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

[depotoo]

“…By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
President John F. Kennedy

 

[depotoo]

Are you really that dense? Surely you recognized my implication. True, I should have stated from England, rather than in, but it doesn't lessen its implications.

And my above quote is so fitting-
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

and our founders knew that as they had experienced it in England, and wanted it not to be repeated here.

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.​

What relation is there between Rights and governmental powers?

Governments can ignore rights, protect rights or take them away. It depends on what kind of government rules a people.

IDIOT!!!


Our founders did not experience anything in England. Most were American born colonists you dope

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.​

What relation is there between Rights and governmental powers?

Governments can ignore rights, protect rights or take them away. It depends on what kind of government rules a people.

Exactly the situation the 2nd amendment is designed to prevent: government rule. In America the People are intended to be the masters of government; not the other way round.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the 2nd Amendment were taken narrowly and literally, as so many RW'ers think the entire Constitution should be taken,

the 2nd Amendment would mean that the federal government could not prevent states from having militias.

The 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean that all citizens, in and out of any organized militia, have the right to own guns. That is why we have a court to interpret the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.​

What relation is there between Rights and governmental powers?

Governments can ignore rights, protect rights or take them away. It depends on what kind of government rules a people.

Exactly the situation the 2nd amendment is designed to prevent: government rule. In America the People are intended to be the masters of government; not the other way round.

No that's not true. The Constitution creates a system where the People delegate the government the authority to rule. This is not a country where every person is his own government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are you really that dense? Surely you recognized my implication. True, I should have stated from England, rather than in, but it doesn't lessen its implications.

quote:

And my above quote is so fitting-
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

and our founders knew that as they had experienced it in England, and wanted it not to be repeated here.

endquote

"the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions...They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters" - and our founders knew that as they had experienced it in England, and wanted it not to be repeated here.​

Many of the arguments for and against things during debates at the Constitutional Convention, and many of the arguments for and against things in the document to be ratified had absolutely no context of 'masters with good intentions' -- some of the argument, for sure did, but you are building a case mostly out of thin air, or air blown out of your arse.

Oh sure, you have good intentions using the authority of a man born only a few years before the debates raged (Mr Webster, the outstanding spokesman for American nationalism ) . Might as well use the authority of arguments of somebody born in 1976 to lecture us all on what Reagan meant during the late 1970s and 1980s -- using that as if it were a contemporary telling of facts.

short version: YOu are no Webster and good ole Dan is entitled to his opinions. He had many -- he was a jurist

 

[9thIDdoc]

"No that's not true. The Constitution creates a system where the People delegate the government the authority to rule. This is not a country where every person is his own government"

Untrue.
The government exists to carry out the will of the people; not the other way round.
Of the People. By the People. For the People.

 

[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.

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?

The public schools don't teach this any longer because that would be endorsing a Christian religion.
All Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers was forbidden to practice their religions in certain parts of Europe so they came to the new world in order to worship freely.
It's seems to be you who are ignorant of American history and especially the different protestant religions.
Pilgrims were Calvinists who were a Reformed Protestant group.
The Pilgrims had obtained permission from English authorities to settle in Virginia, they were to help teach the Natives about Christ.
Mayflower Compact.
In ye name of God Amen· We whose names are vnderwriten,
the loyall subjects of our dread soueraigne Lord King James
by ye grace of God, of great Britaine, franc, & Ireland king,
defender of ye faith, &cHaueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente
of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to
plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia· doe
by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and
one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a
ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur=
therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte,
constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances,
Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought
most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of ye colonie: vnto
which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes
wherof we haue herevnder subscribed our names at Cap=
Codd ye ·11· of Nouember, in ye year of ye raigne of our soueraigne
Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth
and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom ·1620·|

 

[JakeStarkey]

The schools teach the religious motivation of the colonists.

To say the schools don't is a lie.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As to the 10th, ""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 final phrase suggests both the Referendum and the Initiative are an acceptable form of direct democracy; though no mechanism exists today, an example of a remedy is the 17th Amendment, or less burdensome, an act of Congress.

Bullshit? Why go to the dark side?

#4 Distorts reality, Congress is broken, nearly 90% of The People agree. Does Congressy have to do anything? Apparently not.

As for the SC not legislating, it seems the best example is to look at how they voted on Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC (once again, 5-4).

5-4 decisions are strong evidence that the COTUS is itself amorphous, at least in part. It is a document written by committee and one where realpolitik and compromise are evident, as was the real threat the founders experienced from GB.

Consider the Second, not passed until 1791, framed by these issues:

• Art. I, Sec. 8 clauses: 12; 15 & 16
• The on going threat from Great Britain [See: Causes for the War of 1812] War of 1812 - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
• Also in Sec. 8, clause 1

Your examples of a remedy are examples of representative government in action. Referendum and initiative are anathema to a national representative form of government. Anathema!

The Supreme Court has NEVER legislated. Never! Your lack of understanding of the English language is showing. And worse is your statement on the colonial battles with England

2nd Amendment and the causes of the 1812 war?

Really, well thanks so much for sharing. Your rebuttal was so ... sophomoric it left me underwhelmed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why does it matter? The FF merely used the militia as an example of the federal interest in the right to keep and bear arms. There was no question that Americans would retain their right to use firearms for defense, hunting and recreation and the rights were upheld in several Supreme Court decisions.

