What is the meaning of "militia" in the second amendment?

[CrusaderFrank]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Or we might consider this sage article on the distinction between the Organized Militia and the disorganized militia, as well as foreign terrorists and domestic terrorists:

NOTE: Not that I expect any of the willfully ignorant are likely to read and think about this link - but it is food for thought for those of us who actually think!

Mr. President, Please Call Up the Unorganized Militia For Inspection

Yawn. DailyKos Rant for gun control =/= Constitution

 

[frigidweirdo]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

No. Did I say that? No I did not.

I really fucking hate it when people start responding to what they think people are saying, rather than what is being said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[JakeStarkey]

kaz is a great mischaracterizer of what folks actually say.

 

[LOki]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

Shay's Rebellion ring a bell for you LOki and Watson?

"The uprising in Massachusetts began in the summer of 1786. The rebels tried to capture the federal arsenal at Springfield and harassed leading merchants, lawyers, and supporters of the state government. The state militia, commanded by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in several engagements in the winter of 1787. Shays and the other principal figures of the rebellion fled first toRhode Island and then to Vermont.

"Although it never seriously threatened the stability of the United States, Shays’ Rebellion greatly alarmed politicians throughout the nation. Proponents of constitutional reform at the national level cited the rebellion as justification for revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation, and Shays’ Rebellion figured prominently in the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution."

An unbiased mind can look at this incident and understand the vast difference between a bunch of malcontents and the National Guard. The former are the disorganized militia, a legal fiction, having no authority and no chain of command, vis a vis a well trained military force acting within the law, trained and under the authority of the COTUS and the Congress with officers who are appointed by elected officials.

"A bunch of malcontents" is not any kind of militia. The difference is so vast in fact, that it makes your point meaningless.

You're welcome.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

Shay's Rebellion ring a well Watson?

"The uprising in Massachusetts began in the summer of 1786. The rebels tried to capture the federal arsenal at Springfield and harassed leading merchants, lawyers, and supporters of the state government. The state militia, commanded by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in several engagements in the winter of 1787. Shays and the other principal figures of the rebellion fled first toRhode Island and then to Vermont.

"Although it never seriously threatened the stability of the United States, Shays’ Rebellion greatly alarmed politicians throughout the nation. Proponents of constitutional reform at the national level cited the rebellion as justification for revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation, and Shays’ Rebellion figured prominently in the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution."

An unbiased mind can look at this incident and understand the vast difference between a bunch of malcontents and the National Guard. The former are the disorganized militia, a legal fiction, having no authority and no chain of command vis a vis a well trained military force acting within the law, trained and under the authority ofelected officials who were appointed officers.

Yes, I see your point. The founders were terrified that government would take away it's own guns. So the bill of rights is actually 9 rights for citizens and one right of government. They wanted to make sure government wouldn't give up its guns, that would be such a threat to liberty

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

Shay's Rebellion ring a well Watson?

"The uprising in Massachusetts began in the summer of 1786. The rebels tried to capture the federal arsenal at Springfield and harassed leading merchants, lawyers, and supporters of the state government. The state militia, commanded by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in several engagements in the winter of 1787. Shays and the other principal figures of the rebellion fled first toRhode Island and then to Vermont.

"Although it never seriously threatened the stability of the United States, Shays’ Rebellion greatly alarmed politicians throughout the nation. Proponents of constitutional reform at the national level cited the rebellion as justification for revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation, and Shays’ Rebellion figured prominently in the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution."

An unbiased mind can look at this incident and understand the vast difference between a bunch of malcontents and the National Guard. The former are the disorganized militia, a legal fiction, having no authority and no chain of command vis a vis a well trained military force acting within the law, trained and under the authority ofelected officials who were appointed officers.

Yes, I see your point. The founders were terrified that government would take away it's own guns. So the bill of rights is actually 9 rights for citizens and one right of government. They wanted to make sure government wouldn't give up its guns, that would be such a threat to liberty

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Says he who knows he can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

Shay's Rebellion ring a bell for you LOki and Watson?

