Select-fire

[maestro pistolero]

As the legislative history of the Act under consideration clearly shows, (p.108)Congress was dealing with problems which threaten the maintenance of public order. There can be no question that an organized society which fails to regulate the importation, manufacture and transfer of the highly sophisticated lethal weapons in existence today does so at its peril. The requirement that no one may possess a submachine gun which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record is a reasonable regulation for the maintenance of public order.

Except we all know that in effect the NFA goes much further, in fact all but assures the eventual disappearance of FA from public hands. The closing of the registration, combined with the requirement for registration creates a ban.

Perhaps a higher level of required training, screening, and safe storage requirement would be in order, but to support an outright ban is to undermine the amendment for one of it's primary purposes, the ability of the common man to resist and overthrow a future tyrannical government.

TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A? If not, how can you reconcile such a disparity in the arms available to accomplish the purpose should the need arise?

(for the record, we are nowhere near tyranny, IMO and our democratic institutions are working as they should, unless and until we lose the ability to throw the bums out)

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Except we all know that in effect the NFA goes much further, in fact all but assures the eventual disappearance of FA from public hands.

The 1934 NFA does no such thing. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986 could be argued to do such. In that regard I think a constitutional challenge would be interesting to see. Otherwise, I think legislation might do better.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A?

Yes, as it pertains to the individual right. No, as it pertains to the state militia. The individual right pertains I believe to the individual right of personal self defense. My readings of history and the COTUS debates lead me to believe such.

The 2A was insisted upon by the anti-federalists who feared a large standing army AND the unprecendented control given Congress by the COTUS to control the militia.

The idea was that with a small standing army and the defense of the nation thus mostly in the hands of large state militias that a tyrant could not oppose such because the state militias would be more powerful than the national army and would serve as a check against tyranny.

The anti-fedieralists feared that if the states were not able to arm their militias that the Fed could then disarm them and render them ineffective. Thus the Second Amendment.

The historical irony is that in the end the states themselves sold out their militias because their citizens did not want to serve in them and the states did not want to pay for them.

Originally Posted by =maestro pistolero

If not, how can you reconcile such a disparity in the arms available to accomplish the purpose should the need arise?

There are some who argue, without any historical or legal basis, as you alllude to that "out there somewhere" is this "citizen's militia" that is unorganized, untrained, unlead, unfamiliar with each other with no accountability to any constitutional government that will in a time of crisis rise up as one with their military weapons and defeat tyranny. They provide esoteric and idealistic quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Tench Coxe and others that they feel support their premise.

The historical facts of course are quite different. No such thing (even pre-constitution in the colonies) EVER existed in that manner. Pure fantasy. In fact in the case of Jefferson he later ruefully admitted that the republican ideal of the militia he dreamed of could never be.

So back to your question, as far as military weapons (FA et al) if the STATE lawfully formed a militia they could if they chose arm them with such weapons and Congress could not prevent it.

The individual may not claim such a right even as a member of the unorganized militia under which one has no rights, duties or responsibilites under the 2A.

For more information on the militia, here is a resource: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp

[maestro pistolero]

The 1934 NFA does no such thing. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986 could be argued to do such.

Right, I stand corrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A?
Yes, as it pertains to the individual right. No, as it pertains to the state militia. The individual right pertains I believe to the individual right of personal self defense. My readings of history and the COTUS debates lead me to believe such.

Well, then, if the militia is dead, as you say, then so is the right to armed resistance to tyranny, right? How would you account for this gaping hole in the ability of citizens to overthrow a genuine tyranny? We just allow a lowly militia act to supersede the constitution?

There are some who argue, without any historical or legal basis, as you alllude to that "out there somewhere" is this "citizen's militia" that is unorganized, untrained, unlead, unfamiliar with each other with no accountability to any constitutional government that will in a time of crisis rise up as one with their military weapons and defeat tyranny.

