This story is unavailable.

Really?

Really are you saying this?

Let me just quote what the constitution says about it;

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.

( some of this article is copied and pasted just FYI. )

Plus your question really begs the answer. Militias by definition are not regulated by the congress and are not overseen by the government and in fact that was the very purpose of them back then.

Back then we were very afraid of tyrannical rule .. We didn’t want someone to decide to take over the country and enslave all of its citizens. Back then, the governments created armies to control the populace . The militias , basically just like the constitutions primary purpose , was telling the government what it shall not do. The militias were basically the right of the people to take up arms against the government sanctioned army. If need be. The militias were made up of every day citizens ,mostly farmers, and they were not armed by the government and were not that well trained. They were overseen not by congress but by the individual states. But they were also to ensure that the people could always take up arms against their rulers. They could always have the right to fight back. It was to keep the rulers in line. To maintain the right to rebel against a corrupted government.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, like responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have authority to establish armies and to regulate the militia.

This shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation, and that was the primary concern. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force. ( which was the purpose of arming them)

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Which also means the primary reason for the citizenry to be armed has been obliterated.

Also, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while today soldiers are equipped with weapons that significantly differ from those generally thought appropriate for civilians. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

Until recently, the courts treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In 2008 however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5 — 4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia. Which basically means that they disregarded exactly what the constitution says. $$$

As far as the militias to, every man was expected to join them at a certain age. They had to arm themselevs and the weapons they kept at home, were the same exact ones they brought on the battlefield. The thing is, the Supreme Court , despite much evidence , decided that gun control would not happen way back in like 1800.. I believe when these issues first were brought to court. Because they have altered many laws and brought them up to date ( such as black people being able to own firearms. At the time of the constitution black people could not own guns) There is substantial evidence ( basically so much that the courts made up the interpretation of the constitution despite the evidence to the contrary ) that the right to bear arms was to protect the people from the government , from the infringement of the states , the Supreme Court rejected this ( it had to , to allow us to continue to own guns the way that we do. If we were to adhere to the constitution, and its explicit meaning , or to update it as we have with other laws concerning guns , gun control would invariably happen. ) in 1876.

If money wasn’t a part of our politic, I think we would have much different laws and regulations. It’s impossible to discern the will of the people through the piles of money and campaign contributions or snarky business partnerships and hand under table relationships that make up so much of our oligarchy today.

We are ruled by money. It doesn’t matter what the people want or what the constitution says obviously. It matters only who has the most money to pay for the votes.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.