History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

The only things that I have disregarded are claims that clearly have no relevance.

Why waste time correcting an untrue claim that doesn’t even matter?

If you want to argue that two plus two is five, that will be incorrect, but that won’t mean that it is worth my time to argue about it.

 

That is incorrect. Any body that is a component of a standing army is not a militia.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

“Pointing out that your claims are untrue” is not BS.

Okay.

I have seen no reference to any extremists.

Granted, I am still working my way through page seven of about twenty.

Except they aren’t obsolete. Not even close.

Completely untrue. The unorganized militia includes most of the population of the United States.

No we aren’t. We are talking about the American people as a whole.

The entire body of the people is the militia.

You keep bouncing back and forth between the unorganized militia and various organized militia groups.

I am not super familiar with militia groups, but I suspect that they have some sort of organizational structure.

That is incorrect. The reason why they are private is because the government has not organized them, so they had to organize themselves.

All militiamen are subject to being called up by the governor.

That is what armed force has been used for for the whole of human history.

The National Guard are not militia. They are sworn members of a standing army.

State guards are not really militia either, as they are unarmed bodies.

There is no coded language here. You are imagining things.

No. The American people are the legitimate holders of the title, and will not cede the title to organizations that are not even qualified to be called militia.

Your disdain for the American people is pretty appalling.

 

Actually, in this I actually can. And it was something that was taken strongly into consideration when the Constitution was written.

It is known as the Archery Law of 1363 by King Edward III, which was an addition to the Assize of Arms of 1252 by King Henry III. Now while the English were famous for the longbow, the kings were worried because many of the yeoman class were not taking their duties of being proficient in the use of their signature weapon seriously. So first King Henry III passed a low authorizing local constables to summon the yeomen to duty as needed. Then King Edward III mandated that all yeomen would be required to present their bows for inspection each Sunday, feast day and holiday, and take part in mandatory archery practice.

https://wtaf.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Longbow.pdf

And if this sounds familiar to any that know of the early militias of the US, they were almost the exact same laws. That all men present themselves with their weapons and equipment at set times, and show that they were proficient in the use of their muskets and that they were serviceable. And if anybody doubts that, I urge them to read the Federalist Paper number 29.

And it has to be remembered, almost all of the laws in the US originated as part of British Common Law (including the use of the term "yeoman"). The colonists even when still colonies of England had that mandate to maintain their weapons and regularly practice their use, and that continued once the Revolution ended and they became the United States. This can be seen clearly in the Militia Act of 1792:

https://www.mountvernon.org/educati...urce-collections/article/militia-act-of-1792/

And notice, unlike many I am not afraid to have what I state questioned, so give references so others can actually verify that what I post is accurate. But the fact is, the "militia" was every male in the nation, other than a few select classes (primarily clergy and doctors). An exemption under British Common Law that continued to the early US, and continues to this day under the Geneva and Hague Conventions excluding people in those fields from taking up arms.

But yes indeed, the actual laws mandating the entire population of free men not only receiving militia training but being required to own and maintain a bow in England was already over 500 years old when the US was founded. And was the direct inspiration for the laws they enacted after the country was founded.

 

I am going to respond to you just once. I call you out as a Russian not an American. Your constant reference to yourself as an American shows you are anything but as does your lame script.

Now then you stated:
"Any body that is a component of a standing army is not a militia."

When you throw out scripts learn to put them in coherent English. The US National Reserves whether it be Aermy, Navy or Air Force and whether it be at a state or federal level stands. While their may be war veterans who work in the armed force reserves due to a service injury the vast majority stand as it is a requirement of their physical functions associated with the reserves. That is how one responds to your nonsensical comment. Nowhere in any law does it say the US Armed Reserves is not a militia because it does not stand. You fabricate. Do you even know what the term "standing" means? Are you trying to argue because the US Army/Navy/Air Force Reserves have "standing" are not a militia. Are you trying to argue the US National Reserves (Army, Navy, Air Force) are not on "active duty" so have no standing so are not part of the Armed Forces? Good God man spit it out because any way one reads the above its wrong and nonsensical.


"What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"

The above comment has no context. Stop using a translator.


