Should children be taught the proper use of firearms at an early age?

[Stace]

Okay, I'll type slower.

Guns aren't a danger around kids.

Irresponsible adults are the hazard because responsible adults don't leave firearmsmatchespowersawsrazorbladesspearsspraypaintratpoisonbucketsfullofwaterpornographyvisciousdogsropesbowsandarrowscarkeyslawnmowersweedeaterscarsonjacksovensstovesmeatgrindersmixerselectricaloutletsfurnacesblowtorchesoranythingelsethatachildmightgetharmedwith if not provided proper supervision around where unsupervised kids can get them.

But because some adults are irresponsible, and there's no worse irresponsiblity than refusing to educate a child in age appropriate fashion of the nature of the hazards he might encounter, responsible parents undertake to do that which the most irresponsible of adults won't do, and they teach their kids how to be safe around various hazards, including firearms.

But guess what? Sometimes, even the most responsible of adults leaves one of those items out just long enough for a child to get their hands on it. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN.

I don't see WHY you're so intent on changing CoffeeSaint's mind. So what, he doesn't like guns. How is that affecting your life in any way? Oh, that's right, it's not.

So you teach YOUR children whatever YOU want, WHEN you want to teach them.....and the rest of us will do the same. And then we can have a reunion in 20 years and see whose kid was shot and whose wasn't.

 

[Stace]

Based on reality, that sort of attitude will cause the kid to want to handle or play with a gun if he ever is exposed to one

Not necessarily. I was told to not ever touch my brother's guns by myself, and they weren't even kept locked up, they were just tucked in the back of his closet....think I ever went near 'em? Nope. A lot of children actually are trustworthy enough to not do the things their parents tell them to not do.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not necessarily. I was told to not ever touch my brother's guns by myself, and they weren't even kept locked up, they were just tucked in the back of his closet....think I ever went near 'em? Nope. A lot of children actually are trustworthy enough to not do the things their parents tell them to not do.

If only all kids were so disciplined. The fact is you can have a gun proof house and a kid who won't touch guns but I believe the evidence demonstrates that even in such cases, such a child may well come into contact with firearms in other homes or in school or the street. A child that is trained in how to handle firearms safely is going to be less likely injured then one that is not. The brady thugs and those who feel like them, hate the training of children in this subject matter for several reasons

1) kids that learn how to use guns safely tend to end up being gun rights supporters

2) kids who learn how to use guns safely tend to be immunized against the raft of lies that people like the Brady thugs spew

 

[Stace]

If only all kids were so disciplined. The fact is you can have a gun proof house and a kid who won't touch guns but I believe the evidence demonstrates that even in such cases, such a child may well come into contact with firearms in other homes or in school or the street. A child that is trained in how to handle firearms safely is going to be less likely injured then one that is not. The brady thugs and those who feel like them, hate the training of children in this subject matter for several reasons

1) kids that learn how to use guns safely tend to end up being gun rights supporters

2) kids who learn how to use guns safely tend to be immunized against the raft of lies that people like the Brady thugs spew

You do have a point, but there are also many households where the children are taught to get an adult if they see a gun somewhere it shouldn't be, and that method worked for them. What it all comes down to is how diligent the parent is about teaching their child either how to handle a gun, or to not touch it and get an adult....and it depends on how much the child's sense of obedience outweighs their curiosity.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

But guess what? Sometimes, even the most responsible of adults leaves one of those items out just long enough for a child to get their hands on it. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN.

Yes, and the chances of an accident happen decrease inversely to the level of knowledge the child has. Don't have a swimming pool? Teach your kids how to swim anyway, and they're less likely to drown, etc.

I don't see WHY you're so intent on changing CoffeeSaint's mind. So what, he doesn't like guns. How is that affecting your life in any way? Oh, that's right, it's not.

I'm not trying to change anyone, not here. My names' not Jesus. But I do so enjoy poking holes in the walls of people's ignorance. Most of the time, almost all of the time, the real result is a dent on a rubber fence, though. Their ignorance springs right back, totally intact.

