Political blogging...

[el_malo]

I recently got interested in political blogging.

Watching the right-wing lunatics make burros of themselves is hilarious.

For they last few days, they have been ranting about how President Obama was to slow to react on the hostage situation with CPT Phillips.

Now that CPT Phillips has been successfully freed, these mental midgets are raving about how President Obama murdered three Somalis, and the World Court needs to investigate.

[Coconut Kid]

... Now that CPT Phillips has been successfully freed, these mental midgets are raving about how President Obama murdered three Somalis, and the World Court needs to investigate.

That's incredible!

For how many centuries has the use of force of arms on the high seas when not representing a government been automatically branded "piracy" and been subjected to retaliatory deadly force in self-defense?

Kidnapping on land may be subject all the niceties of the legal system about trials and such; but on the high seas, it's piracy and the only point in a piracy trial is to insure that an innocent bystander is not wrongly swept-up.

Do these crazy bloggers claim that these Somali Pirates somehow are representatives of the Somali "government" -- perhaps a Letter of Marque & Reprisal, which are no longer recognized?

What about the French President, how many Somalis has he murdered? And the British Queen -- her Royal Navy blew a Pirate ship away when a Pirate made a threatening move with his rifle.

I paraphrase the opening of a famous US TV show: "The way to handle these pirates is with the smell of gunsmoke!" and "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"

[el_malo]

CK, my intent was to show the hypocrisy of the wing-nuts.

No matter what Prez Obama does, they will whine, cry, b*tch and moan.

The American Right has abandoned the country for their discredited ideology.

They prefer being traitors, and doing whatever is possible to destroy the US.

[Coconut Kid]

CK, my intent was to show the hypocrisy of the wing-nuts. ...

Right you are!

It's just that the topic of Pirates (and kidnappers) sends me off the scale of good sense.

I suppose some will say among a lot of other things.

 

[el_malo]

Today, the right-wingers are attacking Prez Obama and the Easter Bunny.

They are outraged by the White House Easter Egg Hunt.

I mean, how dare Prez Obama honor a presidential tradition... that started in 1878 

I imagine the Republiklans will be going after Santa Claus... next.

Santa has to be a commie... he wears a red suit, you know 

[El Meck]

...White House Easter Egg Hunt...

¿¿ So President Obama was running around the White House and searched colored eggs between bushes aso. ??
  

[Coconut Kid]

¿¿ So President Obama was running around the White House and searched colored eggs between bushes also. ??

Yes indeed, along with over 3,000 invited guests.

Don't laugh at the US Easter Egg Hunts.

Here, if your town doesn't have at least one for the amusement of the children (of all ages) -- then it must be a ghost town or a strange religious cult enclave.

Do you know of the Russian Easter Egg art form?

 

[El Meck]

Here, if your town doesn't have at least one for the amusement of the children (of all ages) -- then it must be a ghost town or a strange religious cult enclave.

So it is a public event in the US ?
Here all families make their own Easter egg hunt and the government stay out of it.

Do you know of the Russian Easter Egg art form?

No
What is about it? 

[el_malo]

So it is a public event in the US ?

Here all families make their own Easter egg hunt and the government stay out of it.

Very few of the Easter Egg Hunts are sponsored by the government.

Most of the "public" ones are done by churches and social organizations.

Also, many families have their own private Easter Egg Hunts.

[Coconut Kid]

Do you know of the Russian Easter Egg art form?

No, What is about it? 

Carl Fabergé and his goldsmiths designed and constructed the first egg in 1885. It was commissioned by Czar Alexander III of Russia as an Easter surprise for his wife Maria Fyodorovna.

On the outside it looked like a simple egg of white enamelled gold, but it opened up to reveal a golden yolk. The yolk itself had a golden hen inside it, which in turn had a tiny crown with a ruby hanging inside, reminiscent of the matryoshka nesting dolls.

Empress Maria was so delighted by this gift that Alexander appointed Fabergé a "Court Supplier" and commissioned an Easter gift each year thereafter, stipulating only that it be unique and contain a surprise. His son, Nicholas II of Russia continued the tradition, annually presenting an egg each spring to his wife Alexandra Fyodorovna as well as his then-widowed mother.

