A common question to both sides...
...of this debate is the definition of the term "militia". A lot has been written on both sides of this issue concerning that definition. Underlying the idea that the militia be composed of and raised from the body of the people, is that same concept which Lincoln raised in the Gettysburg Address, that of "...government of the people, by the people, for the people...".
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that governmental authority is derived from the consent of the governed. Here in the US we accept that each individual is sovereign. By living here, we all participate in government. The judges, legislators and executives in their roles may be more involved with the day to day issues of government but they are not a separate class of individuals. Every individual, by his voice on issues to his neighbors, by his calls for change to officials, by the respecting of just laws and by his vote, is a an active part of the government.
A core expression of part of the concepts involved is expressed in this quote from JFK:
This government is a fair and democratic implementation of a representative republic. There is no facility within the law to recognize a right and concurrently limit that right from any group in general or certain individual without due process. The idea of accepting a right for only active militia members is so counter to the American spirit as to be an oxymoron.
= new reply since forum marked as read
...the double negative, elaborate a bit more, please, on what militia means to you, and a bit less on what it is not. While you're at it, please share what you think about a right possessed only by some of the people and not all of the people. 
"The founders were a bunch of smart white guys who owned slaves" - They were in general intelligent. There has been speculation that John Hanson was a black man. Some of the founders did own slaves, but I find this indirect indictment rather ad hominem.
"They were not some kind of infallible deity." - No one said they were. Please address elements of law or government rather than impugning historical figures.
"Neither were they prescient." - I didn't say they were. They were very familiar with the results of abuses by government.
"If any were around today, I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random." - In the prior sentence you speak of the inability to predict the future, and now you make your own predictions. I predict you've switched to de-caf. 
"To connect them with the current Scalia/NRA interpretation of their intent is insulting to their intelligence and their integrity." - It is left to you highlight and defend your interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
:cheers:
...to be more specific, this is all conjecture.
I have much respect for them and they were all exceptional men of their time.
I doubt any were talking about pocket pistols, but even if they were, they had a maximum of 2 shots from a weapon that was not noted for it's accuracy.
Pocket pistol. Gotta love that term 
And the so called founding fathers were around when? I know it wasn't your post, but had to slip it in there. 
...does side against the USSC's decision in Heller. I must point out that the ACLU, as highlighted in the link you provided, does not take a position in the debate on gun-control. I further point out that they did not file a brief in Heller so perhaps you have an opinion supporting your position from a person or group having some recognized status within the actual case? Please let me know.
Being pro-gun control is like being anti-voter rights?
Does working-order mean the arming of unsavory elements that may oppose participation in the militia such as criminals and those untrusted to preserve public safety?
Did the Founding Fathers not fear insurrection and slave uprising?
"well equipped"
Original language- "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 I interpret it- An effective 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 reason for my OP was to say that enumerating and protecting a RIGHT (by name, by inference due to its inclusion in the Bill of Rights...) and reserving said RIGHT to only a subset of the people is an oxymoron.
Not to disparage or disrespect the interpretations of others but as I read many, many writings of the founders, jurists and statesmen of last two centuries, and more than a few folks here, it is my current opinion that the 2A protects and individual right. I must add however that I am now rereading the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens as joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in the Heller decision.
Please share your opinion and reasoning.
...that what we are doing today which is nearly the complete opposite of what they intended. How the Swiss incorporate this into society:
To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.
It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.
[edit] Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit
There are three conditions:
fulfilling the conditions for buying a permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon
The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.
-------
To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
I wonder if the Swiss arm Neo-Nazis and how common it is now to have dozens of weapons that aren't antiques.
When was the last time there was a left-wing terrorist attack in Switzerland.
Source: Southern Poverty Law Center
Re: "Also, cite, not site." TY I'm an engineer with the requisite spelling and grammar deficits.
Would you please read The Federalist No. 46 and render your impression of it.
Some quotations in point being:
"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."
"On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them."
Madison clearly argues against a standing army unless necessary to repel a foreign invader and that a Militia should be formed in case of either that scenario or insurrection. He affirms the reasonable nature of checks and balances in relation to Federal authority over the states and notes the flaws inherent in allowing the states to grow too far apart in their laws and regulations. Madison's argument is in defense of the Constitution and against the notion that the people are not adequately represented by the republican model. He's explaining why the Articles of Confederacy have been insufficient in providing for a national defense of the federated states. He's portending the Civil War or a likewise insurrection and wishfully hoping that it should not come to that because it would be so destructive because the Militias will be contained. He hopes that if insurrection or invasion were to occur and a State were to be compromised that once the insurrection/invader was put down that there would be no permanent occupation.
As it was, and as you've seen in 1792 the Militias were placed under the direct authority of the President of the United States, and the expectation was that in event of war that this would be the protocol such as to provide for a united defense rather than individual states defending only their own. He is against a permanent large standing army.
If you are suggesting we seriously reduce the Defense Department budget, fund the National Guard better, and institute stricter gun control to prevent an internal uprising and to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," I am all for it. But this current situation, which President William Jefferson Clinton described as "madness," is unacceptable not consistent with an tea leaves reading of the Federalist Papers or the Constitution. It was for this reason that Antonin Scalia and his fellow Justices turned to this nebulous concept:
Why do we care about what "the Antifederalists feared"when the real issue is what the practical balance of the Second Amendment constitutes? I don't think it means unlimited ownership of arms of whatever type one may please by any measure of the law. Scalia is engaging in mystification from this point on out; there is no "individual right" to the keeping or beating of arms and because this proclamation is so inconsistent with the actual text of the Second Amendment, much less the principles of Liberty, he has to caution:
This is chickenshit justice; this is right-wing Supreme Court judges throwing an ideological bone to the NRA and friends by engaging in statements not previously made and not pertinent to the case through the very judicial activism that he decries. Fuck Antonin Scalia.
California National Guardsmen - Los Angeles, 1992.
I just thought it funny that you missed that in your analysis of FP 29
“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli
Given that, how do you justify gun control at all..."to give federal authority of the regulation of private citizens regarding arms" - so there should be no background checks?
Government will intrude as it must, and that does not constitute infringement. BTW - The Declaration of Independence is not law, if it was I could simply complain as a public citizen that the incompetent distribution of arms is allowing criminals to prey upon the people and that my right to good government has been infringed.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
I'm really not seeing how the libertarian argument for the weakest government possible is anywhere enshrined in our social contract; it seems to be that the Founders wanted good government, not no government at all, and that your quotation immediately following mine only indicates that such conditions existed under King George III, and not simply as a binary choice instead of a continuum of injustices. Your argument is circular and negates the very clear statements in the Constitution for the general right of the people to safety and general welfare.
Antifederalist claptrap that should be paid no more mind than Harry Potter.
Get over yourself and join your fellow citizens in the advancement of a Republic of the Good.
I don't see how you can reconcile those two views. Were the Confederate states right to secede?
Can we not add to that list?
...Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and anti-government groups is "racist and classist bullshit"
...
...
...
...