You stated:

“Pointing out that your claims are untrue” is not BS.

No but simply stating the above with no reasoning or basis to say what I stated is untrue shows you are using a translator, feeding back canned script, probably AI, and have no idea how to present a position based on a reasoned argument and position precisely because you are either a canned script or unable to back up a damn thing you write.

"I have seen no reference to any extremists."

Yes you have. I made a very blatant one. See unlike you I do not couch my words. I specifically explained why private militias are extremist and considered a threat to US democracy. I would point this out though to make it crystal clear....there are certain private militias that re-enact historic events of 1776. These are historic recreation memory militias and I applaud and respect them and they are not to be confused with Proud Boys or the Boogaloos. Now if you want to pose that you are unaware of who the extremist private militias are that you claim to not know of run along and play with someone else. I make it clear again. The private militias you pose as advocating are extremists and against the very democratic principles of the US. They consist of a minority of angry extremists who only want to enforce laws that suit their personal political bias and not the laws of the US. The only purpose these private militias provide are dupes for the current Putin regime who uses them, Maga and Trump to cause dissension in the US as a psychological operation.

"Granted, I am still working my way through page seven of about twenty."

Well look I know you may have a problem reading let alone writing. Maybe they should teach you English before you are put in front of a desk with a translator and told to spit out these dumb scripts.

You stated:

"Except they aren’t obsolete. Not even close."

Private militias during 1776 did not serve the same purpose as the private ones of today for the specific reason the US has a government and military now in 1776 it did not have a formal government or army. If you can't understand that difference sit and think. I know it may be hard for you to grasp. Maybe read a history book of the United States and then try understand the political conditions in 1776, and then in 1903. 1916, 1933. 1992, and today 2024.

You said this bizarre statement:

"Completely untrue. The unorganized militia includes most of the population of the United States."

It most certainly does not. The no. of private militias is definite as are its members and they represent less than .05% of the US population. Why would you make such a ridiculous statement? Go on provide the names of these private militias and their total no. of members. Can't wait.

You stated:

"No we aren’t. We are talking about the American people as a whole."

No. First off its you and me no one else. You and I speak for no one else. You might assume you do but you do not. You express your own subjective opinions as do I although I back mine up with sites of info that source my arguments you do not. No the American people as a whole are not and have never been militias. Your comment the majority of Americans are in militias is nonsense. You talk of yourself, your subjective opinion of who is in private militias and who they represent. No Proud Boys do not represent the US. They represent their own specific views.

"The entire body of the people is the militia."

No. Again you repeat words without giving them proper context. You probably think because of your interpretation of the US constitution anyone can get a gun, join together with others and presto is a private militia. That is your simplistic belief and erroneous presentation and interpretation of the US constitution.

In theory any US citizen of 17 could join a private militia yes. However its not that simple and has never been that simple due to other federal, state and municipal criminal, quasi-criminal, and security laws and regulations that limit this.


"You keep bouncing back and forth between the unorganized militia and various organized militia groups."

Of course I do because you do not. You do not differentiate between the National Reserves, State Reserves, private historical re-enactment reserves and private reserves you call unorganized reserves. You try lump them all under the same cloak of respectability and legitimacy and this is why I challenge you.

Some two bit bigoted extremist in Proud Boys is not and should never be put in the same category directly or indirectly with The US Armed Forces Reserves, State Reserves and historic re-enactment reserves.

"I am not super familiar with militia groups, but I suspect that they have some sort of organizational structure."

Listen when you come on a forum and make subjective opinion statements full of assumptions you do not research all you do is reflect ignorance. The term "some sort of structure" when comparing the US Army, Navy and Air Force Reserves to some two bit Boogaloo Militia is absurd. Go find out the difference before you throw out the half assed term "some sort of structure". This is why I challenge you. The two but militias you refer to do not have and have never had the same command structure, training, legal and public accountability the US an State reserves do. Go find out why and why this makes a huge difference.

By the way the private historic reenactment militias I talk about all are publicly accountable, open and affiliated with respectable historic associations, schools, universities and have never preached violence and focus on the sacrifice Americans made to defend free speech not attack fellow Americans they disagree with.

