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

You choose to be wrong.

 

That's really what it boils down to.

 

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

Of course you should.

 

Your whole argument goes to hell with one simple fact. The military did not keep enough arms on hand for everyone. So they were expected to supply their own arms. Not only were they expected to supply their own arms, they were expected to be proficient in their use.

 

How to negate the OP in three lines:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
- No one has a right to be in the militia
- No one has a right to possess or use something owned by someone else.

/Thread

 

First you would have to understand what a militia is. It isn't a standing military, it is a group of people who are ordinary citizens that come together when they're needed to end disband when they're not. So quite literally everyone that owns a gun could be part of the militia. People who don't own a gun to be part of the militia because those that own more than one can lend one to the person that doesn't have any.

In order to be able to do this and ensure our freedom we have to be able to have guns I would say guns equivalent to what a soldier would carry.

 

Your song and dance is impressive entertainment. The militia was every individual able-bodied male. Period. None were under any routine federal, state, or local government control. The founders and framers knew full well that a militia (individual) that did not know how to aim and fire a weapon was as worthless as you know what on a boar -- hence "well regulated.".[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. The Constitution mentions militias twice. In Article I, Sec. 8 and Article II, Sec. 2. Each time the word refers to a supplemental army to the US Army. Article I, Sec. 8 says it's Congress' job to organize, arm, discipline, govern, and set training for the militia. Article II, Sec. 2 says the prez is the commander-in-chief of the militia. So clearly the militia the was meant to be federally controlled though states are given the right to choose its own officers.

You might also want to read...https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

 

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

Oh... and thank you for the quote

Exactly as you quoted, Hamilton considered it impractical and too expensive for a well regulated militia to be conformed by the whole of the people. And this the reason why you don't see today the provision "consisting of the whole of the people" in the 2nd A, despite the fact that it WAS in the version passed by the senate.

 

Americans being armed was a given. It wasn't even debated. But that has nothing to do with this discussion which is about the 2nd A.

 

Sure it does. They supported people arming themselves. Which is why they built that into the Constitution.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about the 2nd A. Specifically about "a well-regulated militia". At the behest of (mostly) Washington and Hamilton, it was NOT composed of every individual able-bodied male.

Read the OP

 

Huh? Who said anything about the military?

 

They could. But the Senate decided that not everybody would. For that reason, after much discussion between anti-federalists (who claimed it should be everybody) and federalists who argued to the contrary, they voted. As a result, the provision that the House had included in the 2nd A stating that it was "composed of the body of the people" was eliminated. Unless you can show it still there in your copy of the constitution. You might want to check.

 

Do arms have to be guns? Can they be a club instead?

 

Not only did they support it, it was expected. They would probably find it as ridiculous that somebody wouldn't have a gun as they would that somebody didn't have... pants. But that has nothing to do with this discussion which is about the 2nd A.

 

And it's why state constitutions at the time also mirrored these rights, and even more explicitly to include "defending themselves and the state". Not just "the state". Since those state constitutions were written around the same time as the 2nd A, clearly people at that time had a view about the individual right to own a gun that is opposite yours.

And even the Notorious RGB agreed: Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms'') (emphasis added) and Black's Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.''

 

Tee hee, look up "what speaking in the third person reveals".....it ain't flattering!

 

It comes down to the basic argument. Whether the Second Amendment says that the citizens are allowed to own and bear arms. The Second Amendment is very clear if you look at it in the light I explained earlier.

 

Guns and clubs are both arms.

 

You didn't seem to understand the post. The right to own guns belongs to the people.

Read the amendment it specifically mentioned this.

 

False. He considered it unreasonable and impractical THEREFORE he believed ALL of the people should be armed. Did he not? I just quoted and even bolded it for you.

 

All the twisting and contorting liberals go through to try and get the dead Founders to mean things they never meant.

Practically, we can look at what happened right after they signed and ratified the Constitution? Did DC go on a federal gun grabbing spree to take all the arms up? No. There's your intent.

 

This discussion is not about state constitutions. It's about the 2nd A. Focus!

 

• Clause 15
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  
  • ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia

• Clause 16
• 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;
  
  
  https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

A well regulated militia is an adjunct army to the standing army under the control of Congress.