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

The next part in our series debunking of 2nd Amendment myths is long overdue. Before you read this, I highly encourage you read previous entries in which we demystify the 2nd A.

In English 101, we showed how the grammatical structure used to write the 2nd A unequivocally implies that the right to bear arms necessarily applies to "a well regulated militia"

In English 102, we learned what the expression "keep and bear arms" meant to any typical American at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted.

In History 101, we talked about why the 2nd A does not mention or refer to an individual right to own weapons (notion that was rejected and ridiculed by the framers).

If you have anything to comment about those, I would appreciate you do it in the appropriate thread. Or, if you prefer, you can do it here and I move it to the corresponding topic.

So, who are the members of a well-regulated militia? I can hear all gun advocates screaming:

"Everybody!"

Oh... and they'll be quick to quote James Madison... And others but, who would argue with James Madison, right? I mean, he wrote the Second Amendment. Case closed, end of story, right?

Not so fast! You know who would "dare" contradict James Madison? Alexander Hamilton and, most significantly, George Washington!

Madison's original draft of the 2nd A went like this.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.​

This is how the Amendment came to the House. The House modified the text by dropping "well armed" and changing the redaction. But, most importantly, they added the provision "composed of the body of the people" after "well regulated militia". They sought to follow the English tradition by which all people automatically belonged to the militia.

But when this came to the Senate, much discussion ensued. They dropped the religious dissenter provision. And Washington and Hamilton argued that a well regulated militia should not be composed by the whole of the people. The anti-federalists argued to keep the provision. The federalists sided with Washington and Hamilton. The anti-federalists lost!

So the "well regulated militia" became a well trained, well disciplined and well armed portion of the population, which was under direct control of Congress. Not "the body of the people", like it was in the English tradition.

And THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is referring to. As I said before, this doesn't mean there might be some "right" to own weapons somewhere, And, in the end, with the Heller decision, Scalia made one up. Out of nothingness but, today it's the law of the land (for now). My point is that such right is not in the 2nd Amendment.

BTW, much as I wish this had been mine, it comes from several source, but mostly from the Amicus Brief submitted by Historians before the Heller decision.

 

That's not quite a complete explanation. Why did Washington and Hamilton argue what you say they did?

 

Washington said that the well regulated militia should be composed only of young able-bodied well-disciplined men. Hamilton argued that it would be impossibly expensive to train and discipline the whole male population.

BTW, I misspoke when I said that Madison was with the anti-federalists. Actually Madison stated that the militia should not be a sponteneous self-deputized force but one that was "united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence." Federalist 46, pp 334-335. All the references and quotes are in the document following the link I provided.

 

Not to mention that the argument of English Tradition being that the militia was composed and under control of The People. English tradition was that the noble's controlled all military aspects and the only part that The People played a part in it is being drafted into the military whenever the noble's needed fodder. Indeed the common man was even denied owning a sword at certain points in history. Especially serfs and slaves.

 

Your assertion is predicated upon the falsity in your original post English 101. You misunderstand how to read the second amendment.

It should be read thusly, “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Nevertheless I don’t want you to just decry me as not addressing THIS thread so I shall do so.

Washington is quoted as saying:

“Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.”

While he believed the militia should be well trained (and well armed might I add) he most certainly believed that the militia would constitute the entirety of the population. As did the vast majority of the founders.

Even the position of those who wanted the amendment altered did not do so because they wanted the people unarmed and there’s no evidence whatsoever to show otherwise.

Jefferson said it best:

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

 

He also said this in Federalist 46:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

Seems plucking little things out of context doesn't help you make your point.

 

Then you should agree that to be well armed you should be well-trained.

 

Exactly! And the thread "English 101:..." explains why.

I have no idea what you think your quote has to do with any of this, given that we are talking about the 2nd A. As I said on the op (from the Historians Amicus Brief I mention), the House approved the text that included the provision about the militia being composed of the whole of the people. Washington and Hamilton opposed this idea, there was much discussion. The anti-federalists wanted the militia to be the whole of the people. The federalists supported Washington's and Hamilton's position. It was voted, and the federalists prevailed. The provision "composed of the body of the people" was removed by the Senate. As proven by the fact that it's not there.

 

That has nothing to do with the 2nd A.

Whether Washington found it great or not that Americans were armed, he did not want everybody to form part of a well regulated militia.

 

You’re blatantly wrong and misconstruing what Hamilton said:

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

He wasn’t arguing that all the people should NOT be armed. He was arguing that ALL the people SHOULD be properly armed and equipped and that it would be UNREASONABLE to expect them to be highly trained. His argument was that level of readiness and training would be an unreasonable use of time money and resources. Therefore the best we can do is to arm the people... ALL the people... so when they need to fight back they’re able.

He is in fact arguing exactly the opposite of what you’re claiming.

 

Jeez...whole lot of verbiage when a simple "I hate guns and I hate people who own guns" would suffice. Trust me, we get it.

 

Oh, let's listen to the wise man, break it down....

 

Lies and damn lies.....abundance found in the op...

 

Make sure not to miss this post from Golem’s thread linked above—English 102. His premise is false.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072518284/

 

But....but...he has assured us, he has done 'research' and stuff like that....surely we can trust the golem? lol

 

If we're not part if the militia then we don't need to be regulated. Regulation only applied to the militia. Don't use the 2nd to regulate ordinary, law-biding citizens. Nothing in the 2nd about regulating gun owners.

 

Sure it deals with Americans being armed, lol. Read it again if you need to.

 

Liberals treat the founders like they treat the Bible. Cherry pick one phrase out of context to try and make a point the author NEVER intended.

 

Feel free to move this post if you think it belongs in another thread.

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/

 

No he doesn’t do any research. Here is another false premise debunked in another of his 2A threads.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072463600/

 

The OP can argue all he wants on a forum like this but it won't change the fact that 2A, as it exists today, affords me the right to own a gun.

 

Love your sig line.

 

[QUOTE="Golem, post: 1072757880, member: 70622"So, who are the members of a well-regulated militia? I can hear all gun advocates screaming:

"Everybody!"[/QUOTE]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.".

 

Only if your are in a militia.

 

Great topic.