From 1885, the eggs were produced almost every year. Once an initial design was approved, the work was carried out by an entire team of artisans under Peter Carl Fabergé, among them Michael Perkhin, Henrik Wigström and Erik August Kollin.

The Imperial eggs enjoyed such fame that Fabergé made some 15 known eggs for private clients. Among them is a series of 7 eggs made for the industrialist Alexander Kelch. In addition, 8 eggs were made. They are not as extravagant as the Imperial eggs, and are not as original, often repeating designs that originated with the Imperial eggs.

Peter Carl Fabergé known as Carl Gustavovich Fabergé (Russian: Карл Густавович Фаберже, May 30 1846 – September 24 1920) was a Russian jeweler, best known for the famous Fabergé eggs, made in the style of genuine Easter eggs, but using precious metals and gemstones rather than more mundane materials.

He was born in Saint Petersburg, Russia to the jeweller Gustav Faberge and his Danish wife Charlotte Jungstedt. Gustav Fabergé’s father’s family were Huguenots, originally from La Bouteille, Picardie, who fled from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, initially to Germany near Berlin, then in 1800 to the Baltic province of Livonia, then part of Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faberg%C3%A9_egg

Such is the life of the aristocrats. President Obama gave a wooden egg decorated with his signature to the guests at the White House "Egg Roll", or so I think I heard.

BTW - ¿¿ your government does not recognize Easter ??

[El Meck]

Interesting Story
Now i understand why the Easter egg tradition was temoraly forbidden in Soviet Union (because it can be seen as a symbol for the Russian Empire the revolution has fought against)

BTW - ¿¿ your government does not recognize Easter ??

Ja right.  here it is seen as a Christian tradition to celebrate Easter.
And by the fact that in Germany the church and state are strict separated, the government does (can) not celebrate it in media aso.

[Mr.Eastwood]

You should show the hypocrisy of the wing-nuts on both sides if you want a wide range of readers. Playing partisan politics only drags you to the level of the people you are currently belittling; it shows a lack of seeing two sides to a coin in my opinion. The left-wing bloggers did the same to Bush and Republicans when they were in power; both sides partake in this hypocrisy. You should learn that nut-jobs, who are clearly looking for anything to whine about, aren't part of the majority they claim to be a members of, on either side of the isle.

And no, I'm not a Republican ... I'm Libertarian.

As for my opinon on the above mentioned, I was upset at Obama's handling of that piracy act only because he didn't order the full weight of our naval forces on those scum bags ASAP. My opinon was he waited too long, but it got done, and it was done well, so kudos to all ... Obama included. Anyone who pinned for those pirates "rights" has screwed up priorities if you ask me.

And Easter ... Obama can do as he wishes. If he hadn't held the hut, I could have cared as much as him holding it. I think most people feel that way.

[Coconut Kid]

...

And no, I'm not a Republican -- I'm Libertarian.

...

And Easter -- Obama can do as he wishes. If he hadn't held the hu[n]t, I could have cared as much as him [his] holding it. I think most people feel that way.

It seems rather strange to encounter a Libertarian who is so unconcerned about government officials participating in religious activities -- using government property and government funds.

I need to mention that you are not unique in being a Libertarian on this site.

There has been quite a long discussion here about just exactly where Libertarians fit on the political spectrum.

 

[el_malo]

The Libertarian movement is currently being taken over by neo-cons and other assorted right-wing kooks.

They figure that a name-change will help them win elections.

Mr.Eastwood, enjoy being dragged down to their disgusting and treasonous level 

[Mr.Eastwood]

I don't care if government at any level uses government property for religious purposes. My belief in the first amendment is that how it reads, a very strict interpretation. Using the White House to host an Easter Egg Hunt does not come off as Obama endorsing Christianity in any way. Just like a Federal Courtroom housing the Ten Commandments doesn't either. I'm not familiar with the Jewish or Muslim faiths all that well, they may have the Ten Commandments too, but if they have/had anything similar to those, I would have no issues with those being put up either. I see no endorsing of anything other than a fun time at the White House with that egg hunt. What is wrong with that. Again ... this is my take on the whole 1st Amendment issue.

And I guess it depends where you get your news from about Libertarians El Malo. Perhaps in your neck of the woods, the Neo-Cons are dragging them down, but here in Central Virginia, it is anything but a Republican. of any sort, love fest. And I will remain to be a Libertarian no matter what the Libertarian Party ends up doing; because I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, or any party. Like Washington, I think political parties are a disaster and only cause more harm than they will solve. As such, I know what Libertarianism is all about and should those beliefs begin to get morphed like the Republican Party has done recently, or the Democrat Party has done a while back, I will continue on as a "so-called" old-school Libertarian.

Also, please elaborate on what other cooks you refer to. All I want is to be left alone, as such I am all about self-sufficiency. I want to grow/raise most of my own food and I believe in holding amounts of gold and silver just in case. Likewise, I have a strong belief in the 2nd Amendment, and so I had many guns with the ammo to go with it. Tragically, I lost it all in a boating accident 

Does that make me one of the kooks destroying the Libertarian movement?

[Coconut Kid]

"Those who treat anarchism as merely a branch of socialism or communism are mistaken, primarily because anarchists insist that each individual is completely independent of all other individuals. For anarchists the individual is sovereign. Socialists and communists, on the other hand, see humankind as essentially social, arguing that there is a natural interdependence among people and that we prefer to achieve goals collectively rather than individually"-Neil McNaughton

In terms of where anarchy is on the political spectrum you have to refer to Eysenck's square which describes the political spectrum as two axes:

       Authoritarian
               I                                 Anarchy is at the bottom and covers both wings just as libertarian
               I                                 covers both wings at the top
  Left ------+------Right
               I
               I
           Liberal

Anarchism is often preconceived to be on the left wing due to the strong links with Marxism but there is also a theory of anarcho-capitalism which is basically the theory of there being no government so people can be unequal.

Racism doesn't feature on the political spectrum as it is hard to generalise. What I mean is you can't say that all authoritarians are racists etc. Racism along with other issues such as environmentalism, feminism etc. are  given their own wing. Unfortunately it is hard to draw a shape in 4D so most stick with the 2D model shown above

The y axis on my diagram should have 'Autocratic' at the top and 'Democratic' at the bottom. The diagram is based on the model first suggested by Eysenck (1964). He accepted the left/right spectrum as the horizontal axis of his spectrum but added a vertical axis. This vertical axis measured political attitudes which were, at one end, democratic (open and accountable) and, at the other end, autocratic (closed and not accountable). This model makes clear the similarities between extreme groups (e.g. Communism and Fascism) but also indicates the difference between them (i.e. placing them on the left or right).

I apologise for any confusion but also hope this helps you understand why the diagram is so useful and therefore used so often

One thing I do disagree with you on though is that libertarianism is considered a right-wing ideology:

Libertarianism
"This term refers to an extreme form of liberalism. Libertarianism emerged in the latter part of the nineteenth century and has become more popular since the 1980s. Though they are ideologically closer to liberals, most modern libertarians have seen themselves as part of the conservative movement. They insist that the state is an unwarranted restriction on freedom and its functions should be reduced to a bare minimum. However, unlike anarchists, libertarians stop short of proposing the state's complete abolition. Certainly, they argue, the state should not interfere with economic and social affairs, nor should it become involved in matters of morality. Most social problems can be solved by the free market, even those concerning law and order. The state should there do little other than defend the people. Libertainaism's leading modern exponent has been the US philosopher Rober Nozick (1938-2000)"

Hope this helps place libertarianism more accurately on the map.

[Coconut Kid]

To Mark:
Good post and good quote.  It is largly accurate about libertarianism, except for the part about them [their] being conservative.  In reality libertarians are conservative on some issues, and liberal on others.  This was a  primary reason why libertarian thinkers were prominent in helping develop the 4 corner political chart you brought up, in order to clarify their positions, and get away from the liberal/conservative false choice.

The perception that libertarians are all conservative is not correct, but I can understand why many people, including the one you quoted, believes it.  Some explanation is needed.  Libertarians are very conservative on economic issues and gun rights, but are very liberal on most other issues, like personal lifestyle, speech, civil liberties, and others.  There is both a conservative and liberal wing in the party, depending on whether that particular libertarian places more stress on the conservative economic issues, or the other liberal issues.  We thus have the strange situation where there are libertarian members of both the NRA, and the ACLU.
 
