- Joined
- Oct 18, 2021
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 308
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Actually militia's were our founders replacement for a standing army which they feared. We have abandoned militia's entirely for national defense making the 2nd amendment archaic and moot. America's fascination with guns has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment it is a part of our culture and lately our economy. Gun makers have a powerful vested interest in keeping guns on every Americans mind. They use their money to assure that gun sales will keep increasing despite the evidence of the toll it takes on American lives.2'nd Amendment
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?
The Militia Act of 1903
'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
The Militia Act of 1903 : Parker, James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Militia Act of 1903 is an article from The North American Review, Volume 177. View more articles from The North American Review.View this article on...archive.org
So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.
And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia to be 'unorganized'.
And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.
Irrelevant.Actually militia's were our founders replacement for a standing army which they feared. We have abandoned militia's entirely for national defense making the 2nd amendment archaic and moot. America's fascination with guns has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment it is a part of our culture.
You realize of course that posting a comment from the Militia act of 1903 regarding the 2nd Amendment passed in 1781...long before there was a federal governing document on militias...rather firmly kicks you argument squarely in the balls...right?2'nd Amendment
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?
The Militia Act of 1903
'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
The Militia Act of 1903 : Parker, James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Militia Act of 1903 is an article from The North American Review, Volume 177. View more articles from The North American Review.View this article on...archive.org
So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.
And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia to be 'unorganized'.
And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.
You don't get a vote.So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.
And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia to be 'unorganized'.
No, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution was written to allow Congress to "organize, arm and discipline" a militia. The Second Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, was a restriction on the authority of government.The 2A purpose was to maintain a militia. Now that, that is an obsolete relic of the 18th century, so is the 2A.
2'nd Amendment
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?
The Militia Act of 1903
'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
The Militia Act of 1903 : Parker, James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Militia Act of 1903 is an article from The North American Review, Volume 177. View more articles from The North American Review.View this article on...archive.org
So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.
And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia to be 'unorganized'.
And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.
We have not used militia's for "the security of a free State" since WWI. I bet you didn't know that we had gun control in the old west too.Irrelevant.
The Constitution AND the Militia Act of 1903 ARE the law of the land (in this regard).
Just because you don't agree with it means little to me.
You realize of course that posting a comment from the Militia act of 1903 regarding the 2nd Amendment passed in 1781...long before there was a federal governing document on militias...rather firmly kicks you argument squarely in the balls...right?
I mean...as if the fact that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of the citizens....the people...and NOT government entities...was not obvious enough.
I could care less what you - or anyone else - thinks what an Amendment 'intended' to do.Your assumption seems to be that “security of a free State” referred to the nation (as a single “state”) rather than to each of its several sovereign states and the people living within them. The BoR amendments were intended to limit federal government power (leaving most power in the hands of state/local governments), not to elevate the federal government to being in charge of everything that it might wish to take over. That was the basis for the founder’s fear of a standing (national) army.
We have not used militia's for "the security of a free State" since WWI. I bet you didn't know that we had gun control in the old west too.
WALDMAN: It's a dusty street, and in the middle of the street is a sign that says, welcome to Dodge City, firearms strictly prohibited. So even then, there was more nuanced sense of what the right to keep and bear arms meant than sometimes we might imagine.
INSKEEP: In other words, this was never seen as an absolute right, so far as you know.
WALDMAN: The right to keep and bear arms from the beginning was something that was not an absolute right. It was based on public need and public safety as well as individual freedom. The very first federal gun law came in the 1930s, and for that, you can thank John Dillinger - the bank robbers because they had new technology in the form of sawed-off shotguns and guns from World War I and a getaway car, which was a very brand-new dangerous technology. So they passed federal gun laws.
So I think we now have to decide as a country how we want to balance individual rights and public safety. It's not really going to be up to the framers. It's really up to us. And again, that is how we've always made constitutional change. It's really always been a matter of moving public opinion before the courts will ever move.
I could care less what you - or anyone else - thinks what an Amendment 'intended' to do.
ALL I am interested here is THE LAW AS WRITTEN.
2'nd Amendment
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?
The Militia Act of 1903
'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
The Militia Act of 1903 : Parker, James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Militia Act of 1903 is an article from The North American Review, Volume 177. View more articles from The North American Review.View this article on...archive.org
So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.
And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.
And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.
Thanks for proving EXACTLY what I said.You don't get a vote.
The Constitution granted Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. Congress, using this authority, has passed five Militia Acts since ratification of the Bill of Rights to regulate the militia. Current law on militia regulation is 10 USC 246.
U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
By the power granted Congress, any definition of "militia" passed by Congress is de jure and de facto "well-regulated".
BTW, nothing in the Bill of Rights limits the rights of the People. It's strictly a set of restrictions on the authority of the government.
Yawn. The Militia Act of 1903 was passed more than a hundred years after the 2nd Amendment, so it is irrelevant to its interpretation.
And the 2nd Amendment doesn't refer to the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it refers to the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Well, that is the most ridiculous comment here so far.Yawn. The Militia Act of 1903 was passed more than a hundred years after the 2nd Amendment, so it is irrelevant to its interpretation.
And the 2nd Amendment doesn't refer to the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it refers to the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Sadly...the SCOTUS often 'interpret' the Constitution.Yep, you and the SCOTUS share that mission.
Sadly...the SCOTUS often 'interpret' the Constitution.
Which they are not allowed to do.
As per the oath(s) they took.
Picky? facts are facts....not 'picky'
I did not realize I had to be THIS picky with people.
Fine:
From the Code of Laws of the United States of America:
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
'(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.'
THERE!
We have not used militia's for "the security of a free State" since WWI. I bet you didn't know that we had gun control in the old west too.
WALDMAN: It's a dusty street, and in the middle of the street is a sign that says, welcome to Dodge City, firearms strictly prohibited. So even then, there was more nuanced sense of what the right to keep and bear arms meant than sometimes we might imagine.
INSKEEP: In other words, this was never seen as an absolute right, so far as you know.
WALDMAN: The right to keep and bear arms from the beginning was something that was not an absolute right. It was based on public need and public safety as well as individual freedom. The very first federal gun law came in the 1930s, and for that, you can thank John Dillinger - the bank robbers because they had new technology in the form of sawed-off shotguns and guns from World War I and a getaway car, which was a very brand-new dangerous technology. So they passed federal gun laws.
So I think we now have to decide as a country how we want to balance individual rights and public safety. It's not really going to be up to the framers. It's really up to us. And again, that is how we've always made constitutional change. It's really always been a matter of moving public opinion before the courts will ever move.
The Founders certainly didn't think so.Well, that is the most ridiculous comment here so far.
That means that Congress is NEVER allowed to interpret ANYTHING in the Constitution without changing that actual part of the Constitution.
That is ludicrous.
And the point of the ENTIRE 2'nd Amendment is what is stated at the beginning of the sentence...'a well regulated militia'.
DUH.
Bye now.
So...from this sentence:Yep, the word “people” must have been referring to “members of the organized militia“ and everyone (except you, of course) has missed that fact.
The Founders certainly didn't think so.
Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).
The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?