So you teach YOUR children whatever YOU want, WHEN you want to teach them.....and the rest of us will do the same. And then we can have a reunion in 20 years and see whose kid was shot and whose wasn't.

I do beleive your marksmanship is off. You're missing the point.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

And?
When people express dislike for homosexuals, are they or are they not labled 'homophobic'?

Not by me.

LOL
So, that you say it doesnt mean you really believe it.
Why then bother responding to you?

I'm not sure. Why are you?
I'm simply saying there may be a difference between the level of commitment I have to the statements I make on this forum, and the level of belief connoted by your analysis of my psyche. Are you suggesting that every word you say is a fundamental part of your being?

Thats because when I discuss an issue, I stick to the issue I am discussing.
I don't try to bring other things into the issue, like you do, so that the issue becomes confused and diluted, and I don't let others do it. Rather than directly address my points, you're trying to deflect, avoid and diffuse by bringing up things that arent relevant to it.

Again, only the points that you raise, only the arguments that you deem relevant, are such. If I believe another point is relevant, I am told I am skirting, deflecting, and avoiding. I have directly addressed several of your points, and I will now endeavor to do the same to the rest.

Read the conversation for context. It's seperate from the one I had with you.

Which I admitted in the following line. Why did you leave that part out? Irrelevant? Then why is this line in your response?

Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that a lesser-armed criminal will likely leave a victim armed with a gun alone?

Absolutely. Do you have the honesty to admit that a gun is not proof against becoming the victim of a crime?

Thats "very likely"? Why?

Because, as you just said, a lesser-armed criminal will tend to leave a victim armed with a gun alone, and so, as I said, it is very likely that the criminal will move on to the next victim, and the crime rate will not drop appreciably, unless you arm everyone.

And then, what about the deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership? If a criminal knows there is a very good chance that a potential voctim is armed, will he be more or less likely to accost said potential victim? Please note that the level of owenership necessary here need not be universal, and as such, your argument to that effect is a strawman.

How widespread does gun ownership have to be? You yourself say that there are FAR more guns in the U.S. than cars; I have no idea how true that is, but I'll take your word for it. So at what point will there be enough guns for criminals to do what you say they will, and leave potential victims alone?
Absolutely, my argument a strawman; you have not given me a clear argument to fight. Give me a real figure of how many guns would deter crime, and I'll argue it. Leave it ambiguous, I'll pick the most logical figure: to ensure that crime would be deterred, you would need to arm everyone, or at least, every adult, and every child who goes about unsupervised.

Also note that your inevitable "no, he'll just get a gun for himself" retort doesnt hold water, as a criminal, regardless how he is armed, will never willingly go after a victim armed with a gun.

Thank you for answering for me. Do I need to be here for this debate?
Interesting that now a criminal will NEVER go after a victim armed with a gun. Wouldn't that also be an exaggeration, similar to my strawman argument? What is the fallacy when you assume an unproven universal?

Given the small number of accidents we have now, I don't see a problem.

Why not? What's an acceptable number? How many are there, anyway?

And, fpr the record, I havent ever mentioned motor vehicle accident rates -- but now that you bring it up, there are FAR fewer accidental gun deaths than accidental car deaths, with the US having FAR more guns than cars.

Absolutely. Shall we begin to discuss my theory of motor vehicle regulation now?
Interesting how you accept my extraneous, irrelevant arguments when they make a point you like.

If someone has to kill their assailant to stop them, them I'm completely OK with that.
But then, you're again arguing a strawman -- a gun doesnt need to be discharged to defend yourself with it, much less actually kill your assailant.

You are okay with it. I need a little more justification. At what point does someone "need" to kill their assailant? How can you know? You have carefully made the point that one needs to kill quickly and easily; so how do you know when you need to kill? The quicker you act, the greater your chances of making a mistake, assuming your training stays constant.
Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that the more gun owners there are defending themselves against criminals, the more deaths there will be? That the more gun owners there are, the more accidental shootings there will be?

We all, presently and unquestionably, have the right to kill in self-defense, and yet there is no anarchy. Why, if the present number of deaths due to self-defense were to quintuple, would anarchy suddenly fall upon us?

Because there is the question, in every case of self-defense, whether or not the use of deadly force is justified. Quintuple the number of deaths means quintuple the number of investigations, and at some point, the rule of law will tend to break down, as people will avoid court hassles, and will thus begin to cover up or walk away from even justified shootings. Similar to what happens now with car accidents: how many people call the police after every accident, as the law requires? How many people fail to stop at serious accidents, for fear of the punishment, or even the inconvenience, of the legal aftermath? I would hypothesize that the same would happen, were people to begin to use guns to defend themselves with much greater frequency than now, though I admit it would have to be a large leap in the number of shootings. But then, if you are arguing for a serious reduction in crime through private gun ownership, there would be an argument for a serious jump in shootings.

Then you're having a different conversation than I am. See above.
Gun accidents and suicides are irrlevant in a discussion about gun crime.

Very well. Unjustified shootings, however, are not irrelevant; cases of mistaken identity, perhaps, or unnecessary use of force. Do we have statistics on those?

Guns, being inanimite objects, dont cause anything.

What is your point?

As I have facts to back me up, I havent been making bald assertions; unless you DO have somethng to back up your arguments (which you admit you don't) you arent going to sway me at all.

Consider also that YOU refused to be swayed by a supported argument, while, as you admit, you cannot support YOUR argument. The facts are against you and you won;t change your mind. Doesn't that smack of bigotry?

What support, sir? You have what you consider to be facts; I don't think they are. I am not insane, nor a fool; I just disagree with you. Perhaps I have missed the scientific proof you have offered that a greater proportion of gun owners in the U.S. would reduce crime; or the logical statement as to why the number of gun accidents is irrelevant to a discussion of the general value of guns in our society, which would be our larger topic, I think. Your facts are against me, but then, they are not actually "facts." Does that really make me bigoted? Or does it mean that you are a sophist?

Let me try to step back and look at the big picture here.
We have two propositions here: we both agree, I think, that criminals with guns do damage. You believe that a greater number of guns in the hands of the potential victims, along with proper training and education, would reduce that damage, by reducing first the number of crimes committed, with or without guns, and second, by reducing the number of criminals. Is that correct?
I do not disagree with this. However, I look at this in another way.
I believe that increasing the number of guns will cause an increase in the number of deaths, and the number of serious injuries, in our society, both to criminals and, far more importantly, to private citizens. I further believe that decreasing the relative value of guns in our eyes will allow us to seek other methods of reducing crime, and protecting our populace from danger; therefore, I ask that gun owners consider the possibility that guns are not as powerful, nor as valuable, as they are made out to be, and the possibility that perhaps all of us would be better served if we could find other ways to address the issues of crime, and of gun deaths, than by increasing the number of guns in America.

Any opinion?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Okay, I'll type slower.

Guns aren't a danger around kids.

Irresponsible adults are the hazard because responsible adults don't leave firearmsmatchespowersawsrazorbladesspearsspraypaintratpoisonbucketsfullofwaterpornographyvisciousdogsropesbowsandarrowscarkeyslawnmowersweedeaterscarsonjacksovensstovesmeatgrindersmixerselectricaloutletsfurnacesblowtorchesoranythingelsethatachildmightgetharmedwith if not provided proper supervision around where unsupervised kids can get them.

But because some adults are irresponsible, and there's no worse irresponsiblity than refusing to educate a child in age appropriate fashion of the nature of the hazards he might encounter, responsible parents undertake to do that which the most irresponsible of adults won't do, and they teach their kids how to be safe around various hazards, including firearms.

