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

[Londoner]

Whatever was meant by Militia is ignored by a paranoid movement which has succumbed to pathological slippery slope'ism.

In other words, when I say "I want the kind of background checks that prevent people with clinically diagnosed mental illness from getting guns"

They hear:

"I want to prevent ALL gun ownership"

In short, they win arguments by changing them.

 

[LOki]

"I want the kind of background checks that prevent people with clinically diagnosed mental illness from getting guns"

Since there's OBVIOUSLY no such thing, you're just as obviously angling for something else.

Tell us what it is.

 

[toxicmedia]

Whatever was meant by Militia is ignored by a paranoid movement which has succumbed to pathological slippery slope'ism.

In other words, when I say "I want the kind of background checks that prevent people with clinically diagnosed mental illness from getting guns"

They hear:

"I want to prevent ALL gun ownership"

In short, they win arguments by changing them.

Yes, that is the current standard operating procedure for the NRA.

They have a bit of a point.

When legislation starts a rollin', it establishes legal precedent.

This debate is a fine example of how the definition of "arms" "well regulated" "militia" and "Keep and bear arms" need to remain undefined, because the NRA is afraid that once identified, the "Leftists" will draw a bead on them

 

[Rustic]

It means citizens buy more guns and ammo... We welcome it.

 

[LOki]

You

Whatever was meant by Militia is ignored by a paranoid movement which has succumbed to pathological slippery slope'ism.

In other words, when I say "I want the kind of background checks that prevent people with clinically diagnosed mental illness from getting guns"

They hear:

"I want to prevent ALL gun ownership"

In short, they win arguments by changing them.

Yes, that is the current standard operating procedure for the NRA.

They have a bit of a point.

When legislation starts a rollin', it establishes legal precedent.

This debate is a fine example of how the definition of "arms" "well regulated" "militia" and "Keep and bear arms" need to remain undefined, because the NRA is afraid that once identified, the "Leftists" will draw a bead on them

You guys are hysterical!

 

[Londoner]

"I want the kind of background checks that prevent people with clinically diagnosed mental illness from getting guns"

Since there's OBVIOUSLY no such thing, you're just as obviously angling for something else.

Tell us what it is.

I am angling for a world where we don't strategically conflate the person who wants to confiscate all guns with the person who wants tighter background checks. As long as we strategically posit a slippery slope between these two persons, there is no way to discuss background checks - which is what the NRA and gun manufacturers want. They want any discussion of background checks to be considered a constitutional crisis before the argument is even articulated.

And no, I don't think tighter background checks will prevent all or even most criminals and mass murders from getting guns. And I also don't believe that speed limits prevent all or even most people from speeding. And I don't believe that Drunk Driving Laws prevent all drunk driving or all the deaths caused by drunk driving. I only believe that having enforceable speed limits and enforceable DWI/DUI legislation serves to limit the number of unnecessary deaths (without unduly infringing upon the rights of free, able-minded law-abiding citizens).

 

[kaz]

"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.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

 

[kaz]

"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.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

 

[LOki]

"I want the kind of background checks that prevent people with clinically diagnosed mental illness from getting guns"

Since there's OBVIOUSLY no such thing, you're just as obviously angling for something else.

Tell us what it is.

I am angling for a world where we don't strategically conflate the person who wants to confiscate all guns with the person who wants tighter background checks. As long as we strategically posit a slippery slope between these two persons, there is no way to discuss background checks - which is what the NRA and gun manufacturers want. They want any discussion of background checks to be considered a constitutional crisis before the argument is even articulated.

Your "NRA and gun manufacturers" handwringing is a red herring. They react to what their members and customers want, not the other way around. The NRA is not a powerful lobby because of gun industry money (there are many, many deeper pocket for politicians to reach into), but rather it's because they have a membership of people who vote... a lot of them.

Background checks serve no purpose other than to (illegally) populate a database of gun owners.

What is that database for?

And no, I don't think tighter background checks will prevent all or even most criminals and mass murders from getting guns.

Then what is their purpose, if not a prelude to general confiscation?

And I also don't believe that speed limits prevent all or even most people from speeding.

Then what is the purpose of background checks if it's not to populate an illegal database of law-abiding gun owners for the ultimate purpose of general gun confiscation?

And I don't believe that Drunk Driving Laws prevent all drunk driving or all the deaths caused by drunk driving.

Then what is the purpose of background checks if it's not to populate an illegal database of law-abiding gun owners for the ultimate purpose of general gun confiscation?

I only believe that having enforceable speed limits and enforceable DWI/DUI legislation serves to limit the number of unnecessary deaths (without unduly infringing upon the rights of free, able-minded law-abiding citizens).

If--for all the obviousreasons--background checks cannot "serve to limit the number of unnecessary deaths (without unduly infringing upon the rights of free, able-minded law-abiding citizens)", then what is their purpose, Cupcake?

