In this day and age? We don't really have one -- now we have a standing military. The need for a militia is abated with a standing military. The closest analog to the 1700's American militia would be our national guard/reservists?
Powerful historical image we should not forget
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
In this day and age? We don't really have one -- now we have a standing military. The need for a militia is abated with a standing military. The closest analog to the 1700's American militia would be our national guard/reservists?
In the context of post revolutionary overthrow of a tyrannical government, I think your definition of who a militia is and what their purpose was is weak. "Shall not be infringed' however, is quite clear.
Why is it weak? Do you dispute we had no standing army and that national security was reliant on voluntary militias?
Do you dispute that has changed?
It's weak on the face of it because you assume that "militia" clearly refers to armed forces in defense of national security - at the behest of government. I think given the context of the time - which I've already explained and don't need to again - your weak ass argument is just so weak.
People of that time knew damned well that they needed to be armed individually and that a government could easily become oppressive. If your point is that they spent lives and treasure overthrowing the crown only to blindly trust the new boss to protect them I think you are postulating a weak and biased argument.
If you would just stick to the unconstitutional idea that guns are "no longer" necessary, you would still be wrong but I could at least take you seriously.
The militia argument is beneath you. Do better meow
I've never understood the "militia" argument. Maybe because it makes no sense. The Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the rights of the citizens, not the federal government which has no rights or even the states. Unless I am mistaken the only amendment that gives rights to the states is the 10th, and in the language they quickly say "to the states, or the people." In any case it makes no sense for the 2nd Amendment to be a part of the Bill of Rights unless it is an individual right, as everything else listed in the Bill of Rights happens to be. What am I missing?
Exactly. If it had been otherwise, it wouldn't be in the bill of rights and wherever it was it would enumerate private restrictions. The fact that it doesn't clearly indicates the framers couldn't imagine an idiot who didn't understand what "shall not be infringed" meant.
THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.
Not the security of an individual. Those are two different things.
Not the security of an individual. Those are two different things.
not only does lying @syskatine lie but she spins faster then stripper coming down the pole. Lie @syskatine lie.
I've resisted the urge to enter your brainless conversation, but now I can't. I think you actually like embarrassing yourself so I'm here to oblige.
Maybe you should do some reading of the time period in which the Constitution was written. There is a ton of information regarding the debates that took place, the opinions and thoughts of the Framers, and of the people.
Plenty of material out there, especially with this thing called the internet, to demonstrate that "well regulated" meant well trained, not regulated by a bunch of rules. I know liberals like a lot of rules for everything. The Framers did not think like liberals though. The entire premise of the Bill of Rights was to tell the newly formed government what it COULD NOT do. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights was specifically written to protect the people from tyranny like they just fought to be free from. This shouldn't be rocket science.
Militia referred to the people capable of bearing arms. Plenty of documentation out there about the thoughts on a standing army back in the day. The idea wasn't at all popular. In fact, the provision for a standing army in the Constitution is what specifically led to the writing of the Second Amendment as a check to the standing army. The militia was deemed to mean "the whole of the people" in numerous historical documents, not the modern day connotation. The Founders also knew that the only way the US could adequately defend itself from foreign invaders along the expanse of the coastline was to have armed citizens who could immediately respond to defend.
Arms meant personal weapons, including firearms, knives, swords, axes, etc. Cannons were excluded because they were referred to as ordinance. That hasn't changed today. Arms still refers to personal weapons. Small arms is the contemporary term. Small meaning individually operated as opposed to "light weapons" which refers to a squad operated weapon.
To keep simply meant private ownership. To bear meant to use in defense. Pretty simple reading.
When you put that together, you see that the Founders intended to protect the right of the people to own arms (as defined above) to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats. The expectation of the times was that the people would gain and maintain proficiency in the use of their arms so they could effectively defend themselves and country, hence the use of "well regulated."
