How Israel May Lose Its Military Hegemony in the Middle East

Unlike all my other posts, this one deals specifically with the issue of the militia, which is specifically what the Second Amendment addresses:

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.

That's pretty clear and I certainly won't infringe your right to bear arms as a part of the constitutional militia, which is one set up according to Article I, Section 8, clause 16 of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment only guarantees that this system should not be infringed.

Never mind reality has intervened and the United States has a standing army, which is what the Second Amendment was supposed to prevent.

And while the revisionism would have us believe that parts of the constitution are irrelevant, Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), makes it clear that is not the case. And the US Supreme Court can stop acting outside its constitutional mandate if it wants to suggest otherwise since: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it."   

In fact, Scalia could have cut his mental mastubation in that piece of shit decision since Marbury pretty much contradicts him, and tells him he has no business doing what he did by declaring a section of the Constitution "mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction."

Damn, Scalia was too "smart" for his own good. And an originalist in the sense that he was very original in his interpretation, which works against him.

So: yes, the founders intended to address the "common defence" of the United States of which A well regulated Militia was consider as being necessary to the security of a free State. To insist otherwise is trash the United States Constitution.

Anyway, this shows why a militia is a good idea for a defensive force, especially for a small country like Switzerland. But not a good idea if one wants to fight wars.

With that, I end with this comment by Justice Joseph Story,  (September 18, 1779 – September 10, 1845) who was an American lawyer, jurist, and politician who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1812 to 1845. He is most remembered for his opinions in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and United States v. The Amistad:

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91 (1833) § 1890. 

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. 

§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege. 

 The Founders' Constitution Volume 5, Amendment II, Document 10 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html The University of Chicago Press 

Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.