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

[LOki]

I got some of the details wrong the other day but the point still remains a bunch of untrained ,unskilled, civilian gunslingers will cause more carnage then they will stop.

How many credible people are proposing American become a nation of of untrained ,unskilled, civilian gunslingers?

One.

edit: Maybe not credible?

as I'm not proposing anything ,just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)
my credibility is not at issue.

I don't think that's a fact at all.

What you're really doing is taking a statement meant to convey the notion that there's no reason at all that every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult should not be allowed to carry the gun of their own individual choosing, to mean they "want everyone to go packed."

Everyone you say that to knows it's bullshit; and what's more, YOU know it's bullshit. Yet here you are, saying it again.

Why is that, Cupcake?

 

[daws101]

I got some of the details wrong the other day but the point still remains a bunch of untrained ,unskilled, civilian gunslingers will cause more carnage then they will stop.

How many credible people are proposing American become a nation of of untrained ,unskilled, civilian gunslingers?

One.

edit: Maybe not credible?

as I'm not proposing anything ,just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)
my credibility is not at issue.

I don't think that's a fact at all.

What you're really doing is taking a statement meant to convey the notion that there's no reason at all that every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult should not be allowed to carry the gun of their own individual choosing, to mean they "want everyone to go packed."

Everyone you say that to knows it's bullshit; and what's more, YOU know it's bullshit. Yet here you are, saying it again.

Why is that, Cupcake?

not what I said there slapdick I said there is a section of Americans that want that to be a reality.
if you are not one of them, you have nothing to be pissy over.
the shit about "every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult" is rationalizing.
since you don't actually think , I'm not surprised you'd make that false assumption.
that's why sugar tits.
btw I as raised around firearms and have owned one or two.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"You really don't get it. The governor can muster all of the militia and form and regulate units. Do you not have the IQ to get this?"

"Disagree with Article 1 Section 8 then"

I have neither disagreed with nor contradicted Article 1 Section 8. That article and section refers to how organized militia units were to be formed and managed. You should have noted that I was speaking to unorganized units.and again I have to ask how you muster something before it exists. You will also note that it does not state that all militias units must be formed and controlled by the state or federal governments. There are a great many examples of militia units that were otherwise formed and controlled both before and after this article.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the thread killers have taken over yet another thread?

Oh dear me, cupcakes and slapdicking all around

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

was speaking to unorganized units

sort of like your thought processes?

 

[LOki]

I got some of the details wrong the other day but the point still remains a bunch of untrained ,unskilled, civilian gunslingers will cause more carnage then they will stop.

How many credible people are proposing American become a nation of of untrained ,unskilled, civilian gunslingers?

One.

edit: Maybe not credible?

as I'm not proposing anything ,just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)
my credibility is not at issue.

I don't think that's a fact at all.

What you're really doing is taking a statement meant to convey the notion that there's no reason at all that every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult should not be allowed to carry the gun of their own individual choosing, to mean they "want everyone to go packed."

Everyone you say that to knows it's bullshit; and what's more, YOU know it's bullshit. Yet here you are, saying it again.

Why is that, Cupcake?

not what I said there slapdick

Well Princess, what you said is a matter of public record: "... just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)."

So, you did indeed say EXACTLY what I claim you said. Funny how that direct quoting function works. Ain't it, Slapdick?

I said there is a section of Americans that want that to be a reality.

Yes. You claimed it as a fact. And I questioned the validity of that fact, and offered a FAR MORE plausible explanation for what's really going on.

And you know what Princess? You've managed to do nothing but validate the plausibility of my explanation.

Keep posting!

if you are not one of them, you have nothing to be pissy over.

Oh, I should probably not get pissy about the mischaracterization of anyone; but I still do, because it's still bullshit.

the shit about "every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult" is rationalizing.

Says you. But you're not terribly competent to make such a judgement. Are you, Princess?

since you don't actually think , I'm not surprised you'd make that false assumption.
that's why sugar tits.

If your dopey notions had any kind of bearing on reality, they might be considered comedy rather than desperation.

btw I as raised around firearms and have owned one or two.

Thanks for sharing, Buttercup.

 

[daws101]

How many credible people are proposing American become a nation of of untrained ,unskilled, civilian gunslingers?

One.

edit: Maybe not credible?

as I'm not proposing anything ,just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)
my credibility is not at issue.

I don't think that's a fact at all.

What you're really doing is taking a statement meant to convey the notion that there's no reason at all that every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult should not be allowed to carry the gun of their own individual choosing, to mean they "want everyone to go packed."