Thank you for keeping it simple. If firearmsmatchespowersawsrazorbladesspearsspraypaintratpoisonbucketsfullofwaterpornographyvisciousdogsropesbowsandarrowscarkeyslawnmowersweedeaterscarsonjacksovensstovesmeatgrindersmixerselectricaloutletsfurnacesblowtorchesoranythingelsethatachildmightgetharmedwith
are not dangerous, why should responsible adults keep them away from children? Surely they pose no danger; after all, if a gun is laid down on a table, it will not jump up and attack. Didn't you tell me that? So where's the danger in being an irresponsible adult and leaving firearms around kids?
Even with the finest education, bad things happen to good people. I would never say that nothing bad would ever happen to kids if there were no guns around. But might it be true that fewer bad things would happen to kids, since kids do sometimes get hurt by guns, no matter how much knowledge they may have of the guns? Is that even remotely possible? Or shall we just assume that every kid that gets hurt was fated to get hurt no matter what, and if we remove the firearms from the equation, some kid who blows his foot off will now cut his foot off in a terrible butter knife accident?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Thank you for keeping it simple. If firearmsmatchespowersawsrazorbladesspearsspraypaintratpoisonbucketsfullofwaterpornographyvisciousdogsropesbowsandarrowscarkeyslawnmowersweedeaterscarsonjacksovensstovesmeatgrindersmixerselectricaloutletsfurnacesblowtorchesoranythingelsethatachildmightgetharmedwith
are not dangerous, why should responsible adults keep them away from children? Surely they pose no danger; after all, if a gun is laid down on a table, it will not jump up and attack. Didn't you tell me that? So where's the danger in being an irresponsible adult and leaving firearms around kids?
Even with the finest education, bad things happen to good people. I would never say that nothing bad would ever happen to kids if there were no guns around. But might it be true that fewer bad things would happen to kids, since kids do sometimes get hurt by guns, no matter how much knowledge they may have of the guns? Is that even remotely possible? Or shall we just assume that every kid that gets hurt was fated to get hurt no matter what, and if we remove the firearms from the equation, some kid who blows his foot off will now cut his foot off in a terrible butter knife accident?

Have you ever gone to the emergency room because you spun around so fast you managed to bite yourself in the forehead?

How many times must the responsible adults who understand the responsible raising of children have to instruct you in how to raise children responsibly before you understand that one teaches children how to act respsonsibly because there always is the chance that someone that doesn't know what being responsible means might do something irresponsible and thus become responsible for harming a child who wouldn't have been hurt if that adult had acted in a responsible and thoughtful manner, something it's everyone's responsiblity to learn?

There, I managed to use responsible ten times in one sentence.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Have you ever gone to the emergency room because you spun around so fast you managed to bite yourself in the forehead?

Yes.

How many times must the responsible adults who understand the responsible raising of children have to instruct you in how to raise children responsibly before you understand that one teaches children how to act respsonsibly because there always is the chance that someone that doesn't know what being responsible means might do something irresponsible and thus become responsible for harming a child who wouldn't have been hurt if that adult had acted in a responsible and thoughtful manner, something it's everyone's responsiblity to learn?

There, I managed to use responsible ten times in one sentence.

Was that the contest?
So your argument is that anything that happens to a child is the fault of their parents, who should have taught them to be responsible, or at worst the fault of another adult, who should have been responsible enough to protect the child from irresponsible people? So nothing bad that happens to a child is, say, an accident? Or the child's fault?
I would be willing to agree with you, if: there were a test for parents, so that they could prove, before they became parents, that they were intelligent enough to raise the kids in your "responsible" terms, and if there were any way to ensure that no dangerous people would ever come around kids.
But there is no test. Idiots have kids, idiots raise kids, and there is no reason why those kids should suffer because their parents are idiots.
Dangerous people and dangerous situations are all around kids, and nothing you teach them can give them the ability to make themselves safe when you are not around. Being responsible is not just watching the kids, and not just teaching the kids how to react to certain situations, because you can't teach them everything, and you can't be sure they will do what they are told.
Part of being responsible is trying to remove the dangerous situations, to whatever extent you can. And I know you agree with that, because of your comments about irresponsible people leaving dangerous items around kids.
So why is it that guns are perfectly acceptable, and are never dangerous, if you teach kids how to use them? Do accidents never happen? Do kids always learn the first time they are taught, and do only what they are told?

Or do you have another agenda entirely, and are using this concept of responsible parents to make another point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe that increasing the number of guns will cause an increase in the number of deaths, and the number of serious injuries, in our society, both to criminals and, far more importantly, to private citizens.

Ah. More guns = more deaths.

So, if I can show you that more guns do not = more deaths, you'll admit your belief is unfounded - right?