The reason why the party was perceived as conservative was that in the 70's thru 90's a libertarian leaning wing in the republican party (mainly Goldwater acolytes) began to take the policy advice of some prominent libertarian economists like Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute.  In the meantime, liberal libertarians, who could have found common ground with the democrats on their issues, were largely ignored and marginalized by the democrats.  Because of this, the conservative libertarians were often cited as a big influence in the republican party, while few people knew that the liberal libertarians existed.  This swayed many libertarians to vote for republicans, and helped contribute to republican victories for Reagan, and the 1994 republican congress.  This alliance was shattered by George W Bush when he embraced neoconservatism and Carl Rove, ambandoning libertarian fiscal conservatism on spending, embracing authoritian christian conservative positions on most other issues, and starting a permanent war.  This resulted in libertarians abandoning republicans in 2006, contributing to their defeat and the democratic victory.
 
Thus the correct libertarian position in your chart would be to cover the entire line, near the anarchist end, with conservative libertarians on the right, and liberal libertarians on the left, but all of them favoring limited government positions, no matter what the issue.  I hope that clarified things.  Thanks for listening.  

I should have looked at your chart because it is differently labeled than the one I use.  The one I use is normally labeled:

                               Populist/Authoritarian (more government)
                                                    x   
Left/Liberal/Progressive/Democrat>  x  <Right/Conservative/Republican
                                                    x
                                Libertarian/Anarchist (less government)

On this chart, libertarians would occupy an entire line, just above anarchist.

Since libertarians have both left wing and right wing positions, they have issues in common with both Progressives (liberals), such as less government interference in personal moral choices, and with conservatives (less government interference in the economy).  There is a common libertarian position (less government, no matter what the issue, which most libertarians share), but left/progressive (liberal) libertarians emphasize the issues where we agree with progressives, while right wing libertarians will emphasise issues where we agree with conservatives.

My chart is functionally identical with yours, despite the different labels.  The confusion comes about because some libertarians (probably the one that drew your chart) refer to themselves as "classical liberals", or just liberals.  But this classical version of liberal is different than the way the word liberal is commonly used today (ie: left wing progressive).  It refers to what liberal used to mean in the 19th century, less government interference, and more individualism in all issues.  Today that issue position is most often described as libertarian, to avoid confusion with left wing liberals.

This problem of confusing, non-standard, and occasionally biased labels is a problem with many of these charts.  Coconut Kid pointed out similar problems with a chart we were discussing in his new thread.  I hope this clarifies things, but would understand if it just made things worse.

[Coconut Kid]

... And I will remain to be a Libertarian no matter what the Libertarian Party ends up doing; because I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, or any party. Like Washington, I think political parties are a disaster and only cause more harm than they will solve. As such, I know what Libertarianism is all about and should those beliefs begin to get morphed like the Republican Party has done recently, or the Democrat Party has done a while back, I will continue on as a "so-called" old-school Libertarian.

Also, please elaborate on what other kooks you refer to. All I want is to be left alone, as such I am all about self-sufficiency. I want to grow/raise most of my own food and I believe in holding amounts of gold and silver just in case. Likewise, I have a strong belief in the 2nd Amendment, and so I had many guns with the ammo to go with it. Tragically, I lost it all in a boating accident.

Does that make me one of the kooks destroying the Libertarian movement?

With respect, I don't have the slightest idea how to count someone who claims to be a Libertarian and at the same time rejects politcal parties. Frankly, that sounds a lot like an anarchist who has run out of wilderness frontier into which to retreat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalist

Survivalist may be what you are.

"Survivalism is a commonly used term for the preparedness strategy and subculture of individuals or groups anticipating and making preparations for future possible disruptions in local, regional, national, or international social or political order. Survivalists often prepare for this anticipated disruption by learning skills (e.g., emergency medical training), stockpiling food and water, preparing for self-defense and self-sufficiency, and/or building structures that will help them to survive or "disappear" (e.g., a survival retreat or underground shelter)."

