As a first installment, a post from MrBenchley:

Some people have the mistaken idea that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to own a gun...but that's only a myth being spread by the NRA and some of the scummiest politicians and public figures on earth.

In fact, the Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY puts arms in the context of a WELL-REGULATED militia defending a free STATE (in other words, those organizations that have evolved into today’s National Guard). The Founding Fathers specifically noted this. Defending the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper 46, James Madison says that the people are to be armed so that they can form a state-regulated militia in order to defend the political powers enjoyed BY the state. In Federalist Paper 29, Alexander Hamilton argues that in order to bear arms in the militia, a citizen must submit to rigorous military training and discipline, as required by Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States and every federal appeals court have held uniformly that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms independent of the right to be armed as part of a well-regulated militia.
Gun nuts often produce a supposed quote from Samuel Adams proposing an amendment to the Massachusetts ratifying convention such that the US Constitution should ‘never construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.'" Besides the FACT that this proposal cannot be actually attributed to Adams, there is also the FACT that the convention then voted to turn down that specific proposition.
Another gun nut quote often produced is this by George Mason at Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people....To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." The quote is cobbled together out of two bits said two days apart (the second half was actually said before the first). Never heard of that famous Founding Father George Mason? Don’t feel too bad…he’s obscure mostly because he voted AGAINST adopting the US constitution.
The Supreme Court and Federal District courts have consistently ruled that gun control is constitutional.
The NRA has been the main source of this lie about the meaning of the Second Amendment. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a staunch conservative and gun owner, called the NRA's position on the 2nd amendment an outright fraud. In its entire history, the National Rifle Association has never challenged any gun law anywhere in any court on Second Amendment grounds. That’s never as in not once. No way, no place, no how. The old saying is, you put your money where your mouth is. What does it say about the NRA that they will not do this?

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

MrBenchley is an Asshat

Quoted: Ya know what is scary?  When the opposition knows more about our subject than we do. Can anybody come up with a factual convincing rebuttal to that?  (I can, with a little digging)

That's why I posted this, to come up with a rebuttal to this kind of stuff.  More on the way, everyday.

MrBenchley is an Double-secret Asshat

umm yeah, the national guard is still controlled by the federal government, hence their are no Well Regulated Militias. We all know that regulated in the parlance of the 1770's meant trained in marching (period, that's ALL the word meant.) and not controlled as in regulation.

"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"

The militia implied their is one of "grassroots" groups of armed citizens ready to die for their independance.  As Hamilton later was quoted as saying, every person should be armed as a means of keeping the central government in checked.  The ability of the people to organize and group as an armed militia is/was/will be that check.  That is us.

The point is that all these anti's use the national guard to say Oh There is  aMilitia already.  no its not controlled by a non-central organ of government.  

Then comes the genius, "well if you need to be a check on the stta, shouldn't all of us have nuclear weapons."  According to the word of law, we should.  The spirit of the law is satisfied by merely having the possibility of an armed militia able to rise up, not an acutal militia, nor actual nukes, for that matter.

Quoted: What good is a rebuttal to morons like benchley? If you were to post an effective reubttal over at DU, you would be immeadiately banned.

Possibly, but when debating someone elsewhere (in my case, every person I come in contact with is a gun-hater), you will have the knowledge needed to put the gun grabbers in their place.

I would be curious to see the exact quotes this guy is presenting as fact.

The bill of rights enumerated individual rights. The collectivist view breaks down when you apply it to any other amendment.

"Well regulated" clearly defines to "well trained and proper functioning" when used within the context of the day.

As proof I offer these:

"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation, and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education." – Quote for North Carolina legislature circa 1789

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." – Quote Hamilton in The Federalist #29

One may also consult the OED for a definition of the word "REGULATED"

Bleh. There's more but the collectivist view of the BOR has been discredited so many times... Why even bother?

Quoted: Quoted: As a first installment, a post from MrBenchley: Some people have the mistaken idea that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to own a gun...but that's only a myth being spread by the NRA and some of the scummiest politicians and public figures on earth. In fact, the Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY puts arms in the context of a WELL-REGULATED militia defending a free STATE (in other words, those organizations that have evolved into today’s National Guard). The Founding Fathers specifically noted this. Defending the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper 46, James Madison says that the people are to be armed so that they can form a state-regulated militia in order to defend the political powers enjoyed BY the state. In Federalist Paper 29, Alexander Hamilton argues that in order to bear arms in the militia, a citizen must submit to rigorous military training and discipline, as required by Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States and every federal appeals court have held uniformly that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms independent of the right to be armed as part of a well-regulated militia. Gun nuts often produce a supposed quote from Samuel Adams proposing an amendment to the Massachusetts ratifying convention such that the US Constitution should ‘never construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.'" Besides the FACT that this proposal cannot be actually attributed to Adams, there is also the FACT that the convention then voted to turn down that specific proposition. They voted that specific proposition down because of the feasibility of formal training of the entirey of the citizenry up to fighting standards. Another gun nut quote often produced is this by George Mason at Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people....To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." The quote is cobbled together out of two bits said two days apart (the second half was actually said before the first). Never heard of that famous Founding Father George Mason? Don’t feel too bad…he’s obscure mostly because he voted AGAINST adopting the US constitution. The Supreme Court and Federal District courts have consistently ruled that gun control is constitutional. The NRA has been the main source of this lie about the meaning of the Second Amendment. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a staunch conservative and gun owner, called the NRA's position on the 2nd amendment an outright fraud. In its entire history, the National Rifle Association has never challenged any gun law anywhere in any court on Second Amendment grounds. That’s never as in not once. No way, no place, no how. The old saying is, you put your money where your mouth is. What does it say about the NRA that they will not do this? That is something that Warren Burger NEVER said as a judge.  Why?  Because he would have had to defend it with facts.  He said that after he retired.  It was his own personal opinion. "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 "Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976) Warin is a new case to me.  I'll investigate it. http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html While I'm at it, I'll point out that the government's powers IRT the militia are enumerated in the main body of the Constitution.  Remember, the main body of the Constitution expresses the construction and powers of the Fedgov.  IIRC, all three branches have their unique powers IRT the militia. Therefore, why would the Framers ONCE AGAIN address the militia and possibly contradict what is in the main body of the Constitution? The Fedgov is responsible for funding, training, disciplining and calling out the militia.  That is explained in the main body.  Why, then, would the 2nd say that the above is the responsibility of the state? BAM, let's kick this shit up a notch!