Gun deaths per year, all circumstances:
1981 34050 1991 38317 2001 29573
1982 32957 1992 37776 2002 30242
1983 31099 1993 39595
1984 31331 1994 38505
1985 31566 1995 35957
1986 33373 1996 34040
1987 32895 1997 34236
1988 33989 1998 30708
1989 34776 1999 28874
1990 37155 2000 28663

So, over 21 years, the number of gun deaths (all causes) went up and then back down to a number SMALLER than it was at the beginning of that 21 years.

In 1980, roughly 48% of the popuation owned guns, with mutiple gun ownership brining the total guns to about 226M. According to the BATF, around 4M guns are sold every year. This bring the total on 2002 to ~310M, an increase of ~37%.

So, the number of guns has risen significantly, while the number of gun deaths have gone down. More guns = more deaths? Nope.

(If you want, I can also show that more guns do not equate to more gun injuries, as gun injuries maintain a relatively steady ratio to gun deaths.)

I further believe that decreasing the relative value of guns in our eyes will allow us to seek other methods of reducing crime, and protecting our populace from danger

Make sure you tell the bad guys. I'm -sure- they'll be all kinds of happy with the idea of fewer people owning guns. Also, be sure to tell the police, as I'm -sure- they'll enjoy the idea of not carrying a gun.

therefore, I ask that gun owners consider the possibility that guns are not as powerful, nor as valuable, as they are made out to be,

Um... why?
How are they not as powerful as I think they are?
How are they not as valueable as I think they are?
How are they as much a threat to people as you think they are?

and the possibility that perhaps all of us would be better served if we could find other ways to address the issues of crime, and of gun deaths, than by increasing the number of guns in America.

Clearly, the increasing number of guns hasnt had a detrimental effect to the amount of gun deaths. Given that, there's little to address.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Ah. More guns = more deaths.

So, if I can show you that more guns do not = more deaths, you'll admit your belief is unfounded - right?

Gun deaths per year, all circumstances:
1981 34050 1991 38317 2001 29573
1982 32957 1992 37776 2002 30242
1983 31099 1993 39595
1984 31331 1994 38505
1985 31566 1995 35957
1986 33373 1996 34040
1987 32895 1997 34236
1988 33989 1998 30708
1989 34776 1999 28874
1990 37155 2000 28663

So, over 21 years, the number of gun deaths (all causes) went up and then back down to a number SMALLER than it was at the beginning of that 21 years.

In 1980, roughly 48% of the popuation owned guns, with mutiple gun ownership brining the total guns to about 226M. According to the BATF, around 4M guns are sold every year. This bring the total on 2002 to ~310M, an increase of ~37%.

So, the number of guns has risen significantly, while the number of gun deaths have gone down. More guns = more deaths? Nope.

(If you want, I can also show that more guns do not equate to more gun injuries, as gun injuries maintain a relatively steady ratio to gun deaths.)


Make sure you tell the bad guys. I'm -sure- they'll be all kinds of happy with the idea of fewer people owning guns. Also, be sure to tell the police, as I'm -sure- they'll enjoy the idea of not carrying a gun.


Um... why?
How are they not as powerful as I think they are?
How are they not as valueable as I think they are?
How are they as much a threat to people as you think they are?


Clearly, the increasing number of guns hasnt had a detrimental effect to the amount of gun deaths. Given that, there's little to address.

Interesting points; things I had not known. This fascinates me, as this is not the first time I have had this argument, and yet nobody has shown these same statistics. I will assume they are from a reputable source, of course. (As a minor point, I don't think the number of guns for 2002 would be such a simple equation; what about guns that are lost, destroyed, confiscated, etc.?)
No matter; I appear to be in the wrong. My belief that more guns led to more deaths was unfounded.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why is it that guns are perfectly acceptable, and are never dangerous, if you teach kids how to use them? Do accidents never happen? Do kids always learn the first time they are taught, and do only what they are told?

