Who are the Militia?

[jimmy the one]

84. rawle's corollary

beevul, post53: We however, are discussing an amendment in the bill of rights - which has the soul purpose of restricting the exercise of power by government.

A spiritual restriction from the sky fairy, eh? You'll have to argue this with dscntnt-irony since she sees it this way: dscntnt: .. reading the 2A along with the other nine amendments, it is clear that they are intended to express individual rights and act as restrictions on government.

And here's Wm Rawle on the bill of rights, wrote A View of the Constitution (1825): OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
Rawle's treatise on 2ndA: In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Scalia cited Rawle in heller, this very 2ndA treatise, the first sentence above & the last. Do you all know what a corollary is? Scalia didn't & stuck foot in mouth. A corollary is something which is derived from a higher rule or concept. Scalia then went on to say the individual clause is 'controlling', thus creating the oxymoron that a corollary controls the proposition it is derived from.

AtheistCrusader: You don't understand what was meant by 'well regulated'. Unorganized militia can be well-regulated.. The 'purpose' of the 2nd Amendment is not obsolete.

Wrong on all counts, laughably. Unorg'd militia is not well regulated, that's why it was named 'unorganized'; that it can become well reg'd is irrelevant & hasn't really been proven since the unorg'd militia has never been significantly mobilized - only ~5,000 mostly wwI vets mobilized in oregon after pearl harbor, a regiment.
The unorg'd militia was first mentioned about 1830's & was never what the founding fathers intended, that of a well regulated citizens militia. Thus the 2ndA is not only obsolete, but useless & worthless, except to a profit minded gunlobby pipering it's gunsheep off the piers.