Who is the militia?

I'm truly shocked that all of the progressive gun grabbers who tried to tell us that the militia defined in the second amendment is only members of the United States armed forces.... Are completely crickets in this thread.

@Patricio Da Silva

Have I miss remembered it or have you told us before that the militia in the second amendment is only the national guard?

 

I'm sure the kings boot lickers said the same.

 

Yes, we are all militia, and the government has relied on drafts to create a fighting force from the militia. We had a draft as recently as the Vietnam war. Of course not everyone is qualified to actually fight and the the unqualified are rooted out in basic training, if not sooner. Mentally ill, physically unfit, junkies, criminals etc are disqualified. We are blessed with a large nation so we can recruit and train a very large army if needed.

The Constitution gives the militia (us) the right to bear arms even when not called to service, and being familiar with firearms is beneficial if called to service.

Funny fact: After Finland gained independence from Russia, the 1st president wanted baseball to become the Finnish national sport. Why? Because he said it would be beneficial for boys to learn to throw baseball far and accurately, because its the size and weight of a hand grenade. He knew Russia/USSR would always be a threat, and he wasn't wrong. Likewise, its beneficial for American kids to learn to be marksmen at young age.

Being is state of shock is not a good place to be.

 

far better than what has happened in countries like Mexico and South Africa. plus American citizens derive billions of hours of recreational enjoyment through the lawful use of guns, some thing leftist gun banners both ignore and despise

 

the constitution actually GIVES nothing, It prevents the government from trying to take away that which we always had. But your last couple sentences are spot on

 

Ok, but it looks like you knew what I meant

 

of course, I taught constitutional law. and while most people don't think there is a difference, the difference was spelled out in the 150 or so year old Cruikshank case where it noted the RKBA is not dependent on the constitution. (which I know you understand as well)

 

I didn't even notice this thread,

And if you're gonna create a thread and you're gonna refer to something Or make some kind of point Give us a website or link or whatever the hell is you're talking about Because frankly I have no idea.

However, I will say this It wasn't until heller that the issue of private citizen right to bear arms was settled.

There is no militia

 

If we say this is a convo in the English language then the definitions of our words should conform to standard dictionaries. Here're 3 definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary (from here):

militia /mə-lĭsh′ə/
noun

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik​

The problem w/ this thread is that everyone's talking partisan politics, not English. However, the 2nd amendment (imho) could refer to all 3 definitions.

 

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
'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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

 

That's not even an out of character claim for you.

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...

 

Right, doesn't address the question.
So when the right (that would be you) says crime is at all time highs and the left does nothing or you say things like this "what motivates the anti gun left, and it's not public safety or even an effete attempt at crime control" your 2nd amendment BS doesn't hold up, does it.

 

You must have missed the fact that we aren't talking about Mexico or South Africa so that nonsense is meaningless (actually, it would be meaningless if we WERE talking about them) and the hours of recreational enjoyment doesn't address anything either. Brilliant.

 

so what exactly is your point other than you don't like the politics of people who enjoy gun ownership and try to defend the second amendment against the attacks of leftwing collectivists?

 

As a side note, violent crime is actually near all time lows, not all time highs. It is firearm ownership that is at all time highs. Coincidence?

 

The militia is still just a militia since they federalized the National Guard.

 

Show me where I said that.
Or just continue making up things that you think that I said

 

I hunt and own guns. You make accusations without proof. I'm shocked. The point is....You claim that the 2nd amendment promotes or enhances public safety AND controls crime (your post #17) while at the same time the right screams about run away crime. A contradiction.

 

sure you do, I really believe that. I don't scream about anything. what I note is that democrat/liberal/socialist/communist/woke schemes to ban guns have nothing to do with crime control, no matter how often the proponents of those schemes post to the contrary. and that ownership of firearms by lawful people is a good thing

 

It isn't at all time lows (you are right) if you listen or watch right wing media.
No, firearm ownership have nothing to do with it so, yes, it is a coincidence. By that logic, the US should be Shangri-la.

 

You didn't say it. Turtle said it. I was using the word "you" to mean the right.

 

I, personally, think it's gotten to be too much of a good thing to the point of being a problem for public safety.

 

well if that were true, then firearms related crime rates would have doubled in the last 30 years because the number of firearms in the USA have doubled and most of those sold in the last 30 years are the ones that liberals most complain about. But guess what? that is not true. violent crime rates involving firearms have overall decreased since 1993 or so despite millions upon more millions of firearms in private hands.

btw I have almost no faith in claims that public safety is what motivates the demands for more restrictions on honest gun owners

 

Similarly, by the logic of the garden variety gun banner, the US should have seen INCREASING violent crime, no?

 

Wrong as usual. There has always been and God willing always be a militia.