That sounds like a description of the American revolution itself; it is hardly without any historical basis, and you know that. As to the lack of training, or unfamiliarity with each other, that is a temporary weakness that could be corrected should the need arise. Actual boot camp is, what, 8-10 weeks? You get my point. The ability to be sufficiently armed is what cannot be easily rectified if the guns were gone. Again, this is hypothetical, not some whack-job's call to arms.

Seriously, TG, aren't you the least bit concerned, that over time, let's say a couple hundred more years, that the worst fears of our founders could become a reality? Do you trust government so much that you would allow even the tiniest crack in the dam to go unrepaired?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Well, then, if the militia is dead, as you say, then so is the right to armed resistance to tyranny, right?

I was reading an interesting part of that new book about Clinton and fighting the NRA. The quote said that in times of emergency the people tend to call for more government involvement not less. But I digress. I think in the age of a mature liberal democratic society we live in today talking about armed insurrection falls rather flat. And before you trot out the usual suspects of Nazi Germany and Stalin remember that none of them ever had the type of democratic institutions we possess today. The great danger today to freedom is apathy in not participating in the political process not a lack of machineguns in Joe Citizen's hands.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

That sounds like a description of the revolution itself.

No, the Revolution happened because there was no other political recourse. We have such today.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

It is hardly without any historical basis, and you know that. As to the lack of training, or unfamiliarity with each other, that is a temporary weakness that could be corrected should the need arise. Actual boot camp is, what, 8-10 weeks?

Not to be insulting but that statement made me chuckle some. In my previous profession we would call such an organization a Charlie Foxtrot. No, you cannot form an effective force in 8-10 weeks. Maybe on Red Dawn but not in real life and the militias were NEVER such a thing. They had a predetermined leadership, organization and they trained together (albeit some better than others with New England being the best).

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

The ability to be sufficiently armed is what cannot be easily rectified if the guns were gone.

Well heck, based on that scenario just go break into your local NG or Reserve armory and load up! Drive the tanks and arty out the gate and go to town. You can get the small arms ammo from the guns stores you loot! Just kidding!

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Seriously, TG, aren't you the least bit concerned, that over time, let's say a couple hundred more years, that the worst fears of our founders could become a reality?

233 years and counting!

[maestro pistolero]

In my previous profession we would call such an organization a Charlie Foxtrot. No, you cannot form an effective force in 8-10 weeks.

I think there might be a qualified patriot or two who would step into leadership positions. We send our kids into battle with no more experience than that. The Militia defeated what was considered the greatest army in the world at the time, in part, because they were more clever, and there was no disparity in the performance of their small arms.

No, the Revolution happened because there was no other political recourse.

Isn't that nearly a definition of tyranny? If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

I think there might be a qualified patriot or two who would step into leadership positions.

Who? Why not get that guy or gal to run for office? They would do a lot better in that capacity.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

We send our kids into battle with no more experience than that.

No we don't.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

The Militia defeated what was considered the greatest army in the world at the time, in part, because they were more clever, and there was no disparity in the performance of their small arms.

The Continental Army with the great help of the French and a United Kingdom embroiled in a war with France sort of helped out. BTW Washington spoke against the militia that were used and the Virginia militia let the British occupy Thomas Jefferson's home. He soon saw the folly of the idea and militia began to fade.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.

Correct! Which is why the insurrection talk is moot. BTW we aren't colonies anymore. We never had any political recourse with Great Britain.

[maestro pistolero]

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.

Correct! Which is why the insurrection talk is moot. BTW we aren't colonies anymore. We never had any political recourse with Great Britain.

And if ever there weren't recourse again? Are you saying it's impossible? I, too, find it extremely unlikely in the short term. But government doesn't tend get to smaller and expand rights over time. You'd have to be an ostrich not to see which way this inclines.

Is it really so inconceivable, that over time, the government could cross the line to despotism? Isn't that possibility a primary reason the right was codified in the first place? I just don't see how one can toss that aside without a concern in the world for the freedom of future generations.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

And if ever there weren't recourse again? Are you saying it's impossible?