You stated:

"That is incorrect. The reason why they are private is because the government has not organized them, so they had to organize themselves."

My point was and you clearly talk around it, any American can volunteer to join the US National or State reserves or historic re-enactment historic association militias. They choose to join Proud Boys or the Boogaloos because of their political views. They are private because they disagree with the existing state militias precisely because they will not swear an allegiance to the US Armed Reserve command or State command. They choose to be private for political reasons not operational necessity.

You stated:

"All militiamen are subject to being called up by the governor."

The Governor calls up state reserves to augment federal reserves. No they do not call up Proud Boys or the Boogaloos anymore then they will call up the KKK or Neo Nazi Party of the US.

You stated:

"That is what armed force has been used for for the whole of human history."

Armed force and sovereign nation armed forces are not one and the same and you might start right there because clearly if you can not understand that you will continue with the belief that anyone who chooses to arm themselves has legitimate and automatic legal, public and democratic standing.

You stated:

"The National Guard are not militia. They are sworn members of a standing army."

Of course they are the law says so. Once again you make a statement ignoring US laws of 1903., 1916, 1933 and numerous other regulations. This is why you have no standing meaning credibility.

"State guards are not really militia either, as they are unarmed bodies."

Again the above statement is absolutely false. State reserves augment federal reserves. Like the federal reserves they are armed unless they are being asked to perform rescue or other specific missions where weapons are not required.

You stated:

"There is no coded language here. You are imagining things."

Lol, I am repeating each and every word you state. When I use the word coded I mean couched, i.e., you have an agenda you don't have the balls to spit out in response, i.e., that you defend Proud Boys and private militias who have the political agenda to overthrow the US for their own narrow political interests.

Next you stated:

"No. The American people are the legitimate holders of the title, and will not cede the title to organizations that are not even qualified to be called militia."

Well the above sounds like you are sitting on a throne giving a proclamation. Problem is for me that is a toilet not a throne.

You stated:

"Your disdain for the American people is pretty appalling."

My disdain is specifically directed at your opinions because I find your opinions anti American and show disdain for the fundamental principles of American democracy and therefore its people.

Your comment tries to interchange yourself with "American people, i.e., all Americans. To me you are no American. I have said subjectively you sound very Russian to me...in fact if you want I can give you your government address and what seat you sit in at the "info" desk. Let me know.

Have a nice day comrade.

 

Not the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd A. Read the OP. And let me know if you have anything to say about it.

 

The link to the Amicus Brief is in the OP. The references used by the historians are there. If your argument is some sort of "conspiracy theory" by which some of the most prominent historians in the country FABRICATED documents or references, save it! Not interested!

 

To THAT... sure... why not. . But to what I quoted: maybe yes, maybe no. Changing your statements to move the goal posts only demonstrates that you are making up your arguments as you go.

You are trying to muddy the waters, so I'll do the opposite and clarify.

THIS thread responds to the question in the title. I am ONLY referring to the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd A. That's all. "Militia" on its own, ... can be anything... But it makes no difference to my point.

But you seem to have a problem with meaning of the idiom "keep and bear arms" in the 18th Century. THAT is addressed in the following thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

I find that keeping topics separate makes it easier for the person who HAS a point to make it clearer. And more difficult for those who have no arguments. So this is the thread to discuss the topic in the title. And the link above is the appropriate one to discuss what the idiom on hand MEANT in the mind of those who wrote, discussed, passed, voted for, and ratified.... the 2nd A.

 

That may be so. But I'm not talking about the militia. I'm talking about the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd A. Very different things. For the former, you just... belong. For the latter you had to sign up, you'd have to meet certain requirements, you'd be paid, you were under a command structure and a code of discipline prescribed by Congress, you would be armed by Congress

Don't bother pondering too much about the specific differences. The point is that there are MANY differences between "a well regulated militia " as described in the 2nd A, and "a militia" mentioned in many other documents (including other parts of the Constitution))

 

Who are you even trying to talk to with that wall of nonsensical text?

 

which has no relevance to the right expressed in the second. can you justify your claim of what well regulated means? most historians note it merely means a militia that is effective. whether you're paid or not is irrelevant. a village militia most likely would not be paid.

