How does the 2nd Amendment show that the people have rights instead of just the militia?

Explain to me what it means and provide sources to backup your interpretation.

The people are the militia.

Read DC Vs. Heller

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

For fucks sake-

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.

Read your state's Constitution.

The people are the unorganized militia.

Then go read The Federalist 29

Do you speak English, motherfucker?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

Proper sentence structure recognition.

It’s an amendment. Seek out what it’s amending and eliminate that. What entity is left?

A simple way of explaining the sentence structure.

This.

The rights belong to the people, not any militia.

Thanks for some of the replies.  Just trying to compile for arguing with a ignorant on the net

Lets eat grandma
Lets eat, grandma

Commas save lives

Who are "those people" that are being referred to?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are.

Just tell any dip shit that wants to ban arms that the constitution does not grant you rights, it reaffirms your god given rights as human being.

See : https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/My-neighbor-nailed-it-on-a-local-message-board-/5-2082279/?page=1#i70888888

Read what the fuck a militia is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

It's all citizens.

Because militias are important, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What's so difficult to understand?

This, it's pretty clear.

Publius outlined the militia as all military aged males from 15-50. The people ARE the militia.

This is the answer.  The Constitution can be changed and has been before.  Natural rights are absolute.

Phone... Can't make it hot.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

The people have right to arms to balance the scale. Just discussing infringing on that right is worthy of castration by 12g. No good can come from it, none, nada, zilch - unless tyranny sounds like desirable government.

Bill of RIGHTS = concerns the civil rights of The People.

The Militia = concerns The People

Is it just me or are we getting invaded by DU all of a sudden?

Someone post up the utube vid of Ted Cruz and Diane Feinstein please..

Thanks

How about a proof using classical logic:

Conservative:"I have the right to keep and bear arms."
Liberal:"No you don't, that's for the state militia only."
Conservative:"Come and Take Them"
Liberal:"OK"
(BOOM)
Conservative:"Speak up if you still don't agree"
Liberal: (....gurgle.....)

quality bait m8

"Well-regulated," in the context of the second amendment, means "well-equipped."

A militia is a non-standard volunteer military force comprised of citizens. In this context, it means every able-bodied American male of fighting age, that being 16 to 40-some years old.

Also, grammar. How does it work? Commas exist to separate one statement from the next.

The founding fathers were very clear on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...there is no ambiguity.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." - James Madison

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"...an army of any magnitude...can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." - Alexander Hamilton

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." - George Mason

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" - Samuel Adams

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

Because if the phrase "the people" and other words referring to an individual, means the MILITIA, then none of the rest of the Bill of Rights makes sense. To wit:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the MILITIA peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [size=4]MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the [size=4]MILITIA, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

Th eright of the [size=4]MILITIA to be secure in their [size=4]MILITIA, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No [size=4]MILITIA shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any [size=4]MILITIA be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against [size=4]MILITIA, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the [size=4]MILITIA shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against [size=4]MILITIA; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in [size=4]MILITIA favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for [size=4]MILITIA defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the [size=4]MILITIA.

Amendment X

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 [size=4]MILITIA.

“The right of the people” not “the right of the militia”!

Thank you everyone.  This makes my night.  I will now destroy this guy.

After he called me out saying he was a major in u.s. history,  I knew I had to respond

You don't get rights. You have rights.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

https://thewildwebster.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-2nd-amendment-and-the-importance-of-a-comma/

It's pretty simple if you understand how commas work.

Its not just you.

the second amendment doesn't give you rights, it recognizes a pre-existing right (of the People) and prevents the government from infringing on that right

Posted earlier by FLAL1A.

The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is a Natural Law document. It presumes the existence of rights antecedent to and independent of it own creation and existence. Take a look at the text of the 1st, 2d, 4th, and 9th Amendments. Each is cast in the negative. Each says that a right shall not be abridged, infringed, violated, or disparaged. None says "The people shall have the right . . . ."

What right does the 2dAm say shall not be infringed? The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Where does this right originate? It does not come from the Amendment; the Amendment presumes that it exists. If the right existed before the Amendment was ratified, the right can only have been regarded by the Framers as what is termed a "natural" right,* an inextinguishable incident of human existence.

The repeal of the 2dAm would not repeal the right to keep and bear arms. It might require us to use that right more emphatically than we have, but the right exists with or without the Amendment.

