OT The Original Wording of The Second Amendment

Rearranged wording, and a semicolon rather than a comma. It's about an armed and regulated militia, even referring to membership as military service.

IIRC...A well armed and 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.

Or, as in the text from the link...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

I have read all of "The Federalist Papers" and can post them if you wish, but I don't think you have the fortitude to read them all. As a matter of instruction, "The Federalist Papers" where written under the pen name of "Publius" by such authors as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others as a means of explaining to the public what the proposed Constitution (a replacement to the "Articles of Confederation") meant. When the Constitution was written "militia" meant "every able bodied man." No membership in a military service was required to be a member of the militia, yet being a member of the militia was to render military service, hence the allowance that anyone with religious objection would not be compelled to be a member of the militia.

Barrol roll, you would do well to study history and language.

Title10 of the US code has that very wording. I cannot recall the section. Though itsays a able bodied man is 17-45 years of age except if they have been in the armed services, then that number goes up to 65.

Ed H., NRA propagandist:

August 24 the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

September 4, the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

So? It means that anyone with objections to personally bearing a gun would not be compelled to own a gun. Should that surprise anybody?

Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, an extensive study found " ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service"[35] Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

And a group of people opposing tyranny or oppression using weapons would be "fighting."

At the time the fear was from foreign invasion. Look at when the 2nd amendment was passed. Thats where the interest was. The states had no local police force and needed REGULATED militias (MILITARY) for their own protection from foreign (such as British) invasion.

Sure, but that's not why the Second Amendment is there. Its to enable citizens to thwart off an opressive government. The same kind that started the colonial revolution in the first place. Can't do that if the military is supportng the government and people have no weapons.

The 2nd amendment was written while the country was still trying to assert its own independence from foreigners. Thats where peoples mindset was. It was written by the Federalists, NOT the Anti-Federalists that your viewpoint agrees with.

uh...what "foreigners?"

The people of the colonies were British citizens and so were the people they were fighting. The government they considered to be oppressive and tyrannical to them. Only "foreigners" were the German mercenaries the British Crown hired to help them.

The 2nd amendment was written several years after the declaration of independence. Neither was written by the British government but you knew that already.

So? The anti-federalists you keep mentioning were against Federalism from fear from a strong government that would have too much power. Turns out they were right. Hence they supported the 2nd for protectionism against corrupt government.

That is true but the amendment was written by the Federalists, not the anti-federalists. My point is regarding the origination and history of the amendment and the intent of those that wrote it. Yes they reworded it slightly so the anti's would pass it but the entire history of why it was created in the first place was from the federalists point of view.