The Evolution of Your 2nd Amendment Right, in Chronological order.|Your 2nd Amendment Right: Everything You always wanted to know about, To Keep and Bear Arms, but were afraid to Ask|Forum|Forum: Apocalypse & Armageddon

As serendipitously will happen as I was editing one of my own pieces on The Constitution's Article I. Section 8. the other day I checked my eMail and up popped an except (link below) from a book comparing (although another) part of Article I. Section 8. to the "Bill of Rights" Amendment II.

This part of the Constitution's Article I. Section 8. has to do with, The Congress shall have Power: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining 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.

Most people don't seem to bother reading that this part about "The Militia" is actually in the Constitution, itself, and that it is this part of the Constitution's Article I. Section 8. that the "Bill of Rights" Amendment II. is therefor amended about.

"The Bill of Rights" Amendment II.: 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.

Now keep in mind that the use of "Militia" here is totally separate from the Constitution's own "Armies" part of Article I. Section 8. having to do with, The Congress shall have Power: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

Obviously, "The Militia" is something different than the regular "Raised Armies (and today's National Guard are first and foremost by signed contract U.S. Army Reserves before they are the Governor's Citizen Soldiers)."

Could it be "The Militia" might have originally been Every single Male 18-to-45-years-old, who were even supposed to supply their own Arms, whom as Citizens were to help support their Governor in protecting their own State?

Let's explore this with Doug Hawk's excerpt (link below) from his book on Your 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms.
———————————--

About the Author:

A little over a decade ago I decided to make a career change. I had always been fairly good at un-spinning media stories and seeing trends and patterns. To make a long story short, as pretty much everyone is aware of the stock and housing bubbles which were created due to the investment mindset of people at the time, I decided to educate myself in all things investment related.

I went back to college and took a number of classes on Economics and International Trade, and began to consume anything I could get my hands on related to such a mindset. This included a range of Psychology books, Statistics and Probability Theory, Military Strategy, History, Game Theory, Sociology, Logic, Venture Capital, Business Law (etc.)…anything and everything that could help decipher trends in global investments. Needless to say, I acquired at least a general background in a lot of related areas.

It was the peripheral information to investing where I seemed to learn the most about the actions governments and members of society take at certain points during the economic life-cycle of a nation. Other than a recent hiatus, my company had a contract providing Foreign Exchange Services for another firm for roughly the past 5 years.

I was constantly in front of the news and I started noticing, what at least from my own perception, appeared to be some specific patterns both from a shift in political ideology toward accepted extremism and what appeared to be legislation that was questionably unconstitutional. At first, my concerns were only economic in nature and noticing a trend towards witch hunt mentality such as after the bursting of the housing bubble, where nobody wanted to take responsibility for their own actions and legislation was acknowledging that argument and being built around that mentality.

I had mentioned to someone in roughly 2006 that social unrest would be the new ‘bubble.’ As it appears I was correct, and social unrest is having more of a direct impact on societal trends, my focus started to shift slightly. Having read how many of these particular trends in society end horribly, time and time again throughout history, I began to take serious notice.

It appeared to me at the time that the 2nd Amendment right applied to the importance of personal self defense such as a direct personal attack or when the local community riots and loots its own neighborhood, to foreign invaders when the military is not sufficient, and also to the military itself when it has been misappropriated against the people it was intended to defend.

Though it may be argued that insurrection was not the sole intent of the 2nd amendment, we were clearly coming off of an event that shaped our nation that would suggest it was securing the means to choose that approach if the Republic had failed the people and that solution became necessary. With this initial mindset, I began to feel it was not only prudent for self defense, but also a responsibility as a citizen of the United States, to acknowledge my 2nd amendment rights and not only acquire a few firearms, but take the training necessary to use them properly in case things should happen to go horribly astray.

I began to wonder if the facts revolving around the 2nd amendment really provide us any or all of the rights mentioned above. It was at this point that I started noticing the conflicts of information in 2nd amendment arguments I mentioned earlier, needless to say exacerbated with emotional charge after a couple of recent mass killings, and decided to do the research myself to see what I could find.

The more I dove into the research, the more I realized looking at recent court cases and legislation did nothing but confuse the problem further as everything referenced or denied something that came before it, and many pieces of legislation just didn’t make any initial sense until taken in context with a specific event that had happened at the time which led to its creation. It finally became clear that the entry point into the discussion of present day 2nd Amendment rights is located in 17th century England. Any full evaluation of the 2nd Amendment today would need to begin during the monarchical rule of the Stuarts in England, most specifically with events leading to the overthrow of King James II.
——————————————

Excerpt: A Treatise on 2nd Amendment Rights in the 21st Century --by Doug Hawk

http://www.doughawkmedia.com/b.....t-century/

...