In response to:

Why the 2nd Amendment

Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 4:00 PM
Infringed: 1.to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule. verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy. Shall not be infringed. Government MUST NOT commit a breach of, or encroach upon the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. It seems pretty clear to me what it meant by the words in the 2nd Amendment. What do you liberals think it means, wtmoore1?
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 4:41 PM
Also, we may eventually see a challenge to laws forbidding citizens under the age of 18, but at or over the age of 17 from being armed. Those laws seem to run afoul of the Militia act.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 4:39 PM
Age discrimination may also play a role in widening who is part of the militia, but that would have to be run through the courts. However, just because someone is not part of the militia (too old) doesn't mean their right to keep and bear arms is null and void. We have the right to keep and bear arms as individuals. That was also decided in the Heller case by the USSC. Some of us individuals are part of the militia, due to the 1903 act.
MikeH13 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 4:32 PM
Just to clarify who is considered "the militia". The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units, and the "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45, with the exception of certain officials and others, which is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 311. Some states, such as Texas and California, created separate state defense forces for assistance in local emergencies. ... by this definition, all males between 17 and 45 not in the Army or National Guard should expect to supply their own arms. Currently, gender equality is allows women in the volunteer force as well.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 4:29 PM
Some folks on the left, who don't agree with having an armed citizenry, try to argue that the second amendment means that a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. That is totally ridiculous. It doesn't make grammatical sense for one thing. For another thing, individuals have rights, not collective bodies, such as a militia. The states don't have rights, but they have powers. The tenth amendment states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 4:24 PM
From Cornell University Law School: "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 I had it right the first time. I know there is always some debate about the commas and where they are used. However, as I mentioned and as you agree, it doesn't change the meaning.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 4:19 PM
As passed by the Congress:
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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.

Lars, this is from Wikipedia. I have no idea if it is accurate, do you?
I agree that "It doesn't change the meaning one bit." But it sure is easier to read without all those commas.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 4:05 PM
I forgot one comma: ""A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It doesn't change the meaning one bit, however.

The right is to keep and bear arms. Who owns that right is "the people". The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. The reason the right shall not be infringed is so that the people can be part of the militia. The reason the people need to be part of the militia is to protect their freedoms (a free state).
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is...