Everyone you say that to knows it's bullshit; and what's more, YOU know it's bullshit. Yet here you are, saying it again.

Why is that, Cupcake?

not what I said there slapdick

Well Princess, what you said is a matter of public record: "... just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)."

So, you did indeed say EXACTLY what I claim you said. Funny how that direct quoting function works. Ain't it, Slapdick?

I said there is a section of Americans that want that to be a reality.

Yes. You claimed it as a fact. And I questioned the validity of that fact, and offered a FAR MORE plausible explanation for what's really going on.

And you know what Princess? You've managed to do nothing but validate the plausibility of my explanation.

Keep posting!

if you are not one of them, you have nothing to be pissy over.

Oh, I should probably not get pissy about the mischaracterization of anyone; but I still do, because it's still bullshit.

the shit about "every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult" is rationalizing.

Says you. But you're not terribly competent to make such a judgement. Are you, Princess?

since you don't actually think , I'm not surprised you'd make that false assumption.
that's why sugar tits.

If your dopey notions had any kind of bearing on reality, they might be considered comedy rather than desperation.

btw I as raised around firearms and have owned one or two.

Thanks for sharing, Buttercup.

The longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit.

 

[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.

Disagree. Where exactly does the Constitution grant such authority?

Disagree with Article 1 Section 8 then.

I have neither disagreed with nor contradicted Article 1 Section 8.

It seems that you most certainly have, considering that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution unambiguously states that: "The Congress shall have power...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,... and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

That article and section refers to how organized militia units were to be formed and managed.

Not really, and not relevant.

You should have noted that I was speaking to unorganized units.

Noted. So what?

Nothing in Article 1 Section 8 excludes the unorganized militia from Congress's power "[t]o 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,... and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

and again I have to ask how you muster something before it exists.

The unorganized militia exists. What's your point?

You will also note that it does not state that all militias units must be formed and controlled by the state or federal governments.

Not in contention; not relevant.

There are a great many examples of militia units that were otherwise formed and controlled both before and after this article.

Not in contention; not relevant.

 

[LOki]

One.

edit: Maybe not credible?

as I'm not proposing anything ,just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)
my credibility is not at issue.

I don't think that's a fact at all.

What you're really doing is taking a statement meant to convey the notion that there's no reason at all that every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult should not be allowed to carry the gun of their own individual choosing, to mean they "want everyone to go packed."

Everyone you say that to knows it's bullshit; and what's more, YOU know it's bullshit. Yet here you are, saying it again.

Why is that, Cupcake?

not what I said there slapdick

Well Princess, what you said is a matter of public record: "... just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)."

So, you did indeed say EXACTLY what I claim you said. Funny how that direct quoting function works. Ain't it, Slapdick?

I said there is a section of Americans that want that to be a reality.

Yes. You claimed it as a fact. And I questioned the validity of that fact, and offered a FAR MORE plausible explanation for what's really going on.

And you know what Princess? You've managed to do nothing but validate the plausibility of my explanation.

Keep posting!

if you are not one of them, you have nothing to be pissy over.

Oh, I should probably not get pissy about the mischaracterization of anyone; but I still do, because it's still bullshit.

the shit about "every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult" is rationalizing.

Says you. But you're not terribly competent to make such a judgement. Are you, Princess?

since you don't actually think , I'm not surprised you'd make that false assumption.
that's why sugar tits.

If your dopey notions had any kind of bearing on reality, they might be considered comedy rather than desperation.

btw I as raised around firearms and have owned one or two.

Thanks for sharing, Buttercup.

The longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"If you don't see how the 'well regulated' Militia and the National Guard are equal, there is no talking sense to you. NG's are civilians in a sense. They practice (well regulated) and live primarily as civilians".

Bullshit. NG's are trained by and with the rest of the military. They are also equipped, armed, and controlled by federal government except for a very limited amount of control by the states that can be disallowed at any time the whim of that government. They are NOT civilians which means they are NOT militia despite polite fiction to the contrary (continued to get around martial law regs.)

"The First Congress responded, but the Second Amendment did not remove national control over armed forces or the state militias"

Nor did it change the fact that militia controlled by the federal government is-by definition-not state militia.

"Federal preemption of state-militia legislation commenced very early in the history of the Republic. In Houston v. Moore(1820), the Supreme Court stated that the federal government's power over the militia "may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress"

Which applies to that particular case and changes authority granted by the Constitution not at all; pro or con. If it did I rather doubt that the federal congress would have approved the conduct of militia units that were nationalized to become the Confederate army. Maybe you just aren't up on ( not-so) current events.