Good stuff!

How about we start with US vs Miller in which SCOTUS ruled that a specific type of weapon could be banned from civilian possession because it was not suitable for defensive use. Therefore, the second amendment protects the civilian possession of weapons suitable for defensive use.

Then, take the second amendment: 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.

First off, the reason clause (A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state) does not modify or restrict the rights clause; it merely explains the reason for it. The rights clause clearly states that the right applies to the people, not to militias or governments.

Second, they didn't even get their reading of the reason clause right. The full definition of regulate:

regulate 1. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws. The laws which regulate the successions of the seasons. --Macaulay. The herdsmen near the frontier adjudicated their own disputes, and regulated their own police. --Bancroft. 2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances. 3. To adjust, or maintain, with respect to a desired rate, degree, or condition; as, to regulate the temperature of a room, the pressure of steam, the speed of a machine, etc. To regulate a watch or clock, to adjust its rate of running so that it will keep approximately standard time.

In the context of the Second Amendment, regulated refers to the third definition. Well-regulated means well-trained, not subject to arbitrary Government restrictions.

Next up, we have the legal definition of militia, still in the current US code:

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 2, 2001] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between  January 2, 2001 and January 28, 2002] [CITE: 10USC311]                         TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES                    Subtitle A--General Military Law            PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS                         CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.    (b) The classes of the militia are--        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard    and the Naval Militia; and        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval    Militia.

Thus the phrase "well-regulated militia" refers to everyone, not just members of the National Guard. It makes far more sense this way - why state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if it doesn't really mean the people? Plus, no matter how you interpret the phrase, it still does not modify or restrict the rights phrase in any way.

Imagine if you retained this assumption with the other rights. The First Amendment states:

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 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If the First Amendment was misinterpreted the same way, it would say that the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly can only be used to discuss religion.

I'm not that familiar with the RKBA material in the Federalist Papers, but using the references in that rant, i can see that Federalist Paper 46 states that a militia led by state governments would be easily able to defeat any federal army. It does not state that the people may only "keep and bear arms" during their service in an "organized militia". Here is a quote that I think explains the overall point nicely:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The main point is that having State governments is another barrier to Federal tyranny. There is the implication that the American people are to be armed. There is also the implication that the State government controls the militia, but there is no statement that this is the only way in which the people can bear arms.

Now, Federalist Paper 29 most certainly does not say that the people must submit to anything in order to bear arms. It describes the characteristics of the militia, as opposed to maintaining a standing army. It says that Congress is to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. It is clear that this does not refer to controlling them as a standing army, which our current armed forces and national guards are. To emphasize this, it states:

...if  circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army 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 the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

So, good old MrBenchley's interpretation can only be arrived at by an extremely creative reading of the above Federalist Papers.

There is most likely more strong RKBA material in the Federalist Papers, but I don't want to pore through them all at the moment. I know there's some more good material in court rulings too. I might work on that a little tomorrow, if I have time (and this thread's still going).

Rebuttal of the ACLU position here.

Quoted: Can anybody come up with a factual convincing rebuttal to that?

Yes, and without any digging.  

The creators of the constitution won their independance from an oppressive government by using privately owned guns.  To think that, after all this, they would draft an amendment that would protect GOV'T POWER and not INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is absurd.

that's only a myth being spread by the NRA and some of the scummiest politicians and public figures on earth.

Last year, none other than Laurence Tribe (well known liberal lawyer at Harvard) came out and publicly stated that it was undeniable that the 2nd Amendment affirmed an individual right, and was consistent with all others put forth in The Bill of Rights. Believe me, that day many on the left had a cow or two.  

BTW: Here’s links to # 29 & 46
www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/federalist.20.html#fed29
www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/federalist.40.html#fed46

If you read 'em, I think you will find a bit different meaning than what MrBenchley would have you believe.

And a link to all of them:
www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

It would not take more than a day to read all of them and they are a worthwhile read.

Don't bother.

They won't change your mind, you won't change theirs.

You are simply wasting your time.

Quoted: Don't bother. They won't change your mind, you won't change theirs. You are simply wasting your time.

I'm not wasting time.  I just learned a few things by reading responses to the post.  I don't plan on posting anything on DU anyway.

<<sigh...>>

TFB for this jerk.  They have consistantly lost this argument in the courts for years.

Not worth the effort.

Let him blather, he is nothing more than a pimple on a flea's ass.  He can't win.

Index for later read

It is really very simple.  All the Amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to the people.  Why would the Second apply to the states, as opposed to the others?

We're expending too much energy on this subject.  Let's  find out this guy's  Ip.  track him down,
Fill him up with  a high dose of LSD, then lock him in a dimly lit closet full of Kerry and Feinstein posters while playing Beatles Revolution #9 at high volumes.  It'll fix him right up.