So if you were to modernize the Second Amendment using the actual meaning of the wording used at the time, it would likely read "A well trained populace, being necessary to the security of a free country, the right of the people to privately own and use small arms and personal weaponry for self defense, shall not be infringed."
Pretty simple shit if you don't have your head up your ass with some stupid agenda. Educate yourself syskatine. It would serve you well.
so lying @syskatine is also a sooner fan wow talk about hitting the trifecta of suckage. Medic is the only sooner who gets a pass.
Great post. Also shines light on the idiocy of the normal illogical extension to tanks, nukes etc. personal arms is clearly spelled out.
Thanks. It's all common sense if you bother to read historical documents from the period. Federalist Paper #29 is chock full of defining what a militia was in those times. And specifically, historical documents define the militia as the whole of the people minus the government. And regulated clearly meant trained and prepared, not oversight by government regulations. This should be very easy to understand as the Bill of Rights did not give any authority to the federal government, instead placing severe restrictions on it.
He will. But he'll disregard it and reject it. If he can't overcome it, he'll ignore it.
I'm expecting more of a wild tangent, maybe arguing how the federalist papers shouldn't apply
Back then? England. France. Spain. Indians. The threats of the day to a free state. The ones we had already fought. With MILITIAS.
The thing that most irritates me about the liberals is when they say we should have some "common sense" gun reform. When pressed as to what that means, they say expanded background checks, banning "assault rifles," and limiting "clip" capacity.
"Assault rifles" are already banned. They have been banned since 1983. I can't own an assault rifle unless I buy something manufactured prior to 1983 and pass an extensive vetting process. The pre-1983 rifles are cost prohibited to the general public anyhow, costs usually starting at $20K on the market. Claiming semiautomatic rifles are assault rifles is just plain wrong. Assault rifles are defined as "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use." Key word is of course "automatic." Semiautomatic rifles are not automatic. Duh.
Trying to limit "clip" capacity is pointless. Whether limited to 10, 30, 50, or whatever won't change the outcome of a mass shooter. Anybody that has any firearm experience can change a "clip" on a semiautomatic rifle in no time. I can also buy whatever I want off Ebay and have it shipped to my door without anyone knowing thanks to international commerce.
Finally, I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. If you've been declared incompetent by a judge, you shouldn't get to buy a gun. If you're a convicted criminal, you shouldn't get to buy a gun. Privacy laws protect your medical history from the intrusion of the government just as they protect people from the intrusion of other third parties. Prosecutors have to subpoena medical records to gain access now. That shouldn't be changed by gun laws.
Everything they want they already have. Any additional is just unconstitutional. Common sense says that the President and Congress can't deprive citizens of the right to own and use firearms in their own defense. The Constitution says that indeed they can't. If liberals want to amend the Constitution I say good luck with that.
Per the famous ideal, a tyrannical government's first goal is to disarm the people. Our Founders put powerful legal protection in place just for people like Obama to prevent that from happening. There will be no more Kings and Queens.
"Assault rifles" are already banned. They have been banned since 1983. I can't own an assault rifle unless I buy something manufactured prior to 1983 and pass an extensive vetting process. The pre-1983 rifles are cost prohibited to the general public anyhow, costs usually starting at $20K on the market. Claiming semiautomatic rifles are assault rifles is just plain wrong. Assault rifles are defined as "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use." Key word is of course "automatic." Semiautomatic rifles are not automatic. Duh.
Trying to limit "clip" capacity is pointless. Whether limited to 10, 30, 50, or whatever won't change the outcome of a mass shooter. Anybody that has any firearm experience can change a "clip" on a semiautomatic rifle in no time. I can also buy whatever I want off Ebay and have it shipped to my door without anyone knowing thanks to international commerce.
Finally, I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. If you've been declared incompetent by a judge, you shouldn't get to buy a gun. If you're a convicted criminal, you shouldn't get to buy a gun. Privacy laws protect your medical history from the intrusion of the government just as they protect people from the intrusion of other third parties. Prosecutors have to subpoena medical records to gain access now. That shouldn't be changed by gun laws.
