How many firearm owners belong to a well regulated militia?

[Toggle Almendro]

well regulated militia means whatever at least people on the SC say it means. That's the truth of it.

That is incorrect. Supreme Court rulings do not change the definitions of words.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

well regulated means organized and directed....

Not quite. It means that they all work together in perfect coordination.

 

[Loulit01]

That is incorrect. Supreme Court rulings do not change the definitions of words.

They couldn't define pornography.

 

[KLATTU]

that is true enough....but we are talking about what the lay person sees it as and last I checked none of these anti government mostly racist militias are sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

does the SC sanction
militias?

 

[KLATTU]

That is incorrect. Supreme Court rulings do not change the definitions of words.

They most certainly do. It happens all the time.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

They most certainly do. It happens all the time.

No. They do not have the power to change the English language.

 

[ClaraD]

Not quite. It means that they all work together in perfect coordination.

Nope. I understand English very well...including old English. We have a militia nowadays, it is controlled by the government..known as the National Guard. Now, I am not opposed to gun ownership and self defense.....I am opposed to the idiots that want to carry their rifle or gun around where it can be seen by every one around....there is zero purpose, self defense is certainly not the purpose of open carry.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Nope. I understand English very well...including old English.

You better go tell Alexander Hamilton that he used the word wrong then. Boy will he be embarrassed.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Founders Online: The Federalist No. 29, [9 January 1788]

The Federalist No. 29, [9 January 1788]

founders.archives.gov

 

[Toggle Almendro]

We have a militia nowadays, it is controlled by the government..known as the National Guard.

That is incorrect. The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army.

Now, I am not opposed to gun ownership and self defense.....I am opposed to the idiots that want to carry their rifle or gun around where it can be seen by every one around....there is zero purpose,

The purpose is usually to protest against unconstitutional gun laws.

self defense is certainly not the purpose of open carry.

That is incorrect. Some people open carry for self defense.

Some jurisdictions even require carry for self defense to be open carry.

 

[ClaraD]

You better go tell Alexander Hamilton that he used the word wrong then. Boy will he be embarrassed.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Founders Online: The Federalist No. 29, [9 January 1788]

The Federalist No. 29, [9 January 1788]

founders.archives.gov

You realize that Alexander Hamilton was opposed to adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution... which would include the 2nd amendment..he also was opposed to a standing army. Also,

Hamilton wanted a new national government that had complete political authority. He disliked state governments and believed that they should be eliminated entirely. In fact, Hamilton believed that the perfect union would be one in which there were no states at all.

 

[HumblePi]

Unlike militias of the past, in the Hamilton papers, Alexander Hamilton viewed new militias as constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections.

"It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States."

Hamilton states that a well-regulated militia composed of the people will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively large militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

It's clear that according to Alexander Hamilton, a state-regulated militia, were men that were provided arms, trained with field exercises, synchronized and worked as a unit. There is no other way to see this other than Alexander Hamilton intended a 'well-regulated militia, to be what we now call the National Guard, men and women who are equipped, trained and called up when necessary by the Governors of the states who have control over their National Guards, but the President has the authority to federalize them.

All the IRA bullshit about 'militia' and 'right to bear arms' is a fairy tale intentionally created to give freedom to men and women who just want to own weapons of war. That's not what the Constitution and the Federalist papers make very clear. A 'well-regulated militia' is nothing other than the existence and maintenance of the National Guard of each state. Men and women, free to buy any sort of weapon they wish, is not what the Constitution clearly spells out.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You realize that Alexander Hamilton was opposed to adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution... which would include the 2nd amendment..he also was opposed to a standing army. Also,
Hamilton wanted a new national government that had complete political authority. He disliked state governments and believed that they should be eliminated entirely. In fact, Hamilton believed that the perfect union would be one in which there were no states at all.

Do you think he understood the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated militia"?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It's clear that according to Alexander Hamilton, a state-regulated militia, were men that were provided arms, trained with field exercises, synchronized and worked as a unit. There is no other way to see this other than Alexander Hamilton intended a 'well-regulated militia, to be what we now call the National Guard, men and women who are equipped, trained and called up when necessary by the Governors of the states who have control over their National Guards, but the President has the authority to federalize them.

That is incorrect. The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army.

Alexander Hamilton did not intend for a standing army to count as the militia.

