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

Or one of my favorite brands of beer.



This is the only "private reserve" I think I have ever heard of. And it does not have any guns.

 

I'll drink to that!

 

One of the few really outstanding things about retiring to Oregon.

 

Oregon used to be the state that has the best selection of in state automatic knife makes with Benchmade and Kershaw both there.

 

Back then, that counted as the entire body of the people.

Yes. But while their concern was that the government would disarm the militia, they solved that concern by protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It is true that the concern was that the government would try to disarm the militia.

But the concern was addressed by protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Keep in mind that the militia is the entire body of the people.

That is incorrect. Inherent rights are something that all people possess and laws cannot remove.

If the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right, then the US government can use the violation of that right in other countries as a justification for waging war against the governments of those countries.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has always ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Note the 1939 Miller ruling for example.

The collective right nonsense was concocted by FDR and did not even exist before his presidency.

The Second Amendment does not grant. It protects a preexisting right.

That was before the Supreme Court started enforcing either the Second Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment.

That depends on what settled means.

The Supreme Court has always rejected FDR's nonsense about collective rights.

Gun rights advocates are not in bed with the gun manufacturers.

Gun manufacturers just kowtow to us because we will run them out of business if they sell out to the enemy.

Smith and Wesson tried siding with the enemy back in the 1990s. We boycotted them until their existing owners were forced to sell them at a massive loss. No gun manufacturer that sells to civilians will risk a repeat of that.

 

That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms includes the ownership of weapons.

Except, you did say it. Your exact words:
"This thread is intended to dispel the myth that the intention of the 2nd A was for EVERYBODY
(or every able-bodied male of a certain age) was automatically part of a militia."

The only thing that Scalia made up was the idea that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't extend to hand grenades and machine guns.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects people's right to own weapons.

That is incorrect. No one made it up. The Second Amendment does protect the right to own weapons.

That is incorrect. Mr. Scalia upheld the Constitution.

I generally provide a short explanation as to why I say that something is untrue.

 

The opposite is true, the ruling stated that since saw-off shotguns weren't used in the 'militia', using one is not protected by the second amendment. That fact suggests the second amendment has a militia specific meaning. But, either way, it's not explicit, but Miller sure as hell doesn't say '2A is an individual right'.

The debate over 'individual versus militia' meaning of the second amendment was not a settled argument until Heller. If that weren't true, Wash DC v Heller would have been settled by the lower court, and SCOTUS would not have needed to grant cert after an appeal.

It's just semantics.

Nothing about 'rights' has any real power or meaning unless it is written in law or by the constitution. So, it's just semantics. Without law or a constitution, which has force of law, there is anarchy, and in anarchy there are no 'rights', though one can pontificate and romanticize about it until forever. Saying it's 'preexisting' or 'granted by' is a meaningless argument.

For example, in dictatorships and a police state, the police can demand that you turn over your guns. You can argue 'inherit right' but without law and a constitution, you can pontificate about 'inherit right' all you want, and they will shoot you if you don't turn in your guns. So, though you might have 'inherent right' it is meaningless without laws and constitutions. Capiche? That is the point I'm trying to make.

See above

I disagree, for the following reasons:

1. Financial Contributions: Gun manufacturers have been known to make significant financial contributions to the NRA. These contributions come in various forms, including direct donations, sponsorships of events, and advertisements in NRA publications.
   
   
2. Political Lobbying: The NRA is one of the most influential lobbying groups in the United States, particularly on issues related to gun rights and gun control legislation. The organization's lobbying efforts often align with the interests of gun manufacturers, advocating for policies that would favor the sale and distribution of firearms.
   
   
3. Promotional Partnerships: There have been instances where gun manufacturers have engaged in promotional activities that directly benefit the NRA, such as offering a portion of sales from certain firearms to the organization, or creating NRA-branded or endorsed products.
   
   
4. Board Membership: Some executives or representatives from the firearms industry have served on the NRA's board, further intertwining the leadership and interests of the two entities.
   
   
5. Shared Rhetoric and Advocacy: The NRA and gun manufacturers often share similar rhetoric, particularly regarding the defense of the Second Amendment and opposition to gun control measures. This shared stance can be seen as aligning the interests of the two groups.

Given the above, asserting 'NRA is in bed with the gun manufactures' is a fair conclusion.

https://www.nationalmemo.com/nras-top-5-gun-industry-donors
https://people.com/politics/the-lawmakers-who-receive-the-most-funding-from-nra/

 

The point when I know a poster is done and out of arguments is when they don't address the evidence I present, and they just... make claims like this as if by saying them, that "magically" makes them true.

You do this in this post again and again. So, my work is done...

My arguments are there, they have been there for two years now. If you EVER think you happened upon a REAL argument to counter them, they will still be there. Be sure to quote what you are attempting to rebut, and then include REAL counter-arguments.

Exactly! And the lack of counter-arguments (screaming "you are wrong" again and again is not considered a counter argument) indicates that the myth has been debunked.

 

You did not present any evidence.

So, as I said, you were wrong to claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to everybody.

That is incorrect. "Pointing out that your claims are untrue" is a counterargument.

 

What they said was that IF sawed off shotguns were not used by militias, then they were not covered by the Second Amendment. Then they sent the case back down to lower courts for further proceedings on whether sawed off shotguns are used by militias.

That is completely unrelated to the question of whether the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Yes. It means that everyone has the right to have grenades and machine guns.

That's why Scalia severed the militia from the right to keep and bear arms in the Heller ruling. He wanted to continue restrictions on grenades and machine guns.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court accepted that Miller as an individual had standing to make a Second Amendment claim.

And the Supreme Court ruled that IF it is established that sawed off shotguns are used by militias, then Miller as an individual has the right to have them.

So why did the Supreme Court reject the government's collective right argument in the 1939 Miller ruling then?

Heller was necessary because lower courts were disregarding Miller.

Bruen was necessary because lower courts were disregarding Heller.

A future case will be necessary because lower courts are disregarding Bruen.

Not really. It means that the right to keep and bear arms is ancient, and was not created by our Founding Fathers some 200 years ago.

Those governments are criminal. As I said, the US government can use this as justification for going to war against them.

The gun manufacturers suck up to us because they don't want us to destroy them.

That is incorrect. Gun manufacturers do not care about unconstitutional gun restrictions. They make just as much profit selling single shot shotguns as they do selling semi-automatic rifles.

They only pay lip service to the issue of gun rights because they know that we will destroy them if they cross us.

The gun manufacturers suck up to us because they don't want us to destroy them.

It completely misses the actual power dynamic in the relationship.

 

The OP presents ALL the evidence I need. You haven't even addressed it. So I guess acting as if it weren't there is the best you can do.

 

The founders of the nation and authors of the Constitution saw a great many rights as "inalienable", and it was impossible to grant or pass them down to people. Such as the Freedom of Religion. That is a fundamental human right, and no government has the power to grant that to anybody. The only thing they could do was codify it into law so that the government could not infringe on such a right.

And the same can largely be said for each of the items listed in the Bill of Rights. It was not granting the rights to the population, it was acknowledging that such rights existed and trying to ensure that the government would not be able in the future to infringe upon them.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to travel, freedom from forced billeting of soldiers, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, and the freedom to protect oneself and own firearms. Those and more were considered rights by the authors that could not be abridged. Now there were limits upon them of course, but they were not to be completely broken without reason. And in those cases where they are, outside of a national emergency it was done on an individual basis for cause, not done in a blanket upon everybody.

For example, not many really see the prohibition of felons from using firearms as being "Unconstitutional", as they are convicted criminals who had violated major laws, and had their right removed in a court of law through a full legal process. In the same way, individual who had engaged in multiple frivolous lawsuits surely for the purpose of harming others by dragging them endlessly into court may have their Seventh Amendment right to seek redress in court restricted by being forbidden by the court from bring up any more lawsuits.

Putting restrictions on things like the Second Amendment has been allowed since the Constitution was ratified. However, they could not be outright broken without cause. Such as the prior actions of an individual or during a state of emergency.

This is a key aspect that a great many fail to grasp. They think the Constitution grants rights, it does not. It recognized that everybody has those rights, and seeks to protect them from being abridged by the government itself.

 

We all address it, constantly. Repeatedly pointing out your flawed logic and failure to grasp the basic fundamentals of the Constitution, and the other documents involved in the framing and writing of it.

We repeatedly destroy it, but all you do is whine that nobody read it and once again insist it is the absolute truth. Never mind that you never actually back up your beliefs other than saying it is a fact.

That is not a series of "facts", it is a manifesto. A compilation of your own beliefs that have no actual foundation in anything other than your belief.

 

Continuously repeating "you're wrong!" is NOT addressing them.

I have posted NO logic. I have only posted FACTS.

The deliberations are there. Hamilton's and Washington's objections to everybody forming part of the well-regulated militias are in the document I referenced. The FACT that people had to sign-up is well documented, ... And your ONLY argument is "we all address it constantly".

Every time you people do that, my point becomes more solid.

 

You keep clinging to this "militia" bone, but showing some writings amongst the Founders is not proof of any "fact". They debated for moneys and letters and writings are expressions of OPINION not law. Nowhere in the constitution is there any language actually creating a militia. Twisting the Founders' miscellaneous writings and trying to include that into our legal structure is not convincing at all.

 

I keep clinging to the EVIDENCE bone.

Really? That's a new excuse. Writings are VERY relevant. But I'm not talking about writing amongst founders. I'm talking about DELIBERATIONS in Congress ABOUT the 2nd A. The different versions are in the OP (and in the link included). So, besides the deliberations, what was accepted and what was eliminated in the different versions is THERE.

Every time you guys fail to come up with RATIONAL arguments, and instead chose to ignore clear facts, my point becomes more solid.

 

Sorry, no. "Evidence" is not verbally twisting the documents.

. Key point: DELIBERATIONS, e.g. discussions of various wordings, word uses, and actual intend of the Amendment. Seems the IF you were even in the e same time zones as the founders SOMEONE would have picked up on it and made the changes; and yet the reverse has actually happened - gun ownership has been completely divorced from militia membership.

LOL, in your mind there ARE no RATIONAL ARGUMENTS that oppose the Gosple According to Golem.

 

I reference original texts written by the actual authors of the Constitution.

Even more so, you're simply repeating "I'm right" and "what I say are facts" is not addressing them either.

 

Wonderful. Show ONE in which any of them says that the well-regulated militia specifically the one mentioned in the 2nd A, refers to "everyone", and you might earn some credibility. Not "the militia". Not state militias. Not just militias in general. Not even ANY well regulated militia. But in which it's completely clear that it referst to the well-regulated militia explicitly AS WRITTEN in the 2nd Amendment and as approved by Congress and as ratified by the states.

What's that you say? You can't? Too hard? Oh..... Who woulda thunk!

Now you can scream "I already did!" and act as if anybody reading you actually believed you. I have seen it happen a hundred times in these threads. Every time I show a way in which you could EASILY debunk everything I have said. And nobody actually DOES.

Sorry but I have no further use for you.

 

why wasn't Miller's position dismissed based on standing? That the gun banners are in bed with violent criminals and freedom hating politicians is a fair conclusion. that you think gun manufacturers are some sort of entity that creates a "guilt by association" argument is rather as telling as it is pathetic

 

I bet that silly line has no validity nor does it bother him. The fact is-militia membership has no relevance to the negative restriction on the federal government

 

DO you realize what a JOKE Bogus (his name fits his scholarship is) to serious constitutional scholars? a professor at a fourth rate law school with a third rate law degree. I publicly raised (Professor Akhil Reed Amar's lecture to the alumni during the 2016 Reunion weekend) Bogus's claim that the second amendment was created to allow slave holding states to arm "slave patrols" and he noted that was silly given NY and several other non-slave states not only pushed the second amendment, they had similar clauses in their own state constitutions. He further noted that there was no concern that the federal government was going to disarm "slave patrols" either.

 

Holy hell, I have already shown you many of them. But here, the Militia Act of 1792 is rather clear on that matter.

https://www.mountvernon.org/educati... it enacted by the,States, to call forth such

That sounds exactly like what you are challenging. And I have posted it here multiple times before, yet you reject it every single time.

 

I really could not care less if people who refuse to accept reality have "no use for me". And notice, he keeps making the exact same challenges repeatedly, and I keep responding with the exact same references repeatedly. Ones that clearly and absolutely outright state he is completely wrong. Yet he insists nobody has ever done anything of the sort.

Even the Supreme Court references the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers when weighing in on cases that directly relate to the Constitution. As well as the earliest Congressional Acts as those were themselves written by the very same people that originally wrote the Constitution. So when considering something like the Militia Act of 1792 (and 1795), it has to be realized those were drafted and enacted by the very first Congress. The very ones that wrote and approved the Constitution before sending it off to be ratified by the states.

So why in the hell would those same people less than five years later go to such extreme measures as insisting that the militia was "every single male" in the country? And pass further laws mandating that they own and maintain a rifle, and show up regularly for practice and drills?

But when one lives in a state of denial, reality is whatever they want it to be.

 

the hard core gun banning left understands that the second amendment is a formidable obstacle to their goals of victim disarmament, safe streets for violent felons, and lessening the roadblocks to the creeping crud of collectivist authoritarianism, so they spend so much time trying to pretend the second amendment doesn't say what we all know it does