Theoretically nothing is impossible. Chemical pollution may one day cause the dead to rise and eat us but I don't prepare for that.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

But government doesn't tend get to smaller and expand rights over time.

And yet during our 233 years the government has expanded AND so have our civil rights. Don't believe it? Go read the Alien and Sedition Acts from 1798.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Is it really so inconceivable, that over time, the government could cross the line to despotism?

Yes, in the way many of you on TFL feel it will.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Isn't that possibility a primary reason the right was codified in the first place?

For the state militia yes, for the individual no.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

I just don't see how one can toss that aside without a concern in the world for the freedom of future generations.

I don't which is why I say vote, stay involved politically in your community. Join the NRA or other like minded groups (NOT the Oath Keepers) and use the gift our Founding Fathers gave us. Your vote to establish a government by of and for the people. Don't be apathetic politically and naive enough to think the supressed fully tricked out M-16 in your gun safe will do the job for you and protect freedom.

[maestro pistolero]

I don't which is why I say vote, stay involved politically in your community. Join the NRA or other like minded groups (NOT the Oath Keepers) and use the gift our Founding Fathers gave us. Your vote to establish a government by of and for the people. Don't be apathetic politically and naive enough to think the supressed fully tricked out M-16 in your gun safe will do the job for you and protect freedom.

Is that what you think of TFL members, TG? I am neither apathetic politically nor naive, and I don't think an M-16, fully tricked out or not, is a substitute for participating in the democratic process. I am not sure how you could think that based on anything I wrote in this thread.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Is that what you think of TFL members, TG?

Some of them yeah I do. Combined with a good dose of Walter Mitty. Not all of them. If the shoe fits....

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

I am neither apathetic politically nor naive, and I don't think an M-16, fully tricked out or not, is a substitute for participating in the democratic process.

Didn't refer to you specifically(that was a generic you)..like I said about the shoe fitting. Nevertheless I applaud your participation in the process and I repeat if you and many more others become or remain that way you won't need a machine gun to fight off the gubmint. BTW, IMHO if we ever got to that point, as the Russians say; the living would envy the dead. It would not be the heroic Red Dawn Unintended Consequnces tripe if our country imploded. But I don't believe it will ever happen.

[Hkmp5sd]

It would not be the heroic Red Dawn Unintended Consequnces tripe if our country imploded.

I vision it more like a nationwide version of Manhattan from Escape From New York.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

I vision it more like a nationwide version of Manhattan from Escape From New York.

The question is: Whom would be the Duke of New York?

[RDak]

TG: How would a group of people organize to remove tyranny in modern day America, (i.e., in your opinion).

Let's assume the voting booth is "out the window' and there is clearly a tyrant attempting to "takeover".

Wouldn't the unregulated militia, or State authorities, then be allowed to form well regulated militias?

Isn't it really that simple of a concept as far as the founding fathers were concerned? (Sure, those in power would view this "formation of well regulated militias" as rebel activity and try to quash it by force or prison time. But that's how it always is IMHO.)

ETA: It appears that you feel there is no non-voting remedy nowadays for ordinary folks to thwart real life tyranny any longer?

I say, the 2nd Amendment allows us to form well regulated militias for this purpose. By "us" I mean the unregulated militias. Whether this "formation" is successful depends on how it is received by all of America. But that's how it always is in other similar situations throughout time IMHO.

Btw, I would make you the "Duke of NY" because you seem to be an honest, decent guy. There would be others also IMHO.

(As to full auto ever becoming a commonly used weapon, that appears to be a red herring argument because the 1934 NFA Act came out reasonably soon after automatic, hand held, weapons were even available. I mean, they were only around for about 15 to 20 years by 1934 weren't they? And they were expensive I assume. [The first Thompson sub-machine gun was manufactured in 1921 and the BAR came out around the time of WWI.].)

[maestro pistolero]

ETA: It appears that you feel there is no remedy nowadays for ordinary folks to thwart real life tyranny any longer?

If I may summarize, TG seems to feel that only the states have the right to organize a revolution against a theoretically tyrannical government, and that common folks lack the ability, right, or even apparently the potential to organize and train.
Also, despite it's ongoing presence in the the BOR, TG believes the militia to be a 'dead letter'. "Dead and buried over a hundred years ago", never to be resurrected under any circumstances, except possibly by our trusted state governments, who are apparently not susceptible to any despotic leanings in TG's world.

How'd I do?

[RDak]

That's the feeling I get maestro.

I had a similar discussion with TG many months ago and I think he went away with the thought that it might be ok for the unregulated militia to organize their own well regulated militia. You know, with experienced military or LEO personnel as officers, trainers, etc.

That appeared to meet with TG's approval but we never went quite that far with our discussion.

ETA: But my main question to TG, this time, is whether regular unregulated militia folk are allowed to form well regulated militias pursuant to the 2nd Amendment? I say, on its face, yes. As long as their is a real threat of tyranny. Which is always going to be based on a subjective conclusion of "threat" if you get what I mean.

It appears, I may be wrong, that TG feels things have to be objectively obvious before the 2nd Amendment is even triggered in such a situation. That is an impossible standard to ever meet in the real world IMHO. It would be a red herring argument IMHO.

I mean, look at our own Revolution. There were many people who remained loyal to Britain. Yet the 2nd Amendment "idea" came out of that struggle IMHO. So, whether you have a tyrant, or not, is always a subjective judgment that each individual has to make IMHO.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Wow, these are good questions! I will try to answer as best I can.

Originally Posted by RDak

How would a group of people organize to remove tyranny in modern day America, (i.e., in your opinion)...Let's assume the voting booth is "out the window' and there is clearly a tyrant attempting to "takeover".

Well being a student of history I will try to approach this one in a different way. One thing I have learned about catastrophic things like war is that they seldom seem to come about like we think they will.

When I was a student at the Naval War College during the '90s we spent a year trying to figure out who our next conventional enemy would be. We figured Iran and North Korea and we planned how we would beat them. We were wrong of course and terrorism became the next challenge for us to face.

So in that vein I think the next "tyranny" that we could possibly face would not be the Nazi/Stalin scenario that so many seem to believe will occur complete with cattle cars and concentration camps. I see political and community apathy being the real danger and so the minority of gun owners would never be able to change that threat with the mere ownership of guns.

In other words I cannot see a "tyranny" as many hold out here on TFL that could be opposed by Joe Citizen with a machine gun.

Originally Posted by RDak

Wouldn't the unregulated militia, or State authorities, then be allowed to form well regulated militias?

When you say unregulated are you talking about unorganized? Keep in mind the unorganized militia was a term that came out around 1830 as a way to keep people OUT of serving in the militia.

Nevertheless, the states are allowed to form their militias now. Nothing to stop them. Ever wonder why they don't do it? Even Walter Dellinger agreed with that and I posted links to his comments on that before. The militias died because the states did not want to pay for them, they were ineffective in defending the nation, and citizens did not want to serve in them. The unorganized militia that exists in statute today has no rights, duties, or responsibilities and so is a dead letter in fact as well. It is a mere statutory construct.

However the 2A part of the equation was that our nation would be defended by a small standing army with a large state militia system and the 2A was written to keep state control intact over those miltias that the Federalist COTUS had given the Fed large amounts of control over these militias to.

The idea was that with a small standing army and a large state militia defending the country the ability of a tryant to take over would not be there since the state militias would not allow them to effect such and would out number the standing army. That dynamic is no more and after the civil war I don't think the state militias could perform those functions.

[Al Norris]

Using the Gentleman's own criteria, using the backdrop of international terrorism, all that would be required would be a nod from your city fathers. Perhaps even the local Sheriff or Police Chief, to form a "reaction" unit to protect the infrastructure and provide a "ready reserve" for the uniformed officers of your area.

Just tossing this to the wind.....

