The 2nd Amendment

[flyerhawk]

Or that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, otherwise a militia cannot be formed.

I guess we'll just toss that whole well regulated part of the 2nd Amendment away?

[Grimjack]

No. Originally written in 1903 and modified in 1956. After 2 world wars...

The only thing even that even comes close to an unactive milita is the draft registry. No freaking tranning and if the time comes they will supply all the guns needed

So how does you being armed fit in ?

[AlexPKeaton]

I guess we'll just toss that whole well regulated part of the 2nd Amendment away?

As I've already stated, it is the militia that is regulated, not the arms.

And Grim, you can ignore it all you want, but the US Code is clear about who the militia is... basically every able bodied person.


If you're going to ignore this legal fact, there is no point in discussing further.

Having every able bodied person as a militia member, active/organized or not, is essential. The founding fathers knew this, and the post WWII leaders did as well.

Have a great Sunday!

[DutchBird]

I've already posted the heirarchy of militia, and the US Militia Act, and your statement is just plain incorrect.

And you seem to be ignoring the reasons why the definition was changed in the first place - to circumvent recruitment issues for when the US government might feel it needs to be involved in a military conflict; it is as much a trick to get around public isolationist sentiment than anything else.



And we are/were talking about the 2nd amendment as written at the time it was added as an amendment to the constitution.

Because of the argument that the founding fathers meant that every single weapon should be available to anyone. To which there are - IMHO - two drawbacks:

- At the time the 2nd amendment was put in place, I am failry certain a militia was by definition under government control - usually the local government, but it was definitely controlled by a state institution.

- It is questionable whether they would have put in the amendment as phrased if they new how lethal firearms have become.

[flyerhawk]

As I've already stated, it is the militia that is regulated, not the arms.

And Grim, you can ignore it all you want, but the US Code is clear about who the militia is... basically every able bodied person.

You do realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with you, right?

How do you reconcile barring felons from gun ownership from your absolute right to bear arms? Where in the Constitution does it allow for that?

[Swords]

How do you reconcile barring felons from gun ownership from your absolute right to bear arms? Where in the Constitution does it allow for that?

A felony is a crime that saddles itself w/ treason.

Also, a regulated militia is not regulating the militia. The term regulated back when the amendment was written is proper form.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=118x158517

From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)

.....

This interpretation is also borne out by some old or obsolete
definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an
Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then
"discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war."
.......


Hope that helps.

[Grimjack]

As I've already stated, it is the militia that is regulated, not the arms.

And Grim, you can ignore it all you want, but the US Code is clear about who the militia is... basically every able bodied person.


If you're going to ignore this legal fact, there is no point in discussing further.

Having every able bodied person as a militia member, active/organized or not, is essential. The founding fathers knew this, and the post WWII leaders did as well.

Have a great Sunday!

If they want to use that term militia that's fine with me. It clear though that the Milita as mentioned is to serve goverment not look to overthrow it

[AlexPKeaton]

You do realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with you, right?

How do you reconcile barring felons from gun ownership from your absolute right to bear arms? Where in the Constitution does it allow for that?

Flyer... I've already posted the Militia Act. It defines exceptions within it, and felons are among them.

But the overwhelming majority of able bodied, and able minded persons who are citizens of the US are included. We the People are also We the Militia. Accept it as true, because it is.

And the Supreme Court does not disagree with me.

[Grimjack]

There still looks to be a civil air patrol

[DutchBird]

A felony is a crime that saddles itself w/ treason.

Also, a regulated militia is not regulating the militia. The term regulated back when the amendment was written is proper form.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=118x158517

From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)

.....

This interpretation is also borne out by some old or obsolete
definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an
Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then
"discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war."
.......


Hope that helps.

This is all true, but still does not preclude the following two aspects, which implicitly are included in the above statement:

- Limitations/expectations placed upon the weaponry the local citizenry brought with them; to some extent this was already deemed necessary at the time (no canon), but might have been made explicit of there had been more advanced weaponry than the musket.

- That the militia(s) were controlled by the government (whether local, state or national).


Again, one only has to look at both contemporary examples (Europe) as well as the examples of the past - Greeks and Romans - the Founding Fathers based their whole new state upon. There - at the times the armies were in fact citizen armies/militias - there were definite demands and restrictions placed upon what militia-members were supposed to bring with them onto the mustering field.

[AlexPKeaton]

- That the militia(s) were controlled by the government (whether local, state or national).

Once again, this is simply not true. I've quoted the law over and over, and you simply ignore it.

But go ahead and keep saying it. That is the nature of politics. Ignore the truth, repeat what you want over and over, and eventually people may believe it.

[Grimjack]

Once again, this is simply not true. I've quoted the law over and over, and you simply ignore it.

But go ahead and keep saying it. That is the nature of politics. Ignore the truth, repeat what you want over and over, and eventually people may believe it.

Section 311 does use the term Milita and has part of it as every able man from 17-45.

Also it has every prior service male up to 65.

The last letter I got fron the DOD was after my 6 year commitment was up. It thank me for my service and promoted me to Sgt E-5.

[DutchBird]

Once again, this is simply not true. I've quoted the law over and over, and you simply ignore it.

But go ahead and keep saying it. That is the nature of politics. Ignore the truth, repeat what you want over and over, and eventually people may believe it.

You quote a law created a century later - and then state that it applies to the late 18th/early 19th century.

I cannot think of a single example of the 18th or 19th century where a militia was (a) not government controlled (whether local, state/provincial or national) and (b) not somehow integrated into the national military establishment. And that was the world Washington and the like operated in, and that was therefore also their framework of reference when writing the constitution.

[AndromedaPatFan]

that was therefore also their framework of reference when writing the constitution.

Original intent is only important when it supports conservative or libertarian positions.

When it supports liberal positions, it should be disregarded.