I think you may have missed the (my) point that we, the armed citizenry, are the militia.

I think the second amendment is one of the "checks and balances" put in place to curb the power of government.

In a previous reply by Tom, taken from the Declaration of Independence:

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to

abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [Tom's emphasis, I presume]

By what means do you think they envisioned us "abolishing" the government if necessary?

The precedents available to the Framers in their time numbered precisely two:

[1] Non-violent expression of discontent - couched in prevailing law and reason as to the specific grievances, and presented to the sitting government in the form of petitions - coupled with withdrawal of cooperation. In other words, precisely what the Continental Congress and the legislatures of some colonies continued to do until the British army and navy forced violence upon them.

[2] The French Revolution, and the Reign of Terror which followed.

To be honest - on a personal level, I am frightened by the idea of armed private citizens organizing (and training?) in anticipation of armed rebellion over 'recent abuses of government power'. Which abuses? Who's deciding what's an abuse and what isn't? Which government - that is, which administration? And what do they realistically hope to achieve, beyond becoming cannon fodder for another Waco or Ruby Ridge? I saw that aspect of the original post; I intentionally didn't go there. Instead, I tried to keep my prior comments focused on the language of the Second Amendment using citizen militias as its self-justification vs the modern reality of standing armies and state militias, in an effort to show that the security of the nation no longer depends upon an armed citizenry in the way it did when the amendment was written. In other words, to shed some light on the reasoning of the 9th Circuit's opinion.

Throughout the Cold War, works of fiction would pop up from time to time retelling the romantic notion of modern Minutemen - ad hoc groups of armed private citizens - miraculously foiling a Soviet invasion with hunting rifles and Yankee (and Rebel) ingenuity. At least one was made into a film, Red Dawn. Thank whoever you like, from God to John Foster Dulles to Ronald Reagan, that the scenario never materialized. In spite of the Stalin quote in the post that started this thread, I rather think the deterrent was something stronger than individual American gun-owners.

It seems clear to me, based on what I've read of the times and circumstances, that the Framers' concept of "citizen militia" as embodied in the Second Amendment was to defend the nation from external danger (French/English Canada, Spanish Florida, Spanish/French Louisiana, invasion from overseas, and Native peoples objecting to theft), in lieu of a standing army Congress couldn't afford to raise anyway. Since that time, in spite of Madison's and others' apprehension, a huge standing army has filled the subsequent percieved need, backed up by (i.m.o., the only fully legal citizen militia) the National Guard.

The First Amendment carries with it some powerful irony: speech advocating, among other things, the abolition of the government is protected by that government. Now I see the Second does as well: armed citizens organized to (potentially) oppose the government are protected by the law written to permit citizens to be armed for the government's protection.