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

[Wry Catcher]

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?

None. But, there are a number of non credible people who have posted on this thread who believe the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and every gun law is a gun law too many.

 

[Rustic]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed... I does not get any clearer than that.

Game set match

 

[airplanemechanic]

I think anyone not in prison should be able to own a gun. It wasn't until very recently that guns were banned in the hands of felons. But what we need to look at is what constituted a felony at the time. We didn't have felonies such as stat rape where an 18yo can get in trouble for sex with a 17yo. Most felonies were violent crimes. Now someone can get a felony on their record for downloading images. I just ask the question, should one's right to self defense be determined by an errant mouseclick 20 years ago? Does anyone know the definition of a felony? Note: it does not say "violent crime". It just says a crime punishable by over a year in jail. That's it. Someone who writes a bad check is a felon.

When the NRA calls me and asks me to join I tell them off every time. I tell them when they fight for EVERYONE'S right to own a gun, then I'll join. Until then, leave me alone.

 

[Rustic]

Just like the federal government reneged on all of its Indian treaty's... It always wants to do the same with the constitution.

A leopard can never change its spots... Like every Indian leader has ever said "never trust the federal government for they only know lies".

I and my family have lived this being 100% Oglala Sioux

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Is that true of all people?

Or do you admit some people can be legally denied the "Right" to own, possess and have in their custody or control a gun?

"The people" is not defined. Can non citizens own, possess, or have in their custody and control a gun?

Let me help, "A well regulate Militia, being necessary for a free State, shall not be infringed. Even that is not clear without reading Art. I, sec. 8, clause 1, 15 & 16.

Q. Consider the new left and the demonstrations on college campuses during the Vietnam War, which governmental forces were deployed by the state when local LE need assistance to control them?

A. The National Guard, of course. And even the Organized Militia managed to kill students on Kent States' Campus. A mob of men, untrained and without command and control would be (understatement to follow) a mistake.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just like the federal government reneged on all of its Indian treaty's... It always wants to do the same with the constitution.

A leopard can never change its spots... Like every Indian leader has ever said "never trust the federal government for they only know lies".

I and my family have lived this being 100% Oglala Sioux

The Federal Government changes, bit by bit, every two years; image the siege of Alcatraz Island if the government of the US in the 18th Century responded to the Native American occupation of that Island.

 

[kaz]

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

Is that true of all people?

Or do you admit some people can be legally denied the "Right" to own, possess and have in their custody or control a gun?

Is this the thing where you don't grasp that rights can be removed with due process of law again? I always said that with due process of law rights can be removed. You just never grasped it

"The people" is not defined. Can non citizens own, possess, or have in their custody and control a gun?

It is defined. "We the People of the United States of America." That refers to citizens of the United States. Non citizens don't have a Constitutional right to have a gun, but we can allow them to, so "can" is subjective

Let me help, "A well regulate Militia, being necessary for a free State, shall not be infringed. Even that is not clear without reading Art. I, sec. 8, clause 1, 15 & 16.

Q. Consider the new left and the demonstrations on college campuses during the Vietnam War, which governmental forces were deployed by the state when local LE need assistance to control them?

A. The National Guard, of course. And even the Organized Militia managed to kill students on Kent States' Campus. A mob of men, untrained and without command and control would be (understatement to follow) a mistake.

Yes, the founders said government has the right to have guns, that makes so much sense to put that in the bill of rights...

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

The unorganized militia is just a smart way of making sure that individuals get their "right to bear arms" (this isn't about keep) so they can't demand to be in the National Guard.

Were the National Guard the only militia, as mentioned in article 1 section 8, then people could demand to be in it. They can't because officially they're actually in the militia.

This is bear arms.

The right to keep arms is also a right for individuals to own arms. It has nothing to do with the militia, with the exception that the right exists so the militia has a potential ready supply if it needs them. The reality is in the modern world this won't happen, but the govt can't find a smart way of reducing the right to nothing as they did with the right to bear arms.

Congress decides if the militia has arms or not. The National Guard has some pretty snazzy equipment, the unorganised militia doesn't even have a toilet. This is the power of Congress to decide. No one else does.

The whole reason for the 2A was in case the US govt decided to do this. So they protected the militia.

The problem comes that if the US govt called up the National Guard, that leaves no militia which has organisation. In theory the states could put officers in charge though. Hence the reason for the 2A.

However any such war, if it were to occur, would depend on how much of the Armed Forces disobeyed the government. The militia wouldn't amount to much. In an invasion the people would get called up to the military anyway.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

No, it isn't. It's a way to have people in the militia, exercising their right to bear arms, without being able to demand to be in the National Guard.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed... I does not get any clear than that.

Game set match

And yet it is infringed. What part of reality challenges you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Somewhere along the road, Progressives got the odd notion that the people live to serve government, that government bestows rights and liberties

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed... I does not get any clear than that.

Game set match

And yet it is infringed. What part of reality challenges you?

If it shall not be infringed, then criminals in prison shall not have their RKBA infringed while they're there. Nor the insane. Sound good?

 

[Rustic]

The

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed... I does not get any clear than that.

Game set match

And yet it is infringed. What part of reality challenges you?

The federal government can not help itself... History always repeats itself.

The progressives just keep taking.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

No, it isn't. It's a way to have people in the militia, exercising their right to bear arms, without being able to demand to be in the National Guard.

Are the Crips, Bloods, Hell's Angels and Mafia populated by people, and are they a "disorganized militia"? Are they any different than the group of armed men who surrounded the Bundy Ranch?

Bundy Ranch - Google Search

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

No, it isn't. It's a way to have people in the militia, exercising their right to bear arms, without being able to demand to be in the National Guard.

Are the Crips, Bloods, Hell's Angels and Mafia populated by people, and are they a "disorganized militia"? Are they any different than the group of armed men who surrounded the Bundy Ranch?

Bundy Ranch - Google Search

The unorganized militia is all males aged 17-45. So... yes.

However you can't act on behalf of the unorganized militia unless a state appointed officer tells you what to do.... the sticky point.

A man shooting someone else is not acting on behalf of the unorganized militia, no matter whether he wants to believe he has power or not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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"

It is not necessarily illegal for people with "clinically diagnosed mental illness" to buy/own/possess a gun; it is therefore impossible for there to be a background check to prevent them buying/owning/possession one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

So, there's no reason to have these 'enhanced' background checks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

None. But, there are a number of non credible people who have posted on this thread who believe the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and every gun law is a gun law too many.

^^^
Another lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

dime-store historians and academics are always welcome...

Welcome