Who is the militia?

militia is defined as a group of people. Even the legal definitions of militia both in state and in federal defines the militia as a group of people. The only question is whether the militia is organized under state/federal law or loosely defined as "every able bodied person between the ages of 16 and 60." But militia today are also defined by purpose, a political purpose such as anti-government, Christian Nationalism, Black Nationalism, etc.

 

You are playing semantics here. I used the phrase self-defense. But self-defense has always, traditionally been the defense of the family home, or homestead. There was no "stand your ground" in England in the 15th century, or in Colonial America, or in the United States from the 17th century to the late 20th century. Different states have expanded self-defense from person or residence to the ultimate extreme, "stand your ground" doctrine such as in Florida where people who initiate the attack still try to claim the "stand your ground" argument.

 

I have not read the bill yet. But since your OP was a simple question and there is ANOTHER THREAD where the bill is being discussed. So, I simply went with your question of "What is a militia" and I answered it without politics involved.

 

LOL. That is simply not what the definition of militia is.

 

2a is specific to firearms. Bows, knives, swords, etc, are not protected under the 2a and such weapons fall under the 10a for state jurisdiction and the Constitutional process of federal laws to federal jurisdictions.

 

I'm not the one playing semantics.

Words have meanings and those meanings matter. If I defend myself that means that I am defending the body that is me.... That which I am.

If I'm defending my home that means I'm defending physical property.

Self-defense is the physical preservation of the self.

You don't get to make up your own definitions as you go along.

 

Federal district court struck it down, but it was overturned by a federal appeals court, and the Supreme Court never took up the case. And you might want to read the most current version of New York Penal Code 265.00

https://www.nhglaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Nunchucks.pdf

 

The nature and meaning of the term militia as used in the second amendment is easily demonstrated by a little history research.

At the start of the civil war, the army of the Confederacy was much larger than the army of the Union, so Union forces were greatly outnumbered.
The time it would take for the government to recruit and train, and the money it would take to buy arms and equipment for them, were both outside the limits of practicality.

Lincoln used the second amendment. He issued a call for volunteer militias: Citizens, to form into military units to assist the Union.
He asked for 75,000 men- to assist the standing army of only 16,000. They quickly came, and more came, and kept coming.

The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means just that, in the event of needs the standing forces cannot meet, the ability to bolster that with the force of the citizens coming to aid the government's forces is a critical asset. So it was in the civil war.

These Militia came equipped with their own arms and supplies. They were hunters, woodsmen and skilled in the use of their weapons. Many came mounted. They organized themselves, elected their officers from their own ranks, and made their own uniforms with the help of wives and patriots. They reported as organized military units, and joined the defense of the nation. They were Citizens.

This explains the concept of the Amendment statement that a "militia is necessary to the security of a free state". Indeed- if such a force could not have been called up from the already armed and capable civilians, the Union Army would have been defeated in short order, and the nation we live in today would be flying the Stars and Bars flag.

The "Militia" isn't just groups of people playing soldiers- in fact, those people often have their own agendas and might not serve the nation at all in the event of great need. The source of support for the survival of the nation comes from the average person who is familiar with arms and capable of defense, being able to come to the need of the nation in crisis. Those who, like Biden, who say" they can't fight F-16s and missiles with rifles" are wrong. Vietnam and Afghanistan prove it. And the effort of a government to disarm its own people tells you they fear their own people- and that tells you the people should fear them.
I would say- IF you are not going to make it NECESSARY for me to defend myself, why do you fear my having the ability to do so?

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
― Thomas Jefferson

In 1903, when Theodore Roosevelt was in office, he signed and approved legislation that founded the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice (NBPRP) and the National Matches. This was the promotion of rifle skills and marksmanship, and national competitions. This led to the National Defense Act of 1916, and the office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship, or DCM. In the sixties, the DCM was given the task of distributing a large surplus military weapons that were left from WWII. They set up a program with the NRA to reach the experienced shooters, and sold a variety of such firearms at a very attractive price. These wre soldier arms, not machine guns. I purchased a .30 cal Carbine- for $20. Having been a life member of the NRA, I know the history and motivations of that group and those laws, and they have always been in the best interests of the nation and its security.