* Arguments about the existence of natural rights or the soundness of Natural Law doctrines are inapposite. What is relevant is the fact that the Framers accepted the existence of Natural Law and natural rights, and our Constitution specifically alludes to some natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

It's really fucking simple.  The people are the people and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Keeping arms means owning them, bearing arms means carrying them outside their property.  And for extra measure, they can organize themselves into militias to fight those that try to take their God given rights away from them.

For instance, if the government sent police forces to take all of the peoples weapons away from them, it would be the right of the people to form militias and bear arms against those unconstitutional police forces.  This means the constitution deems the peoples rights are more important than tyrannist's lives.

It's based on the idealogy that most people are good.  And since most people are good, they should have the ultimate power.  Governments are not most people.  Governments are led by few people with massive power.  Governments are much more easily corrupted than the entirety of the people.  So if the people rise up against the government, it generally means the government must have been really fucking shitty and deserves to get shot by the masses of good people.

https://firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

Well know if not famous essay.

Unlike 4chan I guess GD is your personal army.

MMMmmmmmm BACON!!!

The Militia was tiered; the "Ready Militia", also known as "Minute Men", were town dwellers, often younger men, usually regularly drilled and ready to assemble and fight on short notice.

The secondary militia were the Farmers, older gentlemen, folks that needed tom notice and time to assemble. Reinforcements for the ready Militia.

The third and final level was the population as a whole. The Old, the women, the people that would not be called on to fight unless the situation was dire, in defense of the hearth.

There was debate over whether the entire population should be required to drill, in the end the idea was discarded as too onerous.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

? Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

I’m stealing that, thank you.

It says it in plain English.
So simple even a caveman can understand it.
Liberals are a completely different animal though...

Attached File

Some folks did some research on that...

In search of the 2nd amendment

Let us know when you're done.

YES!

, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I think that would make a great T shirt.... Commas save lives.

Except for old people.  They have now rights.

Help jack off the horse.

Help Jack, off the horse.

Grammar matters.

Basic English grammar.  Seriously.  It doesn't say "the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms."  It says "the right of the people" and does not qualify that statement in any way.  The militia clause states a goal that is fulfilled by protecting the RKBA from infringement, implying that a militia needs a people with the RKBA to be "well-regulated".  The only ones trying to give interpretations are those who want to try to state that only the militia (or the National Guard, or the other day I heard someone say that only the regular Army has the RKBA as an entity).  Furthermore, no special definition of "the people" is provided anywhere in the document, and it is an old principle of law that absent such a thing, the common definition (such as you might find in a dictionary) is to be used.

Plenty of quotes from the time period and from Founding Fathers, including those involved in writing and passing the Bill of Rights, have been posted on gun forms over the years supporting this view that the populace or individuals have the RKBA.

Honestly, when it comes to those who would take the RKBA, the onus is on them to show how the 2nd Amendment does not protect it against infringement by the Federal government.

What makes you think that only the militia is protected?  How are you defining militia?

Back then the militia was a State (previously colonial) and/or local military force comprised of the citizenry who are private citizens not subject to military discipline when not engaged in actual service or otherwise obligated to do something related to their military duties, which makes it inherently not a standing force, active or reserve, unlike the National Guard, Army Reserve, or Regular Army today.  Back then, the norm was universal male obligation, so basically all males of fighting age were compelled to enroll in the militia and would be obligated to report for muster, training, combat duty, law enforcement duties, or whatever was required of them, and might be required to provide their own arms and equipment (although often the colonies, towns, or States provided at least some of the militia with arms from their respective armouries).  Some States allowed for men to get an independent charter and organize themselves for militia service, while still being subject to State controul.  The original Constitution provided for the President to be able to temporarily federalize the various militias for three specific reasons, as Congress may provide by law (currently, Congress does not authorize federalizing the actual State militias at all).

In this context, the importance of the RKBA makes sense, as militias, not being professional forces, have limited time for training, and due to their functions, may have to muster quickly for defensive action.  If the people can keep and bear arms freely, they can create a culture of marksmanship, learn about it before enrolling in the militia, and practice outside of official militia training, and report armed without having to first go to the armoury.  This is why the Swiss have long protected the RKBA (with some recent exceptions, like moving to may-issue carry permits in the 1990s) and required the militiamen to have their issued arms at home.  In the U.S., given that the number of militiamen enrolled often could greatly exceed the amount of State-owned arms for issuance, private arms of a martial variety were even more important (while the modern Swiss system is universal obligation in theory, but not in practice, as only a certain percentage of those obligated have to actually serve in the militia), as it may be necessary to require the militiamen to furnish their own arms in an emergency or even for routine service.

What sort of documented sources are you looking for and consider acceptable?