"The uprising in Massachusetts began in the summer of 1786. The rebels tried to capture the federal arsenal at Springfield and harassed leading merchants, lawyers, and supporters of the state government. The state militia, commanded by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in several engagements in the winter of 1787. Shays and the other principal figures of the rebellion fled first toRhode Island and then to Vermont.

"Although it never seriously threatened the stability of the United States, Shays’ Rebellion greatly alarmed politicians throughout the nation. Proponents of constitutional reform at the national level cited the rebellion as justification for revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation, and Shays’ Rebellion figured prominently in the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution."

An unbiased mind can look at this incident and understand the vast difference between a bunch of malcontents and the National Guard. The former are the disorganized militia, a legal fiction, having no authority and no chain of command, vis a vis a well trained military force acting within the law, trained and under the authority of the COTUS and the Congress with officers who are appointed by elected officials.

"A bunch of malcontents" is not any kind of militia. The difference is so vast in fact, that it makes your point meaningless.

You're welcome.

LOL, by your biased and ignorant opinion:

"In late April, Nevada Congressman Steven Horsford contacted Clark County sheriff Doug Gillespie regarding complaints from community members. The reported complaints alleged that Bundy militia supporters had established a persistent presence along roads, that they had set up checkpoints for citizens to prove residence, and that they had established an armed presence around churches, a school, and other community locations.[100][101] One local resident said that neighbors on their way to an Easter Sunday church service were greeted by armed militia members, causing some of them not to enter "for fear and disgust of having their church basically held captive."[19] According to the Associated Press, Cliven Bundy acknowledged "creating a stir", saying that there may have been weapons in the parking lot, but there were none in the church"

HIstory my willfully (?) ignorant friend, even when the crazy right wing trys to reinvent it, cannot be fooled by rhetoric.

One example of a disorganized insurrection under the quise of a milita.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

Shay's Rebellion ring a bell for you LOki and Watson?

"The uprising in Massachusetts began in the summer of 1786. The rebels tried to capture the federal arsenal at Springfield and harassed leading merchants, lawyers, and supporters of the state government. The state militia, commanded by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in several engagements in the winter of 1787. Shays and the other principal figures of the rebellion fled first toRhode Island and then to Vermont.

"Although it never seriously threatened the stability of the United States, Shays’ Rebellion greatly alarmed politicians throughout the nation. Proponents of constitutional reform at the national level cited the rebellion as justification for revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation, and Shays’ Rebellion figured prominently in the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution."

An unbiased mind can look at this incident and understand the vast difference between a bunch of malcontents and the National Guard. The former are the disorganized militia, a legal fiction, having no authority and no chain of command, vis a vis a well trained military force acting within the law, trained and under the authority of the COTUS and the Congress with officers who are appointed by elected officials.

"A bunch of malcontents" is not any kind of militia. The difference is so vast in fact, that it makes your point meaningless.

You're welcome.

LOL, by your biased and ignorant opinion:

"In late April, Nevada Congressman Steven Horsford contacted Clark County sheriff Doug Gillespie regarding complaints from community members. The reported complaints alleged that Bundy militia supporters had established a persistent presence along roads, that they had set up checkpoints for citizens to prove residence, and that they had established an armed presence around churches, a school, and other community locations.[100][101] One local resident said that neighbors on their way to an Easter Sunday church service were greeted by armed militia members, causing some of them not to enter "for fear and disgust of having their church basically held captive."[19] According to the Associated Press, Cliven Bundy acknowledged "creating a stir", saying that there may have been weapons in the parking lot, but there were none in the church"

HIstory my willfully (?) ignorant friend, even when the crazy right wing trys to reinvent it, cannot be fooled by rhetoric.

One example of a disorganized insurrection under the quise of a milita.

The feebs have plans for the next disorganized militia protest that points weapons at people.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You think the President is a militia leader?
lol! Cute.

No, I didn't realize that was a link. So I actually went back and read it and found it to be a monumental waste of time. One man's wild fantasy based on erroneous assumptions. If you're going to post fantasy or opinion why not post your own. Then others can attempt to correct your errors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You think the President is a militia leader?
lol! Cute.

No, I didn't realize that was a link. So I actually went back and read it and found it to be a monumental waste of time. One man's wild fantasy based on erroneous assumptions. If you're going to post fantasy or opinion why not post your own. Then others can attempt to correct your errors.

That you disagree means nothing. The argument is very compelling and legally sound.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo... Embrace the suck.

See no jobs created over the last 7 1/2 years

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Or we might consider this sage article on the distinction between the Organized Militia and the disorganized militia, as well as foreign terrorists and domestic terrorists:

NOTE: Not that I expect any of the willfully ignorant are likely to read and think about this link - but it is food for thought for those of us who actually think!

Mr. President, Please Call Up the Unorganized Militia For Inspection

Did you bother to read the dribble you linked to?

"I would like to point out today, that we/you DO also have every legal right to regulate the PEOPLE when it comes to national defense..."

Sounds like every other Progressive dictator

 

[LOki]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

Shay's Rebellion ring a bell for you LOki and Watson?

"The uprising in Massachusetts began in the summer of 1786. The rebels tried to capture the federal arsenal at Springfield and harassed leading merchants, lawyers, and supporters of the state government. The state militia, commanded by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in several engagements in the winter of 1787. Shays and the other principal figures of the rebellion fled first toRhode Island and then to Vermont.

"Although it never seriously threatened the stability of the United States, Shays’ Rebellion greatly alarmed politicians throughout the nation. Proponents of constitutional reform at the national level cited the rebellion as justification for revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation, and Shays’ Rebellion figured prominently in the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution."

An unbiased mind can look at this incident and understand the vast difference between a bunch of malcontents and the National Guard. The former are the disorganized militia, a legal fiction, having no authority and no chain of command, vis a vis a well trained military force acting within the law, trained and under the authority of the COTUS and the Congress with officers who are appointed by elected officials.

"A bunch of malcontents" is not any kind of militia. The difference is so vast in fact, that it makes your point meaningless.

You're welcome.

LOL, by your biased and ignorant opinion:

"In late April, Nevada Congressman Steven Horsford contacted Clark County sheriff Doug Gillespie regarding complaints from community members. The reported complaints alleged that Bundy militia supporters had established a persistent presence along roads, that they had set up checkpoints for citizens to prove residence, and that they had established an armed presence around churches, a school, and other community locations.[100][101] One local resident said that neighbors on their way to an Easter Sunday church service were greeted by armed militia members, causing some of them not to enter "for fear and disgust of having their church basically held captive."[19] According to the Associated Press, Cliven Bundy acknowledged "creating a stir", saying that there may have been weapons in the parking lot, but there were none in the church"

HIstory my willfully (?) ignorant friend, even when the crazy right wing trys to reinvent it, cannot be fooled by rhetoric.

One example of a disorganized insurrection under the quise of a milita.

"A bunch of malcontents" is still not any kind of militia. The difference is so vast in fact, that it makes your point meaningless.

You're welcome.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You think the President is a militia leader?
lol! Cute.

No, I didn't realize that was a link. So I actually went back and read it and found it to be a monumental waste of time. One man's wild fantasy based on erroneous assumptions. If you're going to post fantasy or opinion why not post your own. Then others can attempt to correct your errors.

That you disagree means nothing. The argument is very compelling and legally sound.

Did you bother to read it? It doesn't even pretend to be anything more than opinion based on (misconstrued) fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government is required by the Constitution to regulate the militia.

 

[BluesLegend]

SCOTUS - "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

SCOTUS - 2nd amendment rights like 1st amendment rights pre-date the Constitution and therefore are not granted by the Constitution but protected by it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The government is required by the Constitution to regulate the militia.

Untrue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You think the President is a militia leader?
lol! Cute.

No, I didn't realize that was a link. So I actually went back and read it and found it to be a monumental waste of time. One man's wild fantasy based on erroneous assumptions. If you're going to post fantasy or opinion why not post your own. Then others can attempt to correct your errors.

That you disagree means nothing. The argument is very compelling and legally sound.

Did you bother to read it? It doesn't even pretend to be anything more than opinion based on (misconstrued) fact.

The fact is sound, the opinion is sound. The militia is subject to the government. The unorganized militia can be called to must for any or no reason.

 

[LOki]

The government is required by the Constitution to regulate the militia.

The government is empowered by the Constitution to put the militia in good order according to a standard of proper functioning.