Preaching to the Choir

[montana]

From the above link:

[COLOR="blue"]"The 2nd Amendment – from all accounts written by those who framed and signed the Constitution – was specifically intended to provide a means for the People to defend themselves against a rogue federal government.

The right to form a militia and defend themselves from a tyrannical and un-Constitutional federal government remains with the states and the People as expressed in the 2nd Amendment..."[/COLOR]

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about the purpose of either the militia or the "right to keep and bear arms" as being defense against a tyrannical government.

More than that, the Constitution states that the militia is to be used to put down insurrections.

Since taking up arms against the government -- whether tyrannical, or not -- would be insurrection, we are left with the contradiction that the militia is (according to the Constitution) supposed to quell insurrection, but also is (according to the opinion of various private individuals, but not the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment) supposed to conduct insurrection.

=================

The author of that article is right about one thing, however: The National Guard is not a militia.

"A militia is an independent force under its own leadership that is formed by Constitutional state and local governments and the People."

This presents another problem for RKBA proponents. Since militias formed by state and local governments were superseded by National Guard units a century ago, the need for "a well regulated Militia" has disappeared. And, since members of the National Guard do not provide their own individual weapons, but are instead armed by the government, there is accordingly no longer a need for private ownership of arms suitable for militia use.

Worse still, the courts have repeatedly ruled that the right to keep and bear is not absolute, meaning that it is Constitutional to ban some times of weapons, as well as concealed carry. Plus, some of the stuff in Heller may prove to be serious problems for gunowners.

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." I guess your logic means a tyrannical government is a free state and the government can infringe on rights. You obvious did not read the founders statements on the Second amendment but hey they were the ones who created it so lets ignore the Federalist papers and listen to the new interpretation by the progressives. The court had 4 judges rule the Second Amendment does not give an individual any rights to own guns even though it is in the Bill of Rights. Government has powers not rights so this is a moronic argument argued by morons for morons. Our rights are not absolute since we cannot yell fire in a movie theater has been a long used argument to those who wish to impede our freedoms. I hate to explain this to the dim witted but this is the misuse of a freedom not an excuse to limit a freedom. We have laws on the way we cannot use firearms such as robbery and murder but in defense of our property, lives and freedom it is legal. I guess it depends on what is is.