 

If you cannot convince people with logic, dazzle them with bullshit?

 

They were only paid if called up to service, typically after 30 days. For their monthly drills and training they were not paid at all. It was just an expected part of their duty as citizens.

 

I have to admit, so much of that actually had me laughing as it made absolutely no sense at all.

As somebody that served for over two decades, that makes absolutely no sense and is completely contradictory to the reality. Nobody is sent down to the reserves due to injuries. They either remain on active duty, or they are discharged. Period. Absolutely nobody is ever told "Well, you are too injured for active duty, so we are transferring you to the Reserves". It simply does not and never has worked that way. I have served on active duty with freaking amputees for goodness sakes.

To be honest, it never fails to absolutely amaze me how little most people know about or understand the military. Especially those who never served, yet try to sound the most authoritative about it.

When it comes to PULHES, the requirements for Active Duty and the Reserves are the exact same. If any kind of injury makes you unfit to serve in the Active Duty side, it also makes you unfit to serve in the Reserve side as well. And while it used to be different for the National Guard, even that is pretty much gone because the NGB will do all in their power to refuse to accept anybody that is even slightly not at 100%.

And for those that do not know, PULHES is the acronym for an individual's physical profile, six numbers ranging from 1 to 4. Physical, Upper extremities, Lower extremities, Hearing, Eyes, and Psychiatric.

My last PULHES rating before I retired was 113311, as opposed to 111111 when I first joined all the way back in 1983. Still fit to serve and perform almost all duties, but consideration had to be taken for knee injuries and tinnitus.

 

What claim is that?

I have never seen a historian claim that "well regulated" means JUST "being effective". However, in respect to MY point, so long as it doesn't include some creeps running around the woods with AR-15s plotting how to kidnap the Governor... or something like that... it makes no difference to anything I've said.

Oh... I'm not saying that's what it MEANS. Just that that's what it WAS.

There is a long article by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist explaining what "well regulated" means (as referenced in the Amicus Brief on which I have based the OP). And I guess in a very simplistic way you could boil it down to "being effective" because he uses that word throughout the article. But Hamilton provides a thorough explanation of what being "effective" means. There he refers to the "Part" of the militias (referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16) that would be called in defense of a "Free State" as a "select corps" which further illustrates my main point in this thread. These "select corps" would be the alternative to a standing army which Hamilton and others feared. For example...

"The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps [emphasis added] of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them 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 defense 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, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Alexander Hamilton - Federalist #27 ​

 

this is all irrelevant. the ONLY REASON gun banners bring up MILITIA is an attempt to REDUCE the negative restriction the second amendment visits on federal governmental powers (that never included gun control powers)

 

It's KINDA irrelevant to this thread. I only answered for two reasons. First, because you ASKED. And second, because, in the course of answering your question, I noticed Hamilton's reference to "elite corps" which I probably missed when I first opened this thread and is VERY relevant to the topic.

"Gun banners" don't bring up "milita". The 2nd A does. The first one who did "bring up" the militia was James Madison. You think he was a "gun banner"?

 

I have noticed you don't waste your time correcting untrue claims. You waste it correcting TRUE claims.

 

Unfortunately he was trying to talk to me. Ugh. All the quotes that he addresses are things that I said.

The fact that he doesn’t know anything about the law and relies primarily on ad hominem fallacies might make it easier for me to slog through his post and reply relatively quickly. But my internet is out. The cold weather apparently took out the cooling system at a data center in Chicago or something. So I’m having to reply on my phone right now.

Picking through that sea of nonsense on my phone is not going to be much fun.

