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

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

So is everyone who disagrees with the NRA a leftist?

 

[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.

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.

False .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"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?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

really?
Is this a natural right? How about an self-evident right? What about an inalienable right?

Hmm...

Maybe even a right only to be found in the constitution?

In colonial America most citizens had a DUTY to be in the militia, not a right

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Any unorganized militia must comply with the law of the land or have troops sent to snuff it out

 

[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?

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"

there are quite a few like you round these here parts


sit back, take your shoes off, rest for a while

 

[danielpalos]

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

Any unorganized militia must comply with the law of the land or have troops sent to snuff it out

Yes, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of any acquisition and possession of said Arms by "those of the opposing view".

 

[frigidweirdo]

...the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

really?
Is this a natural right? How about an self-evident right? What about an inalienable right?

Hmm...

Maybe even a right only to be found in the constitution?

In colonial America most citizens had a DUTY to be in the militia, not a right

What is a "Natural Right"? Of course Rights only exist because we as humans have decided they exist. They are an abstract way of expressing what we feel we want.
You look at the history of rights and you see they came about because of a fight between the King and those powerful subjects who wanted more power for themselves and less for the king.

In other words, Rights have been made up to suit our needs. God didn't give them to us, Nature didn't give them to us, we made them. That is the only self-evident thing about rights.

Regardless of whether this is only found in the Constitution or not. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION. We're dealing with the Constitution, so, it would appear, to be extremely important.

Yes, people had the DUTY to be in the militia.

However the founding fathers were concerned that the govt could take away this duty and pound down on the people by destroying the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In this document you can see exactly that.

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

They used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". Why if it meant carry arms?

 

[Rustic]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God, it's equivalent to life itself, it's a duty, it's the muscle behind the 1st amendment, it hung the moon... Well, maybe all of that might be a bit over the top. I got carried away a bit.
Anyway,
Mostly what makes it perfect it does without a doubt drives progressives wacko nuts... I think it may have turned some adult progressives into bed wetters.

Let well enough be... Leave the second alone it's perfect just the way it is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is a "Natural Right"? Of course Rights only exist because we as humans have decided they exist. They are an abstract way of expressing what we feel we want.
You look at the history of rights and you see they came about because of a fight between the King and those powerful subjects who wanted more power for themselves and less for the king.

In other words, Rights have been made up to suit our needs. God didn't give them to us, Nature didn't give them to us, we made them. That is the only self-evident thing about rights.

Regardless of whether this is only found in the Constitution or not. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION. We're dealing with the Constitution, so, it would appear, to be extremely important.

Yes, people had the DUTY to be in the militia.

However the founding fathers were concerned that the govt could take away this duty and pound down on the people by destroying the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In this document you can see exactly that.

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

They used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". Why if it meant carry arms?

Well we are both on the side that would argue most all of the founders/framers had it wrong "Of course Rights only exist because we as humans have decided they exist."

Not quite sure I agree here...will have to revisit this: "However the founding fathers were concerned that the govt could take away this duty and pound down on the people by destroying the militia."

Been there already with the Gerry quote taken out of a fuller context. I believe you are using a common link of gun rights advocates that has been misused and misinterpreted for a long time. I will get back to this

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God...

whatever

 

[Rustic]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God...

whatever

To each his own...

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

A driver's license protects an individuals privilege to drive a car, suspending a license protects the public from drunks, addicts and reckless drivers.

Notwithstanding the Second Amendment's final phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". it is in fact infringed! Most felons, mentally violent people and those on parole (not those on probation) have this right infringed; even LE officers entering a prison or county jail must port their weapons in gun lockers.
seem to believe any gun law is a restriction and should be repealed. Even a benign infringement creates a sliding slope which ends with the confiscation of all guns from all of The People.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is a "Natural Right"? Of course Rights only exist because we as humans have decided they exist. They are an abstract way of expressing what we feel we want.
You look at the history of rights and you see they came about because of a fight between the King and those powerful subjects who wanted more power for themselves and less for the king.

In other words, Rights have been made up to suit our needs. God didn't give them to us, Nature didn't give them to us, we made them. That is the only self-evident thing about rights.

Regardless of whether this is only found in the Constitution or not. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION. We're dealing with the Constitution, so, it would appear, to be extremely important.

