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

This sentence doesn't even mean anything. This thread is about a well-regulated militia. It explains that Congress discussed and ended up rejecting the idea that everybody belongs to this well-regulated militia mentioned in the 2nd A

 

Makes no difference to this thread if he believed all people should be armed or not. This thread is about the "well regulated militia".

 

Yet discussing the state constitutions is relevant because it sheds insight into the minds of the people and the intent and meaning of the 2nd A.

 

No, on top of the mountain of writings the founders left proving you wrong, there is ancillary evidence from the period to add to that mountain, proving you wrong yet more.

 

It most certainly does when you misused his position to justify yours.

 

We've been down that road. It's a dead end for you.

Why Heller Is Such Bad History

As the goal of this post is to show that Heller is “bad history,” I should say from the outset that my point is not that ruling in favor of DC’s gun laws would have been good history. Rather, it is to show that Justice Scalia’s justification of that decision, while rooted in an analysis of the amendment’s eighteenth-century context, was based on a fundamental misconception of the way that gun rights and militia service were understood and debated during the eighteenth century. It is not inherently bad history to say that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms; it is, however, bad history to declare that such a ruling was a return to the “original understanding” of the amendment. And it is especially bad history to claim that the protection of an individual right was the primary reason for the Second Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights.
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history/

 

You know what also sheds insight into the minds of the people and the intent and meaning of the 2nd A? What they approved, and what they REJECTED when it came to vote. And they explicitly REJECTED the idea that the well regulate militia consisted of "the body of the people". They explicitly took it out! What does that tell you about the "intent and meaning of the 2nd A"?

Having said that, state constitutions DO provide an insight. For instance, the Virginia constitution that mentions the body of the people trained to arms. Or New York which includes the body of the people capable of bearing arms (BTW, unrelated side note, see English 102 for the meaning of "arms" and "bearing arms" at the time of the founders). So even the state constitutions QUALIFIED who formed part of "a well regulated militia".

However, bottom line, Federalists decided that the well regulated militia to be a hand-picked body of young men who were well trained and equipped and under the supervision of Congress. And, for that reason, proactively eliminated the provision "composed of the body of the people". Beat that for an insight into the minds of the people who framed the 2nd A!

 

And what was approved gives people the right to bear arms. Which was their intent.

 

Nope. Different topic, though....

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

 

You do not know upon what grounds that part was stricken. It could have simply been redundancy given that they declared it was a “Right of the People”.

Your assertion that it MUST have been done because they didn’t believe all people should be allowed to be armed is not only unfounded and not supported by ANY documentation from ANY founding father ... but it’s in DIRECT contradiction to the founders expression that the whole of the people be armed throughout their literature, the federalist papers, direct quotes from founders and speeches.

In short, you’re using a gap in the historical record (the debate in the senate over the amendment) to apply an understanding of the second amendment, which was not put forth by ANY founder, in an attempt to undermine the ACTUAL purpose of the amendment.

 

We do know. It was extensively debated.

I have said no such thing. You just made it up.

 

No actually you don’t. There’s no record of the senate debate over the second.

 

So you’re not asserting they removed that line because they thought only the well armed militia and not all the people should be armed?

Then what was your point?

 

They can when there is a militia it's not always there it's only there when it needs to be.

 

Still haven't gotten it right yet. The militia was every male between 14 and 65. But apparently not limited to such records indicate that people older and younger served, and more than a few women as well. Note their were two African American Militia Regiments in the continental army composed of African American Freed men. At least one of them from Delaware as I recall served with distinction. At least two African Americans are shown in the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. And one Black freed man, Crispus Attuck was killed in the Boston Massacre.

 

The debate was quite public. Do you have anything that indicates that somebody considered it redundancy?. Or even so much as the opinion of a historian stating that somebody considered it redundant. That would be helpful. Unless, of course, you're just making it up yourself.

 

Well the fact that the body know as the senate did not actually exist until the adoption of the constitution and it's amendments should be your first clue.

 

My point is on the OP. I will happily repeat it for you: It's that history tells us that in the 2nd A, "a well regulated militia" does not refer to the whole population (which was the intention of the Amendment as passed by the House). It was a reference to a well-trained, disciplined, "select" few.

You're probably trying to overthink it.

 

False. Demonstrably and objectively false.

Might I remind you it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the militia.

 

Again a militia is, in the parlance of the day, every able bodied man between 14 and 65. The militia is expected to furnished it's own weapons ammunition and uniforms. Militias similarly defined appear in virtually every country in Europe though seldom called upon as the people as a group were not generally trusted by the kings and Nobles. By the way as has been pointed out to you the phrase, 'well regulated' doesn't mean what you think it does either.

 

[QUOTE="Golem, post: 1072762122, member: 70622"It was a reference to a well-trained, disciplined, "select" few.[/QUOTE]Where exactly do you suppose the founders and framers and state and local officials would find such a well-trained, disciplined, and "select" militia to call up, since nothing of the sort existed?

 

One should note that almost every township on New England had a militia. It was often as much a political body as a military body and usually met at the local tavern. It can be said that the quality of these militias tended to vary directly with their distance from the frontier. There were notable exception. It was not uncommon for towns to furnish their militia companies with cannon and this practice continued at least as late as the civil war.

 

I'm not talking about "the militia". I'm talking about "a well regulated militia" as mentioned in the 2nd A.

Focus!

 

He's lying to you, and he knows it.

 

Find? Probably nowhere! They would have to be trained and disciplined in the way described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution.