Militia is the Latin word for soldiery. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, “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.”
Which means, in order to maintain state security (slave states, Virginia in particular) citizen soldiers, who are members of a well-regulated Militia, have the right to own guns and that right cannot be violated.
At the time of writing the U.S. Constitution, the term Militia meant: a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
The law was actually written to serve the slave patrols that kept African negros in check to make sure they didn’t form an uprising against the white slave owners. Most white male citizens were required to serve on these slave patrols - they were not enrolled for military service - they were vigilantes. And slave patrols were on constant watch - not just in time of emergencies. Slave states were “police states.”
After slavery was abolished public interpretation of militia seemed to evolve into: a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. [By today’s standards, these would be considered reservists and not part of a standing army.] Some militia members became freelance mercenaries like Quantrill's Raiders during the Civil War.
Now the term militia seems to have evolved into: a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. [Today’s self-proclaimed militias are heavily armed (and not well regulated) bands of citizens who have decided to protect themselves from their own government. Their right to bear arms seems questionable here - and needs proper definition.
Task: define “well regulated militia” in this context.
Does it mean that when public security is threatened citizens who are members of militias will defend their right to security with the use of arms (i.e. weapons) (e.g. muskets, pitchforks, clubs)? Does well-regulated mean that those citizen soldiers are acting under the authority of some common leadership? And not acting wildly and uncontrollably on their own?
It seems that only militias have the right to bear arms - and not private citizens who do not belong to a “well regulated militia.” And by today’s definition of militia, it seems illogical to let bands of armed anti-government forces retain the right to “keep and bear arms” in case they are attacked by their own government.
This country has to decide if its citizens have the right to keep a gun in their homes or cars for personal defense, own and use rifles and shotguns for hunting, and be allowed to obtain high-capacity, semi-automatic weapons of mass destruction.
While in the U.S. Army, I personally operated belt-fed 30-caliber and 50-caliber machine guns. Those were very effective weapons for killing large amounts of enemy soldiers in a short period of time. I would love to own one in case my front yard is overrun with zombies or vampires, but unfortunately my local, state and federal governments won’t let me keep one, in spite of my right to maintain the security of the private state of my front yard.
Perhaps what many fear is the slavery is not dead and that militias still exist. Only now it is disguised as our prison system whose militia guards safeguard the “security of the State” by controlling tens of thousands of blacks incarcerated in “penal plantations.”
At any rate, why does anyone not in military service need a semi-automatic assault weapon? And don’t say it’s because you have the right to own one. What would you use it for? Just answer that and the debate may be solved.