The authors of the constitution were men whose wisdom wasn't theoretical or speculative, it was sourced from real-life experience and practicality- and very carefully considered in how it was stated, so it would not be ambiguous or easily distorted. I think in that wisdom they considered the probability that men of less conscience, less honor, and less patriotism would get around to distorting it for their own purposes. These men were both wise- and correct.

We, the people- ARE the militia. Prepared, so that should it become necessary- could organize and fight for our nation and our lives. WHY would anyone say we should not have the right and ability to do so?
What kind of motives would they have to have to make denying that justifiable?

 

Whoever told you that doesn't know jack diddly. Those items are indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment. You do know that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when swords and knives were still being used on the battlefield...right? There is a reason that they said "arms" rather than "firearms" or "guns".

 

You didn't read your own source very well. Your own source says that the ban was struck down. Maloney fought it all the way up to the SCOTUS who remanded it back to the lower courts after their ruling in McDonald v City of Chicago. After that the ban was struck down.

LINK: Judge: Ban on Nunchucks Violates Second Amendment | Law & Crime (lawandcrime.com)

Also, just because something is on the law books, doesn't mean its enforceable. For example prior to RvW being shot down several states still had laws banning abortion on the off chance that RvW was ever struck down.

 

do you think that was a correct reversal. And it is no longer valid. Ouch

 

wrong

 

Hamas are the illegitimate militia of terrorism:

'JUST IN: Pro-Palestine protesters try to breach the security fence outside of the White House, forcing DC police to hold the fence. If they were wearing red MAGA hats this would be all over the news.'

And an unarmed Palestinian woman would have already been shot to death with a bullet to the neck.

https://instapundit.com/626707/

Not a peep of concern from the OP on this, though.



They want those they wish to illegitimately and unjustly control; defenseless, jailed, and/or ballot stripped. Thankfully the recognition of our right to be armed was a condition of forming our Federal Government and We The People ARE the militia.

 

Still wondering why the Left is producing both the gun confiscators and the Pro-Hamas demonstrations?

 

For someone who professes to know the law so well you should probably brush up on it.
Here are several links and thus opportunities for you to familiarize yourself with the details so you don't make such incorrect statements and then have to try to ridicule other posters when they call you out for posting false information. A person is not simply entitled to defend themself at their home alone. Or they would call it home defense. Notice how it's called self-defense? Does the self never leave home?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/se...ww.justia.com/criminal/defenses/self-defense/

https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1909

https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IIIB17.htm


https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/self-defense/

 

This is why you're for Trump. You can rationalize anything. Given facts, you call BS and whataboutisms.
Sad.

 

Really? What do you base that on? To me, you've just proven my point. To you, armed criminals are the problem yet out of the other side of your mouth, violent crime is down but in fact, gun crimes are up.

 

Sorry, if you don't see the problem, you don't make the rules.

 

Maybe you should look up what makes up the "violent crimes" statistic before you make judgements against it.

 

in the world of lame responses, that's a contender for the lamest. I don't want Trump to be the GOP nominee but I will vote for road kill over Biden. Trump's close to roadkill in my book. Do you actually have a rational argument? it seems to be a scare commodity among the gun banning left

 

The problem to leftists is this. years ago lefties were criticized for being soft of crime but if they cracked down on crime, their major constituencies would call them "racists" or "fascists". so they adopted gun control figuring that would allow them to pretend they were doing something about crime. When gun owners called bullshit and the NRA started mustering votes against gun control liberals, that became the real problem to the left. Now gun control is merely a scheme to attack voters who don't support the left.

If you and your fellow travelers really saw violent crime as the problem, you wouldn't waste so much time pushing for unconstitutional nonsense that only harasses lawful gun owners while not bothering violent felons in the least

 

the vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who already are banned-by law-from owning guns. and you need to look at the last 40 years rather than the recent covid fueled aberration

 

I didn't think you'd answer the question. I was right.

 

the side that constantly screams "My body my choice" when it comes to abortion, want to consider suicide a violent gun crime.

 

I volunteer!