Everything they want they already have. Any additional is just unconstitutional. Common sense says that the President and Congress can't deprive citizens of the right to own and use firearms in their own defense. The Constitution says that indeed they can't. If liberals want to amend the Constitution I say good luck with that.
Per the famous ideal, a tyrannical government's first goal is to disarm the people. Our Founders put powerful legal protection in place just for people like Obama to prevent that from happening. There will be no more Kings and Queens.
You've deftly avoided the framer's point that the biggest danger toward freedom is an oppressive central government. Fine.
However.
You still can't explain why it's in the Bill of Rughts can you?
@syskatine
If you've got a soul-crushing, devastatingly superior argument to make....the ball is well TEED up for you.
Crush away. I know you got it in ya. I'm on pins and needles.
If you've got a soul-crushing, devastatingly superior argument to make....the ball is well TEED up for you.
Crush away. I know you got it in ya. I'm on pins and needles.
I haven't gotten past the initial qualification: security of a free state. What do you think the free state is? Something besides the state?
That's an excellent question. It's very strange that somebody that claims to own 30 guns would be so antigun. And you'd figure that somebody that owned that large of a collection would be educated on his Second Ammendment rights.
The crazy thing is, we know that he doesn't have a reputation for lying, so he must really own that many.
I just want to know what he's got. Probably some good stuff. I'd be real interested in buying some of those scary killers if he has some good stuff.
Did @syskatine disappear? We do have a lot to discuss. He's probably just busy lawyering.
Did @syskatine disappear? We do have a lot to discuss. He's probably just busy lawyering.
Good call CBrad. He's so antigun I forget that he might enjoy shooting on occasion.
She is out trying to ban boomer sooner.... Embarrassed she is of her school.
Bump for the board's Second Amendment expert @syskatine. I'm assuming he's been very busy and hasn't been able to post his wisdom this past week.
In other news, I'm sure the Framers envisioned that this 11 year old boy should be defenseless in his own home against the intruder since nobody needs anything but the government to protect them. Those cops and Army guys are sitting on every block in the country after all. Dumb kid should have just called the cops and waited.
Here ye, hear ye! Nobody uses guns for self defense anymore. Ban them! Once they are banned, the criminals will give theirs up and we'll all be safer from violent crime since the only reason criminals have guns is to protect themselves from those crazy law abiding people!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/01/report-11-year-old-boy-shoots-home-intruder.html
In other news, I'm sure the Framers envisioned that this 11 year old boy should be defenseless in his own home against the intruder since nobody needs anything but the government to protect them. Those cops and Army guys are sitting on every block in the country after all. Dumb kid should have just called the cops and waited.
Here ye, hear ye! Nobody uses guns for self defense anymore. Ban them! Once they are banned, the criminals will give theirs up and we'll all be safer from violent crime since the only reason criminals have guns is to protect themselves from those crazy law abiding people!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/01/report-11-year-old-boy-shoots-home-intruder.html
Ahhhh, the ignoring the "elephant in the room" fetal position response. Classic, but the least effective of all.
I'll admit, getting you to respond was easier than I thought, but your head in the sand avoidance of the "elephant in the room" was just what I expected. I think you probably disappointed others in the thread though, judging by their posts on how they thought you'd respond.
Any time you'd like to bring your super duper heavyweight knowledge of the Second Amendment back to this thread, let me know. I'll be glad to assist you embarrassing yourself just as others here have. Until then, I'll leave you to your banana clips and imaginary guns.
And your posted article represents a gun owner problem, not a gun problem. Millions upon millions of gun owners, part of the "militia" mind you, have successfully avoided being shot by their toddlers by proper firearm safety and security practices.
Speaking a real problems, is anybody going to address this in an effective manner? It's even Dingle Barry's "home" town.
http://heyjackass.com/category/2016-stats/
And sadly, that's just Chicago. Imagine the possible change in gun violence statistics if the race baiters like Jesse, Al, and the BLM movement would put forth some effort in reducing black on black crime. It won't make them money, but it would save lives. Then maybe we could turn all of our collective attention to this epidemic of toddler involved shootings.