Your faith-based belief that firearms weapons are the only aspect of modern technology that is worthwhile to have in a cataclysm seems related to the "gun culture".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture

"In a 1970 article titled America as a Gun Culture, the noted historian Richard Hofstadter used the phrase gun culture to describe America's long-held affection for guns, embracing and celebrating the association of guns and America's heritage. According to political scientist Robert Spitzer, the American gun culture as it exists today is founded on three factors; the proliferation of firearms since the earliest days of the nation, the connection between personal ownership of weapons and the country's revolutionary and frontier history, and the cultural mythology regarding the gun in the frontier and in modern life.

I really don't see a "Libertarian Movement" as much as I see a "Libertarian Political Party". I do not see you as having much impact on it.

[Mr.Eastwood]

If you knew me on a personal level, you'd know I was borderline Anarchist anyways. I don't see what not liking political parties has to do with being, or not being, a Libertarian or any such thing. Perhaps you can elaborate for me how these are interconnected.

As for self-sufficiency, that is a personal choice. I'm not preparing for the end of the world or anything of the sort. As I stated, the less I have to count on other people for my own survival, the better off I feel. I see that as the quaint-essential reading of what a Libertarian is, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

As for guns, perhaps I fall under the gun culture thingy you posted. I don't count Wikipedia as a reliable source since anyone can edit it with, or without, the backing of facts. I have a high reverence for our county's founding documents, and the people who wrote/fought to create it. As such, I see our Constitution as a sort of contract between the government and the people; on this contract there is a guarantee and that guarantee is the 2nd Amendment. Not to mention, shooting my guns, or any gun for that matter, is fun and a hobby of mine. Just like I enjoy hunting, fishing, camping, hockey, reading, rubix cube ... these are all hobbies of mine. Again, I'm not waiting and preparing for the end of the world. I know it's hard to believe, but most people labeled as Survivalist and Gun Nuts don't fall into that category; however the media, in all it's wonderful bias, picks the one guy who is and paints us all under that very broad brush. Then again, we all have the tendency to do that don't we?

[Coconut Kid]

... I don't count Wikipedia as a reliable source since anyone can edit it with, or without, the backing of facts. ...

Speaking of painting with a broad brush.

What you describe may have been "certain" when the thing started up. There is a lot more self-correction going on now. Besides, it's a lot handier than the reference section at the local library and even quicker than "google" with its hundreds of pages of hits.

"google" =  Results of about 1,320,000 for gun culture in america. (0.23 seconds)

... I know it's hard to believe, but most people labeled as Survivalist and Gun Nuts don't fall into that category; however the media, in all its wonderful bias, picks the one guy who is and paints us all under that very broad brush. Then again, we all have the tendency to do that don't we?

Survivalist: I said you might be one. Based on what you stated, I could not guess that it was just a hobby. Indeed, I would suggest there is an indefinite boundry between self-sufficiency related to anticipation of a catastrophe and self-sufficiency related to a "green" or naturalistic world view involving recycling and living in harmony with nature. I have to suggest that it is the holding of amounts of gold & silver, just in case that sends a strong signal about one's life style choices.

Gun Culture: Nothing I posted bespoke "gun nut" other than how one interprets "cultural mythology". There are clear examples of "cultural myths" other than those associated with personal firearms as the primary means of "self-defense".

For example, the concept that racial differences as defined by skin color and other physical characteristics mean than one group is physically, mentally, and morally inferior to another group. That is a cultural myth that is very persistent.

Most hobby groups do not have to claim that their activities are protected by the Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution. Somehow knitting, crotcheting, and quilting got left out of the Bill of Rights even though the needles may be quite deadly.

    

[Mr.Eastwood]

I apologize for getting a bit defensive C.K. I've just become so use to getting labeled that I start seeing things.

And, sadly, I shouldn't have to defend my hobby of collecting and shooting firearms, but there are elements everywhere that see this fundamental Constitutional right as not being one. Fear is, indeed, a powerful thing.

As for wikipedia, it's true it is very useful. I often use it as a starting point, and it holds great links and such. However most people do see it as being biased and flawed to the point that it doesn't hold much water in ways of a source. It might be more honest and such now, but I still liken it to being a blog and my personal opinion is a blog makes for a poor choice as a source as well. Again, this is only my opinion and I will admit that some wiki pages are more fair/unbiased than others. I know this through doing independent research when using that site as a starting point.