Accidental gun deaths, children, by year:
1990 417
1991 419
1992 378
1993 392
1994 403
1995 330
1996 272
1997 247
1998 207
1999 158
2000 150
2001 125
2002 115

So... the # of guns rises by ~37%, while the number of children accidentally killed by guns drops by almost 75%. More guns = more accidental gun deaths?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Accidental gun deaths, children, by year:
1990 417
1991 419
1992 378
1993 392
1994 403
1995 330
1996 272
1997 247
1998 207
1999 158
2000 150
2001 125
2002 115

So... the # of guns rises by ~37%, while the number of children accidentally killed by guns drops by almost 75%. More guns = more accidental gun deaths?

Hey, you win, I lose. Anything else you want from me? Shall I grovel? Shall I apologize for ever questioning you? Shall I go out and buy a gun right now?

 

[alphieb]

To all,

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".

What do you think a militia is? It is not everyday citizens. You are violating the bill of rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

To all,

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".

What do you think a militia is? It is not everyday citizens. You are violating the bill of rights.

actually the militia as contemplated in the 1780's was and membership in the militia was a sufficient, not necessary reason for being able to own a gun. Even if the totally discredited statist model of the second amendment were to be accepted (meaning only those in the NATIONAL GUARD have a second amendment recognized RKBA) the NINTH amendment would cover why citizens RKBA should not be infringed by the federal government

who is violating the bill of rights? This ought to be fun

 

[The Real McCoy]

M14, where'd you find those beautiful statistics? Just curious, in case I ever need to pull that gem out in a debate.

 

[Vandeervecken]

To all,

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".

What do you think a militia is? It is not everyday citizens. You are violating the bill of rights.

Yes indeed I do know what the militia is. In fact I can cite to you the exact point in our legal code where the militia is defined.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
10 United States Code 311

a) the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age, and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become citizens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National
Guard.

b) The classes of the militia are:

1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and

2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All adult males are in the militia. Irrelevant anyway though as the militia clause cannot be read in any grammatically correct way to be a limiting clause. It is clearly a subordinate clause.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Is she serious?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What do you think a militia is? It is not everyday citizens.
You are violating the bill of rights.

What do you think an infringement is? You're violating the bill of rights.

 

[alphieb]

actually the militia as contemplated in the 1780's was and membership in the militia was a sufficient, not necessary reason for being able to own a gun. Even if the totally discredited statist model of the second amendment were to be accepted (meaning only those in the NATIONAL GUARD have a second amendment recognized RKBA) the NINTH amendment would cover why citizens RKBA should not be infringed by the federal government

who is violating the bill of rights? This ought to be fun

I knew someone would bring up that ninth amendment. It is a very vague amendment. People utilize it to get away with everything. Does the ninth amendment just dismiss the whole Bill of Rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14, where'd you find those beautiful statistics? Just curious, in case I ever need to pull that gem out in a debate.

The deaths per year?
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

% of gun owners in 1980?
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=234

Gun sales per year?
BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002"
(This is a printed publication)

 

[alphieb]

Is she serious?

LOL, Yes, in a way. According to the Bill of Rights only militia personnel can carry firearms. I just thought that was interesting. I'm not saying I agree with it necessarily, but it does in fact say that. Of course, one would argue that the nineth amendment upholds the second. The nineth amendment is vague. What exactly does it mean anyway.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey, you win, I lose. Anything else you want from me? Shall I grovel? Shall I apologize for ever questioning you? Shall I go out and buy a gun right now?

LOL

Sorry - I posted that before I saw your reply.

Good to see that the facts can change your mind.

 

[alphieb]

Yes indeed I do know what the militia is. In fact I can cite to you the exact point in our legal code where the militia is defined.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
10 United States Code 311

a) the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age, and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become citizens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National
Guard.

b) The classes of the militia are:

1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and

2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All adult males are in the militia. Irrelevant anyway though as the militia clause cannot be read in any grammatically correct way to be a limiting clause. It is clearly a subordinate clause.

I was wondering how they defined militia?

 

[M14 Shooter]

To all,

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".

What do you think a militia is? It is not everyday citizens. You are violating the bill of rights.

Yawn.
The right of "the people", not "the militia".
"Well regulated" modifies "militia", not "The people".
"The People" ARE everyday citizens.