Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BlueTrain
Speaking of the militia itself as orginally envisioned, remember that the existance of the militia was assumed. It is mentioned in the constition in two places. Congress is given power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." The "President shall be Commander in Chief...of the Militias of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." It sort of begs the question what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, doesn't it? There is no suggestion anywhere, however, that any form of registration of weapons is necessary for the militia to be effective, nor any suggestion that they need to be provided by the members thereof. Not in the constition at least.
|
Since you quoted clause 15, you should have read the next clause (16) of section 8:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, [of] the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
That little word I highlighted was the express purpose of the 2A RKBA.
If the Congress alone were the sole authority to arm the militia, they could just as well refuse to arm them and the populace as a whole could be disarmed. Hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms.