The meaning of 'milita', Iran

[logjon]

We all know what's going on in Iran. At least we know the official media version. This is not a conspiracy theory. What role does private ownership of firearms play in a free republic? Does credible threat to government oppression come into play? What is the the meaning of 'militia' as referenced in the second amendment? I do believe that the Bill of Rights was of critical importance in the founding of this great nation.

edit:
We would all like to live in a nation where children don't get shot. I'd like to think that true freedom is a greater goal, but what is the true meaning of 'regulation' as referred to in the second amendment? Keep in mind that the state is accountable to the people as per the constitution, and the state has no obligation to protect the people as per Castle Rock v. Gonzales. This is not the only case, but it is highly illustrative of the situation, in my RKBA-supporting eyes.

Should we put all trust in our government? I've editorialized at this point, and as such, I welcome well-reasoned opposing and supporting opinions.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-06-23.asp

[MichaelHarris]

1. one word

Wolverines!!!!

[GreenStormCloud]

2. The founding fathers wrote much on the subject.

Basically, the militia, at the time, was every able bodied free male of military age.

Regulated was another word for trained.

However, the militia clause does not serve to restrict the rest of the second. Instead it serves to explain why the amendment exists. The second was intended to be an individual right and has always been understood as an individual right, except by some people in the mid to late 20th century who tried to spread a theory that it was intended to be a collective right.

One can easily find dozens of statements by the framers on the subject. All of them support the individualist view, none support the collective view.

[SteveM]

3. Militia can be dysfunctional at times, esp. in the Jim Crow South...

when they were sometimes used to invade the homes of blacks in search of firearms, which were prohibited to blacks. This led to passage of the 14th Amendment, which defines a U.S. citizen, and prevents the various states from abridging the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens. It seems clear that the individual right to keep and bear arms was what Congress had in mind when they passed this Amendment, and not the supremacy of the "militia clause," nor indeed the supremacy of the states.

www.georgiacarry.org (An excellent brief submitted in the Heller case which provides a brief history of gun-control.)

My understanding of well-regulated is that the expression (at the time) meant a legal participant who carried and knew how to use a firearm suitable for the day; in fact, citizens were required to BYOG (bring your own gun) when called up. The militias were to be commanded by citizens of the various states.

[spin]

4. What if all or most of the protestors in Iran were armed? (n/t)

[taurus145]

5. I believe that the protests would end rather quickly,

bloodier, but fairly quickly.

While any military can outgun any civilian populace, weight of numbers, if reasonably organized, will win out.