This message was self-deleted by its author

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. Numerous times the usage "well regulated" has been discussed...

...in connection to a Militia. In recalling also the Founders objective by recognizing nearly all adults (meaning full adults as the rights of females and many people of color were less acknowledged than they are now) of majority age as militia, fused to the growing political, economic and military norms and fundamentals for the new nation of having the tightest bond possible between the common man and the serviceman. A bond that would guarantee the civilian view of a serviceman being a friend, a neighbor and, by extension, himself and the same view from a serviceman's perspective of the civilian.

Consider the quote from JFK:

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

How unfair would it be to, while knowing a military draft is possible and has recent precedent, to deny those subject to it the option to gain basic skill with the arms to which they would be required to use? To identify arms as a right (that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.) and then demand a service to permit the exercise of the right, is to harmfully divide the people into more and less privileged groups. Such actions are counter to the goal of having a body of people with some measure of skill at arms from which to raise an army and completely against the essential idea of a right.

Would a serviceman charged with any aspect of securing tyranny be motivated to that action knowing could also be the subject of tyranny in a short time?

I know that in making 'well regulated' a part of the 2A, that the Founders sought to have an effective militia, one that could suppress a rebellion or repel an invasion, would require rifleman. Such skills are often the result of extensive experience and acquired most and best by those practicing regularly. Not based on their being pressed into service but simply as amateurs, maybe competitively or perhaps as hunters.

I refuse to accept the 'notion' of necessity that a "right" be predicated upon service to the state, not the RKBA, not for freedom of speech nor for the right to vote.