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by RDak

I say, the 2nd Amendment allows us to form well regulated militias for this purpose. By "us" I mean the unregulated militias. Whether this "formation" is successful depends on how it is received by all of America. But that's how it always is in other similar situations throughout time IMHO.

I would disagree and say that looking at our history no such formation ever existed nor was planned to be. Leave aside the quotes from the founders about the republican ideal of the militia and look to what really existed then and you will see that to be true. I repeat, the 2A was never written to be a suicide clause of the republic. I think what you are talking about is a grass roots revolution (rebellion) and I don't think the 2A was written to that end.

Originally Posted by RDak

Btw, I would make you the "Duke of NY" because you seem to be an honest, decent guy.

Well, thank you Sir and for that honor you will be the "The Dude in Waiting"!

Originally Posted by RDak

(As to full auto ever becoming a commonly used weapon, that appears to be a red herring argument because the 1934 NFA Act came out reasonably soon after automatic, hand held, weapons were even available. I mean, they were only around for about 15 to 20 years by 1934 weren't they? And they were expensive I assume. [The first Thompson sub-machine gun was manufactured in 1921 and the BAR came out around the time of WWI.].)

I would counter that they are not in common use because they were not commonly used. Sorry for the Zen like logic but that sums it up best I think. For reasons of cost (you mentioned), wasteful use of ammo, practicality for law abiding uses, and dangerous design(supressive fire and area denial) I think people just didn't want them and I am talking all the way to 1986 when the registry closed and they weren't that expensive to buy. Now they are very expensive and so a small minority of gun folk long for their return.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

If I may summarize, TG seems to feel that only the states have the right to organize a revolution against a theoretically tyrannical government, and that common folks lack the ability, right, or even apparently the potential to organize and train. Also, despite it's ongoing presence in the the BOR, TG believes the militia to be a 'dead letter'. "Dead and buried over a hundred years ago", never to be resurrected under any circumstances, except possibly by our trusted state governments, who are apparently not susceptible to any despotic leanings in TG's world.

Not quite. I assert that the well-regulated militia in the 2A was the State Militias that existed at that time. It is true that BoRs still include such and as such a state may form a militia for whatever reason it sees fit. That is the STATE, not a group of individuals. Many states forbid private militias today and their laws have survived court scrutiny. I say the armed well-regulated militia is a dead letter because the states made it so. I do believe the founders did not fear "despotic leanings" in the states only the fed and that is why the BoR did not apply to the States when they were first written.

Originally Posted by RDak

But my main question to TG, this time, is whether regular unregulated militia folk are allowed to form well regulated militias pursuant to the 2nd Amendment?

No. Not under the 2A. Only the states could do so. As stated above many states have laws against doing so and they have been found to be constitutional.

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Using the Gentleman's own criteria, using the backdrop of international terrorism, all that would be required would be a nod from your city fathers. Perhaps even the local Sheriff or Police Chief, to form a "reaction" unit to protect the infrastructure and provide a "ready reserve" for the uniformed officers of your area.

My understanding is that the "nod" would have to come from the Governor unless state law said otherwise. Now, I do not equate a LEO asking a citizen or citizens to help him effect an arrest to be a militia. Also, any such "reaction unit" would have to answer to legally elected authority and I couldn't imagine a state allowing that but they could. Furthermore I do not consider a neighborhood group (remember my picture of "Drunks with Guns") that forms up for self defense during a disaster or riot to be a militia either.

ETA:

Originally Posted by RDak

I had a similar discussion with TG many months ago and I think he went away with the thought that it might be ok for the unregulated militia to organize their own well regulated militia. You know, with experienced military or LEO personnel as officers, trainers, etc.

That wasn't me IIRC. I would not agree with that construct for those are not militia but unauthorized paramilitary organizations.

[Hkmp5sd]

Not quite. I assert that the well-regulated militia in the 2A was the State Militias that existed at that time. It is true that BoRs still include such and as such a state may form a militia for whatever reason it sees fit. That is the STATE, not a group of individuals. Many states forbid private militias today and their laws have survived court scrutiny. I say the armed well-regulated militia is a dead letter because the states made it so. I do believe the founders did not fear "despotic leanings" in the states only the fed and that is why the BoR did not apply to the States when they were first written.

So if I understand what you are saying, you say that the BoR was meant so that the States could form a militia to overthrough an overbearing federal government (which means instead of seceding, the South should have engaged the North in a true Civil War for the overall country) and that "the people" have no right to organize to overthrow anything (State or Federal government).

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

So if I understand what you are saying, you say that the BoR was meant so that the States could form a militia to overthrough an overbearing government (which means instead of seceding, the South should have engaged the North in a true Civil War for the overall country) and that "the people" have no right to organize to overthrow anything (State or Federal government).

Well, we are talking about the Second Amendment right? The States already had militias (they were formed by their colonial charters for their common defense not as a hedge against tyranny) but the States wanted to make sure the Fed could not disarm their militias since the militia clause of the COTUS gave Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline them. The 2A specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true. It was NEVER intended to protect the right to armed paramilitary activities by self-selected groups outside of civilian political control.

[Hkmp5sd]

The 2A specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true.

Was not the South, after deciding to not to play cooperatively and to withdraw from the Union, invaded and their State militias physically disarmed by the Federal government?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

Was not the South, after deciding to not to play cooperatively and to withdraw from the Union, invaded and their State militias physically disarmed by the Federal government?

Not really, the Confederate Government specifically created a Confederate Army (same as the North did) that was distinct from all the state militias. The Confederacy fought the government with an Army not a militia.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

More on the Militia in the South after the Civil War.

"Following the Civil War, the militia was dead in spite of statutes to the contrary. Indeed, during most of the Reconstruction years the volunteer militia was dormant, except in ex-Confederate states. There the provisional governors had permission to constitute militia ... [These militia were] virtually the old Confederate Army down to the worn gray uniforms left over from the Civil War. A Confederate militia was intolerable to the Radical Republicans; so when they regained control of Congress they attached a rider to the Army Appropriations Act of March 2, 1867, that finally prohibited the formation of military units in the once Confederate states. President Johnson, rather than see soldiers go without pay, signed the bill but attached to it a sharp dissent that it was unconstitutional to deny a state the right to have militia.
"It soon became obvious that the state governments, forming under the radical regime, had to have more support than the scattered units of the regular army could provide. Accordingly, two years and one day after prohibiting militia in the rebel states, Congress on March 2, 1869, reallowed it. As far back as March 1862, Congress had stricken "white" from the basic militia statute, so the Radical Republicans intended to make the southern militia predominantly black..."

"The southern militia units, usually referred to as Negro militia, were not all black. There were some white units, but the two colors did not mingle...

"To the white people of the South and the Dunning school of historians of Reconstruction, the Negro militia was only made up of swaggering bullies. The whites opted, therefore, to use unbridled violence if necessary to eliminate it. Two hundred and ninety white rifle companies sprang up at one time in South Carolina alone. From one place or another, they found weapons. Although they lacked official sanction, these companies had behind them the determination of the society to establish white supremacy at all cost. Actual clashes between black and white units were rare, but bloodshed was not. White riflemen ambushed and killed black officers and white supporters of the Negro militia. These assassinations often took place in broad daylight with witnesses, but prosecutions were non-existent. This way, in the end, the leadership that supported the black militia was either killed or intimidated. When the Democrats returned to power in state after state of the ex-Confederacy, they terminated the black militia, disarmed the blacks, and excluded them from any role in the militia." - History of the Militia and the National Guard, 1983 John K. Mahon pp. 108-109.

[Hkmp5sd]

There is no way that a single State militia could throw off the federal government alone, even back in the 1860's. You say that States grouping their militias together to confront the federal government means they are forming armies and are therefore in violation of the Constitution and illegal.

So what is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?