A number of comments on all the posts:
1. If they (the gov't) really wanted to save black lives they would abolish PParenthood and their abortion mills which kill more blacks than Chicago thugs.
2. If they really wanted to save lives and reduce crime the gov't would enforce immigration laws which they are ignoring.
3. In a Supreme Court decision some 80 years ago regarding firearms, a wise Justice said that all people had an inalienable right to defend themselves which didn't depend on any law or government action. A free person has the inalienable right to self-defense. That this right predated any government in history.
4. Sanford Levinson, a UTexas law professor and liberal anti-gun crusader, wrote an article in the Yale Law Journal entitled the Embarrassing Second Amendment. The gist of the article was how those who are gun control zealots might be surprised with what the 2nd Amendment says as interpreted by various courts.
Among the cases he cited was United States v Miller. Miller was arrested for having a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller's position was the shotgun was not covered under the Act. All lower courts agreed but the SCOTUS reversed. Justice McReynolds wrote that Miller was in violation because he was unable to show that a sawed-off shotgun "at the time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." And that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
McReynolds also said, that "the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Looking back into the history of US military warfare, it should be noted that shotguns, including sawed-off shotgun, have, in fact, been used routinely in wars. The Germans in WWI filed a war crimes charge against the US Army for using the Model 97 Winchester shotgun in trench warfare. (Ironic since the Germans used chemical weapons and thought that was OK but shotgun were not.) We've also seen where US troops have used shotguns in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Levinson continued in his article, "It is difficult to read Miller as rendering the 2nd Amendment meaningless as a control on Congress. Ironically, Miller can be read to support some of the most extreme anti-gun arguments. e.g., that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly relevant to modern warfare, including, of course, assault weapons. Arguments about the constitutional legitimacy of a prohibition by Congress of the private ownership of handguns or, what is much more likely, assault weapons, might turn on the usefulness of such guns in military settings."
1. If they (the gov't) really wanted to save black lives they would abolish PParenthood and their abortion mills which kill more blacks than Chicago thugs.
2. If they really wanted to save lives and reduce crime the gov't would enforce immigration laws which they are ignoring.
3. In a Supreme Court decision some 80 years ago regarding firearms, a wise Justice said that all people had an inalienable right to defend themselves which didn't depend on any law or government action. A free person has the inalienable right to self-defense. That this right predated any government in history.
4. Sanford Levinson, a UTexas law professor and liberal anti-gun crusader, wrote an article in the Yale Law Journal entitled the Embarrassing Second Amendment. The gist of the article was how those who are gun control zealots might be surprised with what the 2nd Amendment says as interpreted by various courts.
Among the cases he cited was United States v Miller. Miller was arrested for having a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller's position was the shotgun was not covered under the Act. All lower courts agreed but the SCOTUS reversed. Justice McReynolds wrote that Miller was in violation because he was unable to show that a sawed-off shotgun "at the time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." And that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
McReynolds also said, that "the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Looking back into the history of US military warfare, it should be noted that shotguns, including sawed-off shotgun, have, in fact, been used routinely in wars. The Germans in WWI filed a war crimes charge against the US Army for using the Model 97 Winchester shotgun in trench warfare. (Ironic since the Germans used chemical weapons and thought that was OK but shotgun were not.) We've also seen where US troops have used shotguns in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Levinson continued in his article, "It is difficult to read Miller as rendering the 2nd Amendment meaningless as a control on Congress. Ironically, Miller can be read to support some of the most extreme anti-gun arguments. e.g., that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly relevant to modern warfare, including, of course, assault weapons. Arguments about the constitutional legitimacy of a prohibition by Congress of the private ownership of handguns or, what is much more likely, assault weapons, might turn on the usefulness of such guns in military settings."
Similar threads
