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

Scalia, in his discussion of the 2A’s text in the Heller majority opinion ion is one of the better discussions of original meaning… and, note, Heller still stands. A simplified interpretation;

 

All you needed to say; the fact presented here renders moot the entire topic.

 

true, I do like the Penn and Teller bit. Often Comedians get to the heart of things.

 

It's pure made up nonsense, as linguists and historians (who's arguments I quote in this thread) have proven.

Some say Scalia was a great law scholar. But he is clearly lacking in the areas of linguistics and history.

 

you do understand that many historians and others reject your misinterpretation of the second amendment

my favorite bit of nonsense-the view that being able to KEEP a firearm still allows the government to prevent you from owning that firearm. One of the most idiotic arguments I have seen in 50 years of dealing with the Anti Rights coalition

 

Doesn't matter.
The USSC rejected his interpretation.
His opinion means nothing.

 

it is not merely that the Supreme court rejected his position-but rather that the dissent did not adopt it, nor has any anti gun lawmaker attempted to use his argument.

 

No, I do not. Mostly because it's not an "interpretation". It's just facts. In this thread, for example, you see the different versions that were proposed, you can easily verify that they were not approved, the references to Washington and Hamilton's lobbying are in the Amicus Brief ... That's not an "interpretation". Just plain ol' VERIFIABLE facts. And if you had ANYTHING that showed any different facts, you would have already brought it up. Or somebody would have.

Nobody has. So.... here's where we stand.... Where have I made ANY "interpretation"? I haven't!

 

https://lawreviewdrake.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/smith.peterson-9.0.pdf
But more importantly, in the right to bear arms context, the approach applied in the linguists’ briefs is massively contradicted by the text and history pertinent to the Second Amendment. Then, as now, the word “bear” most frequently meant to “carry.” With only one colonial exception that we have found, there were no general prohibitions on the carrying of arms privately and peaceably by white people during the colonial period, the time of the Founding, and the early republic. And firearms were owned, carried, and used routinely, in large numbers, by nearly everyone, including children. The first seven Presidents (among many others) carried firearms for private purposes.607 The Founding generation assumed a right to bear arms freely. Had there been a movement to restrict that right, the outcry would have been massive. But there was no outcry, because the right the Second Amendment protects was not construed then to be exclusively a right to serve in the militia, as the linguists contend.

Such a construction goes entirely against the grain of how the Founders thought. They were thoroughly schooled in Enlightenment thinking, from Locke to Blackstone to Beccaria. The Founders believed that the right to self-defense was the primary natural right of all human beings, and that right, by its very nature, could never be taken away by any law of civil society.

as I said, citing linguists is worthless in this area

 

Just when I thought his opinion could not mean less...

 

the attempt to pretend that "linguistics" should control the legal interpretation-an interpretation that flies in the face of the entire historical context surrounding the creation of the bill of rights is specious as noted in the article I cited above

 

Of course - and he knows it.

 

The, I Like this for context…/V7DMZQNJjcY?si=CRSHGJGXZaNKq4Ue

nonsense? I not Scalia was on the Supreme Court.; you aren’t. So, I will look to his opinion, long before I listen to yours. And like it or not, the Heller decision stands. So, you are pissing in the sea.

 

Did you comprehend what you quoted? What you quoted supports his position. He viewed the militias as being regulated by the states, and thus this serves as a counterbalance, and supplement, to federal power.

 

The gist I get is that Jefferson would approve of how the 2nd amendment has been interpreted, but Washington, Madison and Hamilton would not. They meant local government militias, not undisciplined (and unregulated) individuals. When we talk about the intentions of the framers, we can keep in mind they were not of one mind. There's a reason libertarians admire Jefferson in particular.

Personally, though, I just want policy that works. It's interesting to think about what the framers intended, but at the end of the day it should be the best policy that prevails.

 

As long as it doesn't violate the constitution, sure.

 

Scalia was first in his College class-History was his major.

 

all believed private citizens' ability to own firearms and other arms (dirks, daggers, poleaxes, cutlasses etc) was an area where the federal government had no power to say otherwise

 

But there's still a difference between regulated by the states in organized militias, vs completely unregulated. The purpose pointed to by most was a check on federal power by bolstering state power, by disallowing the federal government from disarming people and insisting that state/local-controlled militias exist, well-regulated ones.

 

No, usually the comma means the 2nd phrase is dependent upon the first. It's not being set up as a separate sentence, or as a phrase in contrast (with the word but, e.g.), but rather as a continuation of the same thought. The thought isn't that the militia is going to infringe upon an individual right to bear arms as these... guys state. The British army was not a militia. The thought is that the people having the right to bear arms is necessary for the function of "well-regulated" militias to check tyranny from the federal government.

 

yeah-no doubt the founders and the several states that passed the bill of rights believed that gun control was a state issue. some gun banners wrongly pretend that since the founders apparently supported some state laws concerning who may carry firearms and where-it meant they thought the federal government had that power too-nothing could be further from the truth-the constitution is almost entirely devoid of overlapping areas of power. All this changed when the several states adopted the FOURTEENTH amendment and with that, constitutional rights that merely had been protected against FEDERAL interference, now became superior to state power

 

That would not make sense. By the time a militia is necessary, its is too late to start learning marksmanship. For the most part, lawful gun owners are familiar with basic safety and marksmanship.

So far, gun control policies only benefit criminals.

 

Working as intended.

 

Occam's razor certainly suggests so

 

Indeed:
"Why do anti-gun leftists support gun control laws they know will not reduce gun violence?"
1: They want to reduce gun violence
2: They want to make it harder to exercise the right to keep and bear arms