A well regulated militia, the gunner's myth exploded in two parts.

[flamin lib]

The argument we hear from the 2nd Amendment absolutists is that the well regulated militia clause refers to every armed male being the militia and well regulated, in the language of the day, means 'functioning properly'. Dana Loesch repeated this falsehood on national television in the town hall discussion with the MSD kids.

They are wrong and willfully lying. The Federalist Papers, written in the language of the day to explain the newly written Constitution to the population at large, clearly describes a State organized militia. Hamilton in paper #29 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp and Madison in paper #46 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp both describe a militia organized by the various states with the Officers appointed and Commissioned by the states. Taken together they envisioned each state having a small cadre of full time professional soldiers to act as a corps to train and organize the citizenry when conscripted into service in defense of the state or nation as needed. They didn't want a national standing army but allowed for the Federal government to have a small militia of it's own provided by the states and made up of Officers appointed and outfitted by the states not to exceed one fifth the size of the state militias combined.

This concept of states organizing militias and contributing to the federal militia is echoed in Article I section 8 https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html which says clearly that, 'The Congress shall have Power To . . . 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; . . .'

Has anyone seen an officer appointed or commissioned by a state taking part in any 'militia'?

The second part of their duplicity is the selective use of Original Intent and the Living Document standard. While they (wrongly) use the language of the day argument (Original Intent) to describe the Militia as every good ole boy with a gun they then use the Living Document concept to include the AR15 and other modern weapons as 'arms'. They can't have it both ways. If they rely on the 'language of the day' to define militia they must also accept that arms, in 'the language of the day' means muzzle loading muskets and pistols.

As Justice Warren Burger said.