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

Actually, that it did not mean that. Only in the event that it was ever called to service and the need arose (like their weapon became inoperable).

Every male in the militia was expected and required to provide their own firearm. As well as a pack, replacement flints, powder horn, shot, and the supplies to make their own shot as needed (crucible and bullet mold). If called to service, the only things the government expected to supply was food, and replacement powder and lead as needed.

In fact, as militias were largely self-regulated there was actually a lot of politicking in the first century involved. A great many rich individuals would get themselves elected to being the commander of a militia unit on the promises of providing them things like weapons, uniforms, horses, and the like. Until the end of the 19th century that was amazingly common.

Hell, that was how one of the most famous such units in the history of the US was founded. Theodore Roosevelt tried to join the military for the Spanish-American War, but being a prominent politician as well as a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy they would not take him. So he spent a fortune of his own money recruiting and equipping a militia unit we now know as the "Rough Riders". That is why they went into battle with such a wide assortment of equipment. Like a rifle designed by a Norwegian, and a US made machine gun that was chambered to fire a German round. They were simply using any equipment that the future President was able to acquire.

 

Authoritarian rule number one

Make sure people have no means to oppose you.

It's no surprise our resident fourth Reich poster mirrors the third almost exactly.

 

That was true at the time the 2nd A was enacted. The Militia Clauses tell us that they didn't expect that to always be the case.

 

IIRC a wealthy officer or two, bought Spencer carbines for their units. a huge advantage over muzzle loading rifles/muskets

 

No, it doesn't. It says that a milita is necessary.

 

Yes, and? "Freedom of the Press" covered only newspapers in that era.

 

Yep. And many of the rich Plantation owners in the Civil War got elected because they promised flashy uniforms.

When one looks at the actual uniforms of that era it was almost like a rainbow. Red, blue, green, yellow, each militia in many cases had their own. But as the war dragged on both DC and Richmond got them all to standardize as they were the ones paying for the replacements. But as militia units were always local, until they were integrated into the military that was the norm and had been for a hundred years already before that time. During peacetime they would wear their uniform only a couple of times a year at their mandatory musters.

 

No it doesn't. It says IF it is necessary.

You seem to be fixated on that. It makes NO difference if a well-regulated militia is necessary or not today to the security of a free state. I'm just saying that is the only question that might be debatable (whether it's still necessary or not). There is no need to amend the Constitution even if it's not necessary because So it's irrelevant. The point is that the amendment REFERS to a well-regulated militia and not to owning firearms.

 

The constitution doesn’t say “IF it’s necessary”. The constitution says that it is necessary:

 

Wait....
Did you just you say Congress had/has direct control of the militia?
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood
It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood

Thanks for playing....

 

Your copy of the constitution must be broken.

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.

It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood
It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood

Thanks for playing....

 

"...right to keep..."

It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood
It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood

Thanks for playing....

 

"The Congress shall have Power [...]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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
​

Sorta sounds like quite a bit of direct control to me. Of course, according to the 2nd, this would probably refer to the "well regulated militia"

Looks like you're kinda desperate to find something... anything... wrong with what I write. But you are failing miserably. I encourage you to keep trying, though... Even a broken clock is right two time a day. Your time just hasn't come yet.

 

Wrong! It's "...right to keep and bear arms..." It's a very specific idiom that when used without qualifiers, refers to a military scenario. Further explained here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

You're 2 strikes out of 2 today. Care to try for the strike-out?

 

I think you have monopolized all the available strike outs.

 

You left of Golem's also incorrect assertion that our militia is/was not the "body of the people" as it included every able bodied man between certain ages.

 

The most likely reason why he/she left it out is because it most absolutely did NOT!

Read the OP.

 

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Now, lie to us some more and tell us where, according to the constitution, Congress sits in the militia's chain of command.
Now, lie to us some more and tell us where, according to federal law, Congress sits in the militia's chain of command.
Draw the flowchart for either/both, that shows the location of Congress in the chain of command.
Example:




It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood
It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood

Thanks for playing....

 

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Your assertion, above, is mindless nonsense, as proven here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood
It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood

Thanks for playing....

 

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, the 2nd amendment does indeed grant individuals the right to bear arms, and not just to support a militia. The clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a prefatory clause which in no way limits the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

He's a troll, and is more than happy to lie to you to keep you engaged.
Treat him as such.

 

LIe? I'm quoting the Constitution. Unless you believe that the Constitution "lies"

Anyway... completely irrelevant to this topic. So don't bother. This one is about WHO was supposed to be part of the militia at the time the 2nd A was enacted.

 

If you have an argument to make, forum rules require YOU to make it. Links, references,... are intended to support a point. Not to make it for you.

Don't bother if whatever point you are trying to make is irrelevant to this thread, though. It will be ignored.

 

But historians and linguists agree. And this thread is about Historical facts.

That makes no difference to anything I have said.

 

Does the Heller decision find a 2A right for individuals or no?