It seems some "recreational" hunting has moved into new arenas, classrooms office buildings and movie theaters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.
========

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?

The public schools don't teach this any longer because that would be endorsing a Christian religion.
All Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers was forbidden to practice their religions in certain parts of Europe so they came to the new world in order to worship freely.
It's seems to be you who are ignorant of American history and especially the different protestant religions.
Pilgrims were Calvinists who were a Reformed Protestant group.
The Pilgrims had obtained permission from English authorities to settle in Virginia, they were to help teach the Natives about Christ.
Mayflower Compact.
In ye name of God Amen· We whose names are vnderwriten,
the loyall subjects of our dread soueraigne Lord King James
by ye grace of God, of great Britaine, franc, & Ireland king,
defender of ye faith, &cHaueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente
of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to
plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia· doe
by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and
one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a
ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur=
therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte,
constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances,
Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought
most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of ye colonie: vnto
which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes
wherof we haue herevnder subscribed our names at Cap=
Codd ye ·11· of Nouember, in ye year of ye raigne of our soueraigne
Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth
and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom ·1620·|

The Puritans were extremely intolerant. That's why people like Roger Williams fled to what is now Rhode Island.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And my above quote is so fitting-
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

and our founders knew that as they had experienced it in England, and wanted it not to be repeated here.

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.​

What relation is there between Rights and governmental powers?

Governments can ignore rights, protect rights or take them away. It depends on what kind of government rules a people.

?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It seems to me that the FF were of a generation which still considered blood letting to be a life saving medical procedure. Times change and arms have changed dramatically.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why does it matter? The FF merely used the militia as an example of the federal interest in the right to keep and bear arms. There was no question that Americans would retain their right to use firearms for defense, hunting and recreation and the rights were upheld in several Supreme Court decisions.

Many rights simply aren't written into the constitution.

In fact rights were written into the constitution if they had something to do with the govt, and only then.

The right to free speech was there so people could freely talk politics.
The right to KBA was there to act as the ultimate check and balance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does it matter? The FF merely used the militia as an example of the federal interest in the right to keep and bear arms. There was no question that Americans would retain their right to use firearms for defense, hunting and recreation and the rights were upheld in several Supreme Court decisions.

Many rights simply aren't written into the constitution.

In fact rights were written into the constitution if they had something to do with the govt, and only then.

The right to free speech was there so people could freely talk politics.
The right to KBA was there to act as the ultimate check and balance.

When you're that wrong, you should just stop talking

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why does it matter? The FF merely used the militia as an example of the federal interest in the right to keep and bear arms. There was no question that Americans would retain their right to use firearms for defense, hunting and recreation and the rights were upheld in several Supreme Court decisions.

Many rights simply aren't written into the constitution.

In fact rights were written into the constitution if they had something to do with the govt, and only then.

The right to free speech was there so people could freely talk politics.
The right to KBA was there to act as the ultimate check and balance.

When you're that wrong, you should just stop talking

Fine, when I'm wrong, then I'll stop talking, okay?

Until then, I'll carry on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why does it matter? The FF merely used the militia as an example of the federal interest in the right to keep and bear arms. There was no question that Americans would retain their right to use firearms for defense, hunting and recreation and the rights were upheld in several Supreme Court decisions.

Many rights simply aren't written into the constitution.

In fact rights were written into the constitution if they had something to do with the govt, and only then.

The right to free speech was there so people could freely talk politics.
The right to KBA was there to act as the ultimate check and balance.

When you're that wrong, you should just stop talking

Fine, when I'm wrong, then I'll stop talking, okay?

Until then, I'll carry on.

Frank is a far right reactionary who will stop if he can free speech he does not like.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why does it matter? The FF merely used the militia as an example of the federal interest in the right to keep and bear arms. There was no question that Americans would retain their right to use firearms for defense, hunting and recreation and the rights were upheld in several Supreme Court decisions.

Many rights simply aren't written into the constitution.

In fact rights were written into the constitution if they had something to do with the govt, and only then.

The right to free speech was there so people could freely talk politics.
The right to KBA was there to act as the ultimate check and balance.

When you're that wrong, you should just stop talking

Fine, when I'm wrong, then I'll stop talking, okay?

Until then, I'll carry on.

Frank is a far right reactionary who will stop if he can free speech he does not like.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of what he's written in the past. He's not one of those people whose posts you look forward to in any way shape or form.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why does it matter? The FF merely used the militia as an example of the federal interest in the right to keep and bear arms. There was no question that Americans would retain their right to use firearms for defense, hunting and recreation and the rights were upheld in several Supreme Court decisions.

Many rights simply aren't written into the constitution.

In fact rights were written into the constitution if they had something to do with the govt, and only then.

The right to free speech was there so people could freely talk politics.
The right to KBA was there to act as the ultimate check and balance.

When you're that wrong, you should just stop talking

Fine, when I'm wrong, then I'll stop talking, okay?

Until then, I'll carry on.

Frank is a far right reactionary who will stop if he can free speech he does not like.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of what he's written in the past. He's not one of those people whose posts you look forward to in any way shape or form.

Frank is merely old, cranky, and wants things to be as they were sixty years ago.