The judicial system is part of the federal government. The federal government telling itself it can do what ever it wants is an example of tyranny; not law.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Not really, and not relevant".

Most definitely relevant because organized and unorganized militias are two entirely different things.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

another thread killed.

 

[daws101]

as I'm not proposing anything ,just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)
my credibility is not at issue.

I don't think that's a fact at all.

What you're really doing is taking a statement meant to convey the notion that there's no reason at all that every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult should not be allowed to carry the gun of their own individual choosing, to mean they "want everyone to go packed."

Everyone you say that to knows it's bullshit; and what's more, YOU know it's bullshit. Yet here you are, saying it again.

Why is that, Cupcake?

not what I said there slapdick

Well Princess, what you said is a matter of public record: "... just stating a fact (that fact being, there are people in this country who want everyone to go packed)."

So, you did indeed say EXACTLY what I claim you said. Funny how that direct quoting function works. Ain't it, Slapdick?

I said there is a section of Americans that want that to be a reality.

Yes. You claimed it as a fact. And I questioned the validity of that fact, and offered a FAR MORE plausible explanation for what's really going on.

And you know what Princess? You've managed to do nothing but validate the plausibility of my explanation.

Keep posting!

if you are not one of them, you have nothing to be pissy over.

Oh, I should probably not get pissy about the mischaracterization of anyone; but I still do, because it's still bullshit.

the shit about "every sane, law-abiding, responsible adult" is rationalizing.

Says you. But you're not terribly competent to make such a judgement. Are you, Princess?

since you don't actually think , I'm not surprised you'd make that false assumption.
that's why sugar tits.

If your dopey notions had any kind of bearing on reality, they might be considered comedy rather than desperation.

btw I as raised around firearms and have owned one or two.

Thanks for sharing, Buttercup.

The longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit.

Yes obviously you.

 

[danielpalos]

"If you don't see how the 'well regulated' Militia and the National Guard are equal, there is no talking sense to you. NG's are civilians in a sense. They practice (well regulated) and live primarily as civilians".
S
Bullshit. NG's are trained by and with the rest of the military. They are also equipped, armed, and controlled by federal government except for a very limited amount of control by the states that can be disallowed at any time the whim of that government. They are NOT civilians which means they are NOT militia despite polite fiction to the contrary (continued to get around martial law regs.)

"The First Congress responded, but the Second Amendment did not remove national control over armed forces or the state militias"

Nor did it change the fact that militia controlled by the federal government is-by definition-not state militia.

"Federal preemption of state-militia legislation commenced very early in the history of the Republic. In Houston v. Moore(1820), the Supreme Court stated that the federal government's power over the militia "may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress"

Which applies to that particular case and changes authority granted by the Constitution not at all; pro or con. If it did I rather doubt that the federal congress would have approved the conduct of militia units that were nationalized to become the Confederate army. Maybe you just aren't up on ( not-so) current events.

The judicial system is part of the federal government. The federal government telling itself it can do what ever it wants is an example of tyranny; not law.

Not sure what hat your point is.

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;

 

[LOki]

"Not really, and not relevant".

Most definitely relevant because organized and unorganized militias are two entirely different things.

No. They are not "entirely different things", and Congress is empowered to regulate them BOTH.

You're just wrong. It has been proven with mathematical certainty. Move on.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...der and der guns back then wuz muskets so the government can take everything cepting muskets cuz Imma Liberal and Im smart

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not sure what hat your point is.

1. The National Guard is not a militia.
2. It serves the federal government. If it were a militia it would be federal rather than state militia. Probably why it's named the National Guard instead of the State Guard.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"No. They are not "entirely different things", and Congress is empowered to regulate them BOTH"

If that is true you should not have a problem proving it by quoting the Constitution. Begging the question won't get it.

 

[LOki]

"No. They are not "entirely different things", and Congress is empowered to regulate them BOTH"

If that is true you should not have a problem proving it by quoting the Constitution. Begging the question won't get it.

I already did that for you, Princess.

 

[toxicmedia]

I love jumping in on the last part of a thread, having read none of it, especially when it's a simple question, and I know the answer.

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.

The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry.

The 2nd amendment is not the reason people should be allowed to carry weapons.

I support open carry, and think citizens should be allowed to keep any type of hand carried armaments.

What I would exclude are arms that allow you to shoot something out of your line of direct sight, or shoot explosives.