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

[peach174]

If we did that then blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the right to vote and neither would most white men. You had to be a white male PROPERTY owner, which meant owning land or a store.

Although many of us own homes on a piece of dirt the vast majority of American live in apartments owned by others and would not qualify to vote.
========

OP is living in 1788.

As we all should be, when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Times were different then.

People came to the Americas to own land.

They came to America to worship Christ as they wanted to, not what each monarchy told them to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual. Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

.

But...

What of, if any, beliefs of the founding generation concerning a 'right' to bear arms? After all we know not all rights were enumerated

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

The 10th Amendment is amorphous, if we are to take it literally, it suggests the people should have the power to put on the ballot and vote for or against a Referendum***.

Hypothetical Question for the People:

"Should the Second Amendment to the COTUS prevent any infringements on The People's right to "arms", gun ownership or possession by the Federal Government, the State Governments or local governments"

Yes or No?

***a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.

The 10th may also include the right of the people to put forth an initiative+++

+++the ability to assess and initiate things independently.

Both seem appropriate given the USSC legislating and Congress not legislating on serious issues.

Of course the problem of monies influence would remain the greatest impediment to democracy in America.

 

[LOki]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

In 1788 did we have a standing Army? Was their a National Guard? Did we have professional Soldiers and Police Officers? Were we a rural nation, for the most part?

Is every man between 18 and 45 trained under Congressional guidelines? Do the states arm, organize and discipline them (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16)?

None of this is really relevant to the separation of the 2nd's two clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the individual right theory over the collective in Heller and McDonald.

The administrative (as in the 1903 militia statute) does not negate the concept. You still have to look at the intent.

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual.

Nonsense. The security of a free State is what the government is empowered to address.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent misconstruction and/or abuse of government powers by emphasizing through enumeration that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

Or it was decided along individual liberty vs authoritarian statist lines.

Mass murder and other murders by gun don't seem to make parents of school kids feel very secure, or any of us when we see guns openly displayed in public.

Well, it is READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

 

[LOki]

Mass murder and other murders by gun don't seem to make parents of school kids feel very secure, or any of us when we see guns openly displayed in public.

What do feelings have to do with logic? People who openly display are obviously not criminals. Criminals hide their weapons. Your feelings are simply a queasy feeling about something with which you are unfamiliar. Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever touched one?

Gun ownership and concealed carry have greatly increased over twenty years, while the homicide rate has greatly declined.

People who openly display guns are nuts, not much different than a flasher, they do so for attention.

Nonsense. Open carriers do so for primarily ONE reason: "common sense" gun control schemes prevent them from carrying concealed.

And when it comes to openly carrying long arms; that's a 1st Amendment expression of protest against the authority hugging anti-rights agendas of "progressive" statists who have ZERO concern for human lives they allege they're saving.

Seriously. No one REALLY wants to carry their rifle around town every day.

If feelings are unimportant, than the entire abortion controversy is absurd. Logic suggests most of those aborted would be raised in homes where they were not wanted and possibly resented.

Abortion? Really? EXCELLENT!

There is a cost associated with rights. Anyone who values rights must accept that fact. If the acceptable cost for protecting the human right of personal autonomy is millions of human lives when discussing abortion, then the discussion regarding guns--the personal autonomy appurtenant to having the most effective tools to defend one's life--deserves the benefit of the perspective of relative cost.

To put it crassly: compared to the human cost of abortion, the human cost of protecting the human right of personal autonomy through the right to keep and bear arms is a bargain.

Your conclusion is not logical, correlation does not prove causation.

I, for one, am glad you said this.

Just because guns have been used in these mass murders, it clearly does not mean they were caused by the guns used... and they were CERTAINLY NOT caused by everyone else's guns.

From this point forward, you are now REQUIRED (if you posses any kind of integrity of intellectual honesty) to disavow all notions and assertions that these mass murders are caused by guns and/or "lax" gun control laws.

Thank you.

 

[LOki]

If we did that then blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the right to vote and neither would most white men. You had to be a white male PROPERTY owner, which meant owning land or a store.

Although many of us own homes on a piece of dirt the vast majority of American live in apartments owned by others and would not qualify to vote.
========

OP is living in 1788.

As we all should be, when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Times were different then.

People came to the Americas to own land.

They came to America to worship Christ as they wanted to, not what each monarchy told them to.

They came to America to escape the religious persecution in Europe, and practice their own brand of religious persecution here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarian boo rah is thick today.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Until when and in what context? Did the institutions of National Guard fill a militia void or role"?

The National Guard is a military unit (as opposed to the "civilian" portion of the definition); not a militia or a militia unit.

"...and historically, when was the last time a militia saved the USA from something (not counting one man's grazing on federal lands)"

Militia units may, or may not, exist to "save" (or serve) the USA.
Who else-aside from the French- fought the British to allow the formation of the USA? No militias; no USA
Andrew Jackson led mostly militia units against the Indians, Spanish, and British during 1812..
Most forces on both sides of the "Civil War" were either militia or or "Nationalized" militia as was true of Mexican war.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Criminal minded are fully capable of open carry.