 

[kaz]

"I want the kind of background checks that prevent people with clinically diagnosed mental illness from getting guns"

Since there's OBVIOUSLY no such thing, you're just as obviously angling for something else.

Tell us what it is.

I am angling for a world where we don't strategically conflate the person who wants to confiscate all guns with the person who wants tighter background checks. As long as we strategically posit a slippery slope between these two persons, there is no way to discuss background checks - which is what the NRA and gun manufacturers want. They want any discussion of background checks to be considered a constitutional crisis before the argument is even articulated.

And no, I don't think tighter background checks will prevent all or even most criminals and mass murders from getting guns. And I also don't believe that speed limits prevent all or even most people from speeding. And I don't believe that Drunk Driving Laws prevent all drunk driving or all the deaths caused by drunk driving. I only believe that having enforceable speed limits and enforceable DWI/DUI legislation serves to limit the number of unnecessary deaths (without unduly infringing upon the rights of free, able-minded law-abiding citizens).

So what benefit is there then to background checks? As you accurately pointed out, criminals can still get guns. We have 310 million in this country and open borders to bring in unlimited more. Drug dealers have zero problems getting all the drugs they want into the country.

Or put another way, what is the point in limiting our rights for a policy you concede doesn't even work?

 

[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.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... 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;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

 

[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?

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.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Read article 1 section 8

 

[kaz]

"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.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... 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;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

"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.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... 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;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

So can an "unorganized militia" have guns or does the government decide that?

 

[kaz]

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.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Read article 1 section 8

Irrelevant, i'm not arguing there is no right to government creating a national guard. So what right do you suppose they are trying to preserve in the second amendment?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

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

Posting "no jobs created over the last 7 & 1/2 years" is a lie!

 

[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?

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.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... 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;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

"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.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... 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;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

So can an "unorganized militia" have guns or does the government decide that?

Stupid question.

Does a criminal gang have guns? Yep, and is such an association a reason to infringe the rights of those in the gang who have no record of arrest?

In fact, criminal gangs have shot callers, a mob of men on horseback with guns seems to have the same rights as a member of a criminal gang with no record of arrests.

Of course on horseback or in a low rider anyone who brandishes a gun*** is by definition committing a criminal act.

***Brandishing a Weapon Definition. Under California Penal Code 417, it is unlawful for you to draw or exhibit a deadly weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening way in the presence of another person and not in self defense or in defense of someone.

Now, hypothetically, let's suppose a group of armed black men on horseback blocked access to public lands under Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jurisdiction?

What do you think might happen?

 

[LOki]

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.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Read article 1 section 8

Irrelevant, i'm not arguing there is no right to government creating a national guard. So what right do you suppose they are trying to preserve in the second amendment?

I'll make that argument to end this dumb: The government has no right to create a national guard. None. The Government has no rights. None. Not one. Zero.

And the right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You're both welcome.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Untrue. The unorganized militia is -by definition-unorganized. It has no leader, no allegiance, no mission, and no definite role of members. The unit acquires these things when it is formed into an organized unit. The President could form a militia unit (if he could get anyone to join) but he has no need since he is the CiC of the military already. Militia units may (and historically have) be formed by private individuals, cities, counties, states, the US, or from the general population for a particular stated purpose. They be "nationalized" (become part of the regular military).

The term "unorganized miitia" is a legal fiction. It is a mob of men, sometimes vigilantes, who operate outside of the law.

 

[kaz]

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.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... 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;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

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.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... 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;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

So can an "unorganized militia" have guns or does the government decide that?

Stupid question.

Does a criminal gang have guns? Yep, and is such an association a reason to infringe the rights of those in the gang who have no record of arrest?

In fact, criminal gangs have shot callers, a mob of men on horseback with guns seems to have the same rights as a member of a criminal gang with no record of arrests.

Of course on horseback or in a low rider anyone who brandishes a gun*** is by definition committing a criminal act.

***Brandishing a Weapon Definition. Under California Penal Code 417, it is unlawful for you to draw or exhibit a deadly weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening way in the presence of another person and not in self defense or in defense of someone.

Now, hypothetically, let's suppose a group of armed black men on horseback blocked access to public lands under Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jurisdiction?

What do you think might happen?

What are you babbling about, Holmes?

 

[kaz]

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.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Read article 1 section 8

Irrelevant, i'm not arguing there is no right to government creating a national guard. So what right do you suppose they are trying to preserve in the second amendment?

I'll make that argument to end this dumb: The government has no right to create a national guard. None. The Government has no rights. None. Not one. Zero.

And the right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You're both welcome.

Not sure what the first paragraph means, but clearly the 2nd does refer to the right of the people to keep and bear arms