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

[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.

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

Welcome

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

[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

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

The founding generation were all over the place with argument and opinion.

Your posting a link to a web site with content from the Federalists does not make an argument for anything. But what it does do is solidify your place in usmb history as a genuine dime-store historian

 

[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.

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

Welcome

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

The founding generation were all over the place with argument and opinion.

Your posting a link to a web site with content from the Federalists does not make an argument for anything. But what it does do is solidify your place in usmb history as a genuine dime-store historian

Dispute the following:

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 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.

 

[daws101]

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 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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

 

[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.

^^^
Another lie.

So, you admit you're not one of the reality challenged who want others to believe the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.

And you must therefore admit all your other posts on gun control were lies. Have you entered a 12-step program?

 

[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.

So, you admit you're not one of the reality challenged who want others to believe the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.

No. I pointed out your lie.
You know you cannot show that 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.

 

[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.

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

Welcome

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

 

[toxicmedia]

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

 

[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.

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

Welcome

The right to carry arms is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

 

[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

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

I have not thought it necessary in the course of the last season to call for any general detachments of militia or of volunteers under the laws passed for that purpose. ..

Considering the extraordinary character of the times in which we live, our attention should unremittingly be fixed on the safety of our country. For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security. It is therefore incumbent on us at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion. Some of the States have paid a laudable attention to this object, but every degree of neglect is to be found among others. Congress alone having the power to produce an uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense, the interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation.​

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29450
--

Now what do you think he is saying here?

 

[westwall]

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 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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(1) The right to carry arms is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. (2) The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

(1) Hello? When did Dante ever say right to bear arms is granted...?

(2) The thrust of any sentence taken out of context is suspect

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

 

[toxicmedia]

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 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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

Increased verbosity neither confuses me nor supports any, as of yet, unexpressed retort to my original statement......which you dismissed, out of hand.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

Increased verbosity neither confuses me nor supports any, as of yet, unexpressed retort to my original statement......which you dismissed, out of hand.

Oh! That was a statement?

and speaking of verbose:

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​

 

[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.

verbose anyone?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

toxicmedia (what a trollish little name) look up Zubly add him to Beckley

 

[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.

verbose anyone?

Is it sow at the Law practice today? or did you retire?

penumbras........who says that on a site where the brainy posts on this site include "libtard"

 

[toxicmedia]

toxicmedia (what a trollish little name) look up Zubly add him to Beckley

Awe, are you gonna cry?....that's adorable