Yes, people had the DUTY to be in the militia.

However the founding fathers were concerned that the govt could take away this duty and pound down on the people by destroying the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In this document you can see exactly that.

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

They used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". Why if it meant carry arms?

Well we are both on the side that would argue most all of the founders/framers had it wrong "Of course Rights only exist because we as humans have decided they exist."

Not quite sure I agree here...will have to revisit this: "However the founding fathers were concerned that the govt could take away this duty and pound down on the people by destroying the militia."

Been there already with the Gerry quote taken out of a fuller context. I believe you are using a common link of gun rights advocates that has been misused and misinterpreted for a long time. I will get back to this

The Founders wanted a system whereby people had Rights, so the govt wasn't the one in charge, the people were. To get it in place you need some kind of "religion", some kind of belief. I like the belief system, but also recognize it for what it is. If others accept it in belief then fine.
What happens often is that people take the rights they want to have and ignore those they don't care about and even demand that others have this right infringed upon.

Essentially people should be able to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people.

I'm not sure why you think I'm taking Mr Gerry's quote out of context. It's quite clear throughout the document what the founding fathers are talking about. Bear arms CLEARLY means a right to be in the militia and not a right to carry arms.

I even have quotes from Washington using the term in the same way. Also you have the Supreme Court making decisions (before the 2A was a real issue in politics) which point towards the same meaning.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God...

whatever

To each his own...

You have to wonder why God didn't get people to acknowledge rights before the 1600s though.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God, it's equivalent to life itself, it's a duty, it's the muscle behind the 1st amendment, it hung the moon... Well, maybe all of that might be a bit over the top. I got carried away a bit.
Anyway,
Mostly what makes it perfect it does without a doubt drives progressives wacko nuts... I think it may have turned some adult progressives into bed wetters.

Let well enough be... Leave the second alone it's perfect just the way it is.

Drives "progressives wacko nuts"? Did you see how crazy they went when they said gay marriage was a protected right? No. Well the conservative wackos certainly went nuts.

 

[Rustic]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God...

whatever

To each his own...

You have to wonder why God didn't get people to acknowledge rights before the 1600s though.

Did you read my whole post, it was supposed to be a bit of levity... Guess not.
Can you say taken out of context?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God...

whatever

To each his own...

You have to wonder why God didn't get people to acknowledge rights before the 1600s though.

Did you read my whole post, it was supposed to be a bit of levity... Guess not.
Can you say taken out of context?

Yeah, I read it. However I disagree with this statement, so I responded to this statement.

Do you ever wonder why rights weren't on the radar before the 1600s?

 

[Rustic]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God...

whatever

To each his own...

You have to wonder why God didn't get people to acknowledge rights before the 1600s though.

Did you read my whole post, it was supposed to be a bit of levity... Guess not.
Can you say taken out of context?

Yeah, I read it. However I disagree with this statement, so I responded to this statement.

Do you ever wonder why rights weren't on the radar before the 1600s?

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God, it's equivalent to life itself, it's a duty, it's the muscle behind the 1st amendment, it hung the moon... Well, maybe all of that might be a bit over the top. I got carried away a bit.
Anyway,
Mostly what makes it perfect it does without a doubt drives progressives wacko nuts... I think it may have turned some adult progressives into bed wetters.

Let well enough be... Leave the second alone it's perfect just the way it is.

It is obvious that this thread is too swift for ya, this is the whole post that was taken out of context by genius.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment is more than a right, it's gift from God, it's equivalent to life itself, it's a duty, it's the muscle behind the 1st amendment, it hung the moon... Well, maybe all of that might be a bit over the top. I got carried away a bit.
Anyway,
Mostly what makes it perfect it does without a doubt drives progressives wacko nuts... I think it may have turned some adult progressives into bed wetters.

Let well enough be... Leave the second alone it's perfect just the way it is.

It is obvious that this thread is too swift for ya, this is the whole post that was taken out of context by genius.

But it's not. This is the point.

Rights exist because in England the powerful were trying to take more powers from the King. That's it. It developed into a idea, that people should be able to do what they want.

Human Rights are TOTALLY man made ideas. If Humans died, the idea would die too.

It's not obvious that this post is somehow to swift for me. It might be that I just don't agree with what you're coming up with.