All the NRA bullshit about 'militia' and 'right to bear arms' is a fairy tale intentionally created to give freedom to men and women who just want to own weapons of war.

Not a fairy tale. You can read the Constitution yourself if you want to see if the Second Amendment is there.

A 'well-regulated militia' is nothing other than the existence and maintenance of the National Guard of each state.

That is incorrect. As noted above, they are sworn members of a standing army.

Men and women, free to buy any sort of weapon they wish, is not what the Constitution clearly spells out.

Except, it does clearly spell it out.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[ralfy]

The right to defend oneself is not a Constitutionally recognized right. That makes it a state-level issue like the right to privacy.

It's a natural right, one that exists even without a Constitution.

 

[Jay59]

It's a natural right, one that exists even without a Constitution.

It is a natural right that transcends all manmade law.

What's your point?

It is regulated at the state level not at the federal level.

No state has the authority to violate a natural right.

That depends on your definitions

I lack the expertise to comment on this last part.

 

[notquiteright]

It's regulated by two commas after your question. In other words, your allowed to keep guns so you could join a militia against a tyrannical government at any time.

It says nothing about quantity, quality or type.

It also says nothing about how effective the majority of privately held firearms would be against a standing army vs how effective they are against children, and unarmed adults...

 

[poppopfox]

Everybody's Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

Revealing how the media lies with graphs to further an anti-gun agenda.

hwfo.substack.com

The explanation is progressive justices hate the Constitution and always want it to be violated.

Like when slavery was abolished and women got the right to vote? Oh for those good old days! MAGA

And if that is the best explanation you could come up with then I sincerely doubt your ability to reflect on our justice system in any type of way that would actually contribute to the conversation, that's my explanation my friend.

 

[poppopfox]

That is incorrect. Supreme Court rulings do not change the definitions of words.

Sure they do. See Citizens United.

 

[Schweddy]

It also says nothing about how effective the majority of privately held firearms would be against a standing army vs how effective they are against children, and unarmed adults...

It also says nothing about there being a very strong correlation between anti-depressants and mass shootings.

 

[HumblePi]

That is incorrect. The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army.

Alexander Hamilton did not intend for a standing army to count as the militia.



Not a fairy tale. You can read the Constitution yourself if you want to see if the Second Amendment is there.



That is incorrect. As noted above, they are sworn members of a standing army.



Except, it does clearly spell it out.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, the national guard is a STANDING army, but they are overseen and under the orders of the governor of each state.

 

[US&THEM]

Sure it could have been. Trucks driven into a crowd at high speed can kill quite a few people.



It's not like being killed with a gun makes the victims "more dead" than people who are killed with other kinds of weapons.



Why does it matter to you what kind of weapon someone is murdered with?

Murder victims are just as dead no matter what kind of weapon is used to kill them.



Impossible. There can never be too many guns.



Completely untrue. The NRA had nothing to do with the case.

Not to mention the fact that upholding our civil liberties is hardly BS.



No. We are not going to abolish freedom in America.



The only way that the Heller ruling diverged from the Constitution was to not say that we all have the right to have bazookas, hand grenades, and submachine guns.

Call me the next time someone drives a Uhaul through a school. Ease of access and too many nuts in the US results in dead kids.

 

[US&THEM]

does the SC sanction
militias?

The SC doesn’t understand the internet or social media. Kinda like you.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

I'll tell ya' the difference, bring your well regulated militia to an inner city well armed street gang and see who wins. Those well regulated militias who run around in the woods would see their numbers reduced quickly.

Home field advantage. Have those same gang members running around the woods in militia territory and see who wins.

 

[ralfy]

What's your point?

It is regulated at the state level not at the federal level.


That depends on your definitions

The right to defend oneself is natural. That is, if someone attacks you, you defend yourself. You don't need permission from others to do that, and it's been part of the human condition long before governments were formed.

It's also the basis of castle law, and part of English common law.

Regulations, in this case, refer to permitted ways you can defend yourself.

 

[RF667799]

well regulated means organized and directed....however, our founding fathers never meant it to be a bunch of anti government wackos that drink beer and have their guts hanging out of their pants and a rebel flag on their 1960s trailer windows instead of curtains. They meant them to be there to defend the country...these dudes hate the country.

So...stereotypes. Always revealing.