

357 magnum = peacekeeper

rational humanity = peacekeeper

caring humanity = peacekeeper

empathetic humanity = peacekeeper

mind first humanityh = peacekeeper

The second option might be a peacemaker, but it is not a peacekeeper.  Relying on weapons for deterrence is generally stupid, morally questionable, and often illegal. The 2nd amendment has no relation to Nuclear weapons.  

Clearly, your posts would show you're doing it for free.

Right. Troll for hire is like prostitution. How much did he pay you? Hope it was more than skank pay.