[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sinkmore

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? What do you suppose they meant by "well regulated militia?" And in context, who do you think they meant by "the people"?

Those questions have been discussed by the courts over and over again, sometimes with different answers. The biggest argument has been over the "People" issue. The usual understanding is that in the 1st Amendment "The People" refers to individuals. Gun control advocates try to insist that in the 2nd it's only a collective right. Some go so far as to claim it applies only to the Federal Government.

Well regulated militia means individual State's "regular" armies, which were essentially militias. There was no national military - the entire Pentagon, Army, Navy, etc., are all unconstitutional.

Umm...

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

It looks to me like the Constitution gives the power to Congress to create an army and navy and run them as they see fit, which means it absolutely is "Constitutional".

There's no such thing as a "well regulated scattering of discordant, unaffiliated, armed individuals". Carrying a gun into Chipotle is probably not what they had in mind by "the security of a free state". The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
—George Mason, Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Until a navy could be organised, Letters of Marque were granted to individual ship owners, meaning the government authorized acts of war to private citizens who provided their own cannon-armed ships.

It's plain as day to me that the 2nd amendment in no way authorizes -citizens- to have or carry or bear firearms, nor addresses the topic at all. However, lots of case law and black letter law does affirm those rights. So, thank activist judges, not the founders who had nothing to do with it.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
—Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
—Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
—Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

When the Constitution refers to "the people" it seldom means "the persons" or "citizens"; it is in most cases referring to the 13 states. Really. Sounds weird in 2014, but it's true. IE, the 2nd Amendment originally prohibited the fed's from disarming state-led armies.

Can you provide one single example of a statement or writing from the Framers themselves to support that claim? I think I've shown that they did indeed mean the individual citizens, and if not I can provide plenty more.

I could also quibble with the popular interpretation of "to bear arms", which is not equivalent to "carry guns". Historically it meant nobles, who were feudal vassals, could wear armor (arms originally meant armor, and was the exclusive domain of the nobility, as in their "coat of arms", which no peasant then could have) as a sworn vassal in service to the crown. In constitutional context, it means what it says: to belong to and fight in the (well regulated, State led) military.

Again, I think the quotes I've provided so far put the lie to that concept.

One "bears arms" in defense if one's nation - you don't "bear arms" at Starbucks - that's just good old packing heat.

That is certainly a valid point, and one which is the subject of much debate and certainly will garner more. Your stating it as fact, however, doesn't make it so.

If you take the 2nd with its modern meaning, then where's the limit? By that (distorted) view, there seems to be nothing preventing individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or surface-to-air missiles, or from bringing them to airports, or to Navy stations. Where does the Constitution, under that view, permit the Feds to take away my nerve gas?

That's another good question, and not the rhetorical one you pose it as. As I've pointed out earlier, at the time of the Revolution citizens owned everything the militias did, to the point of creating a makeshift navy out of privately owned ships bearing privately owned cannons. I'm not saying we should own everything entrusted to the military, but I am asking for honest debate rather than "proving" your point with rhetoric.

Addendum:

The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

One of James Madison's greatest fears, and the main reason he fought for so long against having a Bill of Rights, was that he believed that if he created a list of protected rights someone in the future could easily say "They didn't list that one, so they must not have meant it." Madison believed that all rights belonged to the people, and none to the government. The government only has the power to restrict rights when they infringe upon the rights of someone else. This is the reason for the 9th Amendment. ALL rights belong to the individual. I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of anyone else to do the same.