Their intent is to intimidate and frighten before hand.

Do you think the same is also true of the police?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Should the Second Amendment to the COTUS prevent any infringements on The People's right to "arms"..."

Absolutely, except-as with any other Right-an individual's Right may be removed by court of law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Criminal minded are fully capable of open carry.

Their intent is to intimidate and frighten before hand.

Do you think the same is also true of the police?

False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not."

Largely untrue and beside the point in any case. Self-defense and defense of others is legally and morally an individual responsibility.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not."

Largely untrue and beside the point in any case. Self-defense and defense of others is legally and morally an individual responsibility.

Very true. Check the laws. To the point.

I have no question about self defense.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You have got to be joking.

TRANSLATION: You got me. I can't refute what you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll just make incoherent noises of disbelief, and hope somebody somewhere believe me instead of you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If we did that then blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the right to vote and neither would most white men. You had to be a white male PROPERTY owner, which meant owning land or a store.

Although many of us own homes on a piece of dirt the vast majority of American live in apartments owned by others and would not qualify to vote.
========

OP is living in 1788.

As we all should be, when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Times were different then.

People came to the Americas to own land.

They came to America to worship Christ as they wanted to, not what each monarchy told them to.

You're of course only partial correct. Your ignorance -- your knowledge of American history is truly fascinating. It would take a while to fill the lacuna there.

Many of the leading colonists came to America with land grants with the intentions of becoming wealthy and starting over. Religion? Sure the Pilgrims. But what of all of the Puritans and others?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual. Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

.

But...

What of, if any, beliefs of the founding generation concerning a 'right' to bear arms? After all we know not all rights were enumerated

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

#1 The 10th Amendment is amorphous, if we are to take it literally, it suggests the people should have the power to put on the ballot and vote for or against a Referendum*** (***a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.)

#2 Hypothetical Question for the People:

"Should the Second Amendment to the COTUS prevent any infringements on The People's right to "arms", gun ownership or possession by the Federal Government, the State Governments or local governments"

Yes or No?


#3 The 10th may also include the right of the people to put forth an initiative+++ (+++the ability to assess and initiate things independently.)

#4 Both seem appropriate given the USSC legislating and Congress not legislating on serious issues.

Of course the problem of monies influence would remain the greatest impediment to democracy in America.

#1 & The 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."​

"Amorphous"???? Not quite sure about that. Not seeing trouble with ballot initiatives and referendum on the state and local levels. Pre the US Constitution that right was exercised locally by the people. Nothing in the 10th suggests that on a national level. There is NO process for that in the USC.

#2 The USC addresses the federal government and the people as a national body. State and Local laws cannot supersede federal laws. Whether the local governments regulated weapons or not is not open to question: they did. Some laws mandated people own weapons. -- this is where it gets convoluted and messy.

Yes or No? It depends on where one stands on the issue

#3 l have no idea if you are being clear or not, because if you are it sounds like bullshit

#4 . The Supreme Court has NOT been legislating. Your opinions are not truths, and Congress does not have to legislate on serious issues. That is NOT their job. Congress reflects the people

 

[9thIDdoc]

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not"

My point is that there is no more reason to assume bad intentions from one person than another. Law enforcement has nothing to do with that point. But you might be reminded that there is such a thing as citizens arrest.

Self-defense is of no less importance than law enforcement.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not"

My point is that there is no more reason to assume bad intentions from one person than another. Law enforcement has nothing to do with that point. But you might be reminded that there is such a thing as citizens arrest.

Self-defense is of no less importance than law enforcement.

Citizens arrest is a very dangerous game

 

[daws101]

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not"

My point is that there is no more reason to assume bad intentions from one person than another. Law enforcement has nothing to do with that point. But you might be reminded that there is such a thing as citizens arrest.

Self-defense is of no less importance than law enforcement.

Citizens arrest is a very dangerous game

Not very smart either.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not."

Largely untrue and beside the point in any case. Self-defense and defense of others is legally and morally an individual responsibility.

Very true. Check the laws. To the point.

I have no question about self defense.

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not"

My point is that there is no more reason to assume bad intentions from one person than another. Law enforcement has nothing to do with that point. But you might be reminded that there is such a thing as citizens arrest.

Self-defense is of no less importance than law enforcement.

Citizens arrest is a very dangerous game

Not very smart either.

Right. Helping our fellow man could be terribly inconvenient..

 

[JakeStarkey]

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not."

Largely untrue and beside the point in any case. Self-defense and defense of others is legally and morally an individual responsibility.

Very true. Check the laws. To the point.

I have no question about self defense.

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not"

My point is that there is no more reason to assume bad intentions from one person than another. Law enforcement has nothing to do with that point. But you might be reminded that there is such a thing as citizens arrest.

Self-defense is of no less importance than law enforcement.

Citizens arrest is a very dangerous game

Not very smart either.

Right. Helping our fellow man could be terribly inconvenient..

^^^ irrelevant, not the point