 

Here. Lol unlike you Toggle I back up every damn word I say and every damn word Golem states although I do not have to nor do I claim to speak for him. Do not come on this thread claiming you understand a law you can not cite let alone acknowledge and pretend I have not presented the US laws regarding militias. I have and Golem has and you have NOT. Read the very last citation Toggle. See if it rings a bell and do me a favour try read your own country's laws before you pose as if you present them.

https://warontherocks.com/2022/02/a...s have laws,drilling” in public with firearms.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C15-1/ALDE_00001077/

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap...e-for-constitutional-advocacy-and-protection/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/ConfHandout/2023ConfHandout/Leider6MilitiaClause2Organization.pdf

https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/5-Things-Militias_final-2.pdf

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/state-militia-laws/

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...he-problem-with-militias-and-the-constitution

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-crypto-federal-anti-militia-law/72197134007/

https://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/The-Militia-Clauses-and-the-Original-War-Powers_2.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25119439

https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf

By the way just so it can be said, Toggle's position could be far better stated which he clearly is unable to do as follows:

https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-well-regulated-militia

Here in a nutshell is a response to the above:

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/3837733-forgotten-words-a-well-regulated-militia/

Toggle would have you believe he can read his country's constitution in a vacuum to simply mean anyone can form a group and be a self appointed imposer of "law" by being armed and threatening to kill his fellow citizens. No what Toggle advocates are SA storm trooper domestic violence thugs.

Of course the United States also has the responsibility to assure any militia is properly regulated and controlled otherwise the US is a failed state no different than Somalia.

No the US was not created so that some good old boys can get together drink beer and point guns at commies, illegals, people with tans, transgendered disabled democrats and whatever other American fellow citizen monsters they see.

 

He never said that and it is illegal to threaten to kill fellow citizens


WRONG-that is not true at all. Most state militias are not under federal control and the constitution does not provide for what you say.

You last comment proves what I have said for years Those who push the alphabet agenda push gun control to get back at people who they think oppose the trans agenda, the pro abortion agenda and other leftwing social issues.

 

That is incorrect. When I am in a serious discussion, I provide cites upon request.

Since you are just spouting argumentum ad hominem fallacies to cover up your lack of legal knowledge, I doubt our conversation will ever rise to the level of a serious discussion, but there are other people out there on the internet who do have serious discussions.

Okay. I won’t.

It appears to be whining because the Supreme Court started enforcing the second half of the Second Amendment. It spouted some gibberish about the first half of the Second Amendment as part of that whining.

I am well aware of what our laws are. That’s why it is so easy for me to correct all your untrue claims.

Another argumentum ad hominem fallacy to distract from your lack of legal knowledge.

Nonsense. I said nothing about militias acting without express orders from their president/governor/sheriff.

We can add “well-regulated” to the list of terms that you have no understanding of.

 

Given your lack of legal knowledge and your reliance on argumentum ad hominem fallacies, it will be a blessing if you hold to that.

An argumentum ad hominem fallacy to cover up your lack of legal knowledge.

I don’t know what is worse. That you talk about grammar to distract from your lack of legal knowledge, or that you believe that there are imaginary errors in my grammar.

That’s nice. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

My comment isn’t nonsensical to people who understand the law.

True enough. But the US Constitution does say the exact opposite. The US Armed Reserves is not a militia because the US Armed Reserves IS part of a standing army.

Nope. You just don’t know anything about the law. If you did, you’d be able to understand what I’m talking about.

Yes. But it is pretty clear that you don’t.

A standing army is an army that is maintained continuously, even in peacetime. As opposed to an army that is created only when war is declared, and then disbanded as soon as the war is over.

Because the military reserves are part of a standing army, they are not any part of the militia.

No. That gibberish that you are spouting has nothing to do with my position.

It makes sense to people who understand the law.

That is incorrect. I quoted what I was responding to directly above my response.

Another argumentum ad hominem fallacy to distract from your lack of legal knowledge.

The fact that your claims are untrue is ample basis for pointing out that your claims are untrue.

You falsely accusing ordinary people of extremism doesn’t count as an actual reference to extremists.

I do not couch my words. You just can’t understand them because you don’t understand the law.

Showing your disdain for ordinary people does not mean that they are an actual extremist or threat.

I am aware that private militias exist.

Your claim that private militias are extremists is nonsense.

No they aren’t.

No they don’t.

Wrong again. They have the same purpose that all militias have. Enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasions.

Another argumentum ad hominem fallacy to distract from your lack of legal knowledge.

That is incorrect. Militias serve the same purpose today.

There is no difference.

Another argumentum ad hominem fallacy to distract from your lack of legal knowledge.

The political conditions make no difference.

That is incorrect. The unorganized militia includes most of the population of the United States.

The number of private militias has nothing to do with the fact that the unorganized militia includes most of the population of the United States.

Yes. Since the militia is the entire body of the people, when you talk about the militia, you are talking about all Americans.

Since I have not claimed to be talking for anyone else, this is another red herring to cover up your lack of legal knowledge.

That is incorrect. When I am in a serious discussion, I provide cites upon request.

Since you are just spouting argumentum ad hominem fallacies to cover up your lack of legal knowledge, I doubt our conversation will ever rise to the level of a serious discussion, but there are other people out there on the internet who do have serious discussions.

That is incorrect. The militia is the entire body of the people. It always has been and it always will be.

It seems that way to you because you don’t understand law.

I didn’t talk about myself. And I stated facts, not opinions.

Americans are allowed to have their own viewpoints.

Yes. The entire body of the people is the militia.

That is incorrect. I provide adequate context. Although you may have to learn about the law first before you can understand a discussion of the law.

Well, yes.

That is incorrect. There are no errors in my presentation or interpretation of the Constitution.

Membership of a private militia is up to the discretion of that private militia.

Changing the subject from sentence to sentence makes for a pretty disorganized post.

Sure I do.

 

There is nothing disreputable about any of those bodies.

Okay. But so what?

That a private militia group would have an organizational structure is a fairly safe assumption.

Not at all. It is possible for other groups to have an organizational structure.

I decline your request.

So what?

I decline your request.

Good for them.

Being part of an organized militia may well be a choice. But the fact that the government does not organize or train any militias means that anyone who chooses to be part of an organized militia will have to see to their own organization and training.

No he doesn’t. If a governor calls people up to service, it will be for state purposes, not for federal purposes.

Governors may not choose to call up militia groups for service, but governors do retain the authority to do so.

That is incorrect. Laws that contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional.

I tend to disregard things that have no relevance.

When you choose not to accept reality, you only harm your own position.

No it isn’t. Almost all state guards are completely unarmed. And the few that do carry arms are only very lightly armed.

No they don’t.

State guards are usually limited to such rescue-type missions.

They have never been equipped with any kind of serious weaponry.

Yes. And you are also imagining some sort of hidden meaning.

I always say exactly what I mean. So if you think I mean something other than what I say, that is your imagination talking.

I support their right to organize and train.

I reject your claim that they are trying to overthrow the government.

You made a request, and I denied your request.

It was not my opinions that you referred to as self entitled poorly trained thugs. It was the militia, and therefore the American people, who you labeled thusly.

Upholding the Constitution and our civil liberties is hardly anti American.

Another argumentum ad hominem fallacy to distract from your lack of legal knowledge.

 

People don’t use exactly the same words every time they address a subject. That doesn’t mean that the meaning of the statement has changed or goalposts are moved or waters are muddied.

You did more than talk about “who is in a well-regulated militia”.

Had that been all that you said, I likely would have skipped over the thread despite all your untrue claims about the matter, as it really doesn’t matter who the well-regulated militia is. The Second Amendment protects people’s right to keep and bear arms even if they are not part of a well-regulated militia.

But unfortunately you also made some other untrue claims, like your untrue claim that the Second Amendment doesn’t cover the entire population of the country. It clearly does.

Or your untrue claim that the right to own weapons is not covered by the Second Amendment and Scalia made it up. The Second Amendment does protect the right to own weapons, and the fact that the right has been around for thousands of years means that Scalia did not make it up.

I already addressed your untrue claims in that thread.

You made a comment about “everybody” in that post.

Since the militia is the entire body of the people, when you talk about “everybody” you are talking about the militia in general, not about whatever subset constitutes the well-regulated militia.

That is incorrect. I always accept true claims.

Although I will question the relevance of a true claim if I do not see how that true claim has any relevance to what is being discussed. That happens sometimes.

 

the fact that gun banners engage in verbal gymnastics and contortions to try to convince the unlearned that the second amendment doesn't do what it plainly does, is proof enough they realize how damning the second amendment is to their victim disarmament and safe streets for violent criminals schemes