[Coconut Kid]

It seems that the Second Amendment to the Constitution has become entirely separated from the concept of the citizen militia comprised of the whole body of citizens as the armed, organized defense of the nation.

The Supreme Court has decided that every citizen not currently adjudged to be a criminal or insane has an absolute right to own any style of firearm which he or she may operate personally. This is the right supposedly secured by the Second Amendment. The Court has not yet spoken on the question of a partnership of citizens having a right to own and operate a crew-served firearm such as a cannon. In other decisions, the Court has adjudged that partnerships and corporations have rights equal to and concurrent with individuals -- indeed superior because partnerships and corporations do not suffer the natural death of individuals. Do they have gun ownership rights?

Meanwhile, the justification of individual firearm ownership has become centered on two concepts:
Self-Defense: Crime and criminal attacks on everyone, everywhere is rampant and increasing. The public and private law enforcement personnel are overwhelmed or corrupt and the only recourse for the honest citizen is "to go armed" at all times.
Hobby, hunting game & target shooting: Sportsmen and technologists must be free of silly restrictions on their harmless amusement. There needs to be no prior restriction on hunters who might use assault rifles to kill a herd of game animals.

I'll leave the issue of "self-defense" to Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, and the other law enforcement professionals.

Most hobby groups do not have to claim that their activities are protected by the Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution. Somehow knitting, crocheting, and quilting got left out of the Bill of Rights even though the needles may be quite deadly.

Meanwhile, the national defense gets left out of the discussion. The founders (even before the Constitution) seemed to wish to avoid the expense of a standing army. They seemed to think that the citizen militia could defend against invasion. How could they not understand that just a few hundred years later, the nation would have to go to war all over the world -- frequently. They were really short-sighted were they not?

But to a consideration of what the Second Amendment says about the "militia". If every citizen has a right to own a firearm, is it not a concurrent right to belong to the militia? And what is the successor organization to the militia -- the National Guard, I think.

I suggest that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of every citizen, not disqualified by adjudicated insanity and/or felony criminality, to enlist in the National Guard  --  not withstanding pay and other benefit status. The specific point is that all the obfuscation about "good order & discipline" promulgated for the comfort of the officers and the high command is overridden by the Second Amendment Constitutional provision. Thereby, all the gays, lesbians, etc. who have been discharged from the standing army for whatever reason related to their sexual orientation have a Constitutional RIGHT to sign onto the National Guard.

[Coconut Kid]

In more general terms, it is my opinion that the Supreme Court errored in finding that the 2nd Amendment created an individual right to gun ownership completely disconnected from military responsibility.

I would call it an individual right that must be exercised collectively.

The support for the 2nd Amendment came as a result of the manipulation of membership in the militia during the Articles of Confederation period so it could be used for political purposes.

In the last years of the 18th century, "bearing arms" did not mean prancing about in the woods hunting wild game. It meant serving in the military.

Some standard reference works provide some of the alternative wording considered for the 2nd Amendment.

[el_malo]

Heheheheheh, double post 

An interesting concept, CK.

Personally, I would not use the NG, as the vehicle to "organize" gun-owners.

I am old-fashion, and would prefer a Citizen's Militia, organized by precinct, county, state and national levels.

Remember, militias elect their own company, battalion and regimental officers 

State governors appoint the General Officers.

I believe, that based upon previous militia statutes, this body is mandatory for all citizens, 16 to 55 years of age, and requires the "militiaman" to personally maintain a minimum level of lethal weaponry.

[Coconut Kid]

Heheheheheh, double post 
...
I believe, that based upon previous militia statutes, this body is mandatory for all citizens, 16 to 55 years of age, and requires the "militiaman" to personally maintain a minimum level of lethal weaponry.

Double post -- my browser had a brainfart. I edited the repeat into an expansion of my point.

The militia statutes are a facinating study. Unfortunately, most of the easy references start with the first national statute under the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 viz: 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; ... 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.

Thereby the Congress was limited in its authority to create an organization which excluded a segment of the population or to deny arms to a segment of the population. Now that I look again -- not only can't gays be excluded, but neither can women or resident aliens, people is a very inclusive designation.

Back to the militia statutes: the state and colony statutes from before the adoption of the Constitution must be considered to gain an understanding of the context. That's a tough research assignment.