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

All citizens. As was answered well before page 5, as is proven by the context clues provided by our Founders in their letters, in their state constitutions, and the like.

Thread should have been over by post three.

 

You make a very serious accusation. I DON'T lie. Please indicate the lie or retract. My source is at the bottom of the page.

 

The lie: "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."

The militia is everybody capable of legally competently wielding a gun in America, period.

People couldn't have arms in the "English tradition" in the 1st place.

You fail English 101, English 102, History 101, and History 102.

Guess what? I actually got As in every one of those.

I see you have a propensity to start anti-2nd amendment threads with the same theme yet use names of various wholly unrelated-to-your-topic college courses.

You get an "A" for grammar, though. Next! I've seen worse grammar on MSM headline pages on the internet these days, so you have that going for you.

 

"Period"? I just showed you the text of the different versions, provided references, cited historians... and you think that falsely calling me a liar and just saying "period" trumps all of that.

Ok. For a moment there I thought you were a serious poster. Won't make that mistake anymore.

Thanks for playing...

 

You failed.
F
F
F
F
You can cite "historians" all you want, I cited founding fathers and context at the time which is much more germaine to the subject.
Actual intent and actual quotes as to intent > Your insipid argument from "historians" authority fallacy.
Next!

 

Exactly what I'm trying to prove!

I have opened three other threads besides this one, in which one particular "bad history" or "bad linguistic" argument was used. And I show why they are wrong. NOT that Heller was wrong (though I think it was), but that each one of these individual arguments was wrong.

I'm not addressing here whether Heller itself is right or not. I'm addressing the fact that THESE arguments are wrong. In this particular thread, Scalia's argument that the "well regulated militia" was composed of all able-bodied males. And, as explained in the OP; and as the link you provide also confirms, that is absolutely not true!

 

The thread you originally posted in the thread that was about a "right to own weapons" (which was NOT addressed by the 2nd A). But you insist on changing the subject. So I am responding in this thread, where your arguments are relevant.

I couldn't care less about "every nation". I only care about this one. And we certainly did, as I indicate on the OP of THIS thread. th

Declaring that a well regulated militia was composed of "the body of the people" was removed by the Senate before the 2nd A was sent for ratification. But that's addressed on the thread I linked you to. I encourage you to read it. Here is a direct link to it, in case it makes it easier for you.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/

The process by which the Bill of Right was enacted was messy, took a long time, and each individual amendment was drafted, re-redacted, discussed, changed, re-redacted, changed again...

The idea that the framers all thought the same and enacted the Bill of Rights with the same purpose in mind and that they went about doing it in an orderly process in which there was no disagreement about the intentions and the wording, no changes, no backtracking in the middle of the process... is absolutely naïve.

However, this thread and the one you originally responded to are ONLY about the 2nd A. If you want to discuss the whole Constitution, or even the whole bill of rights, open a thread. These are about ONE specific topic. And trying to change the subject only demonstrates that you cannot rebut the arguments made.

 

Once again, circular argument. You are just running in circles, trying and failing to provide anything to back up what you say. And your very claim was wrong, as it is based upon the faulty claim that the Anti-Federalists lost.

The very group that forced through the very Bill of Rights you are demanding be dissolved. I have pointed this out to you over and over, and yet you still claim that your own faulty claims show you are right.

Which is wrong. If the Anti-Federalists were dismissed and their claims ignored, then there would have been no Bill of Rights. There is, so your claims that they were ignored and dismissed are wrong.

 

What the hell are you talking about? It was proposed that the "well regulated militia" mentioned on the 2nd A should be composed by "the body of the people", it was discussed by the framers and VOTED DOWN.

What is "circular" about that?

Do you even know what a "circular argument" IS?

They were NOT ignored. They were voted on and explicitly REJECTED by the majority of the Senate. Period!

Read the OP!!!!

 

We might ask the same question.

Militias are illegal, except for the National Guard which is actually a federal militia and not a State militia.

 

Feel free to explain what the hell you're talking about, if it has something to do with this thread (historical background of the 2nd A). Don't bother if it doesn't.

 

Golem not that it means anything but I read your responses. I am a law professor and would welcome your debate you in my class. I also appreciate you avoid partisan political references and stick to the wording in debate. Thank you.

I am Canadian and as you may be aware our laws as to guns are 360 degrees the other way.

Here is the best written argument I could find on the other side of what your position is:

https://logicallibertarian.com/2019/06/26/the-myth-of-the-word-militia-in-the-2nd-amendment/

I remain neutral on the topic because I believe the arguments on both sides will forever exist and will have to be subject to further court rulings.

While I can most certainly see an argument that militias were connected to the right of an individual to own a gun in the US because of an inherent district of government at the time the US constitution was created and it being seen as a fail safe against a too powerful government so to speak that interpretation being used today to argue if you don't like the government take to the streets with a gun and force your opinion on others I do NOT think was the intent of course.

There is something we also need to consider with this complex issue and I know you are aware. Under the National Defense Act of 1916,1790 the militia, which would appear to be defined as a state level entity under this act was brought under the control of the National Government. As far as I know no one has ever constitutionally challenged this Defense Act or declared it unconstitutional and so it applies to the debate.

This act as you are well aware reorganized the National Guard and goes on to define the size of the militia in direct proportion to the population of the state and defines enlistment for “three years in service and three years in reserve,” and most importantly limits the appointment of officers of the militia to those who and I quote from the statute: “shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe,”

Correct me if I am wrong please, but for those arguing the militia is "anyone" who wants to own a gun how do they balance that with the Nartional Defense Act which has in practical reality made it clear the militia are not citizen vigilantes, but a reserve unit of specific control and definition of the US National Reserve. Since when are the reserves in the US anyone who wants to be?

That may have been the case in 1776 but today? This is why I prefer your arguments although with respect I absolutely see the other side of the argument in favour of individual right to own guns. I see both. I see US citizens as being given the right to own a gun but I also see both the state and federal governments having the ability to regulate who can own a gun and when they can use it.

I do absolutely appreciate that in the US because of your culture and history there is an overwhelming visceral connection to gun ownership as a basic democratic right. I get that. I do not get though the leap or inference from that right, it allows anyone to believe because they can own a gun that ownership can not be regulated by their governments or for that matter that ownership right allows them the right to take the law into their own hands as vigilantes.

Vigilantism is a very strong US cultural belief. Its not based on law its based on that strong belief yoru right to own a gun means you can protest against the law using a gun when you don't like the law.

This belief has led people into the streets with weapons using them to express their political beliefs With due respect to Americans, the moment you need to use a gun or any weapon to express your political opinion, you also violate the most basic fundamental freedom of your constitution-freedom of speech. Freedom of speech I would argue inherently means you need not only to be able to speak BUT to listen and be tolerant of different opinions of others. It means both. You can not be the latter pointing a gun at someone.

If a person who owns a gun is not regulated, then you have necessarily an ungovernable individual. The moment they do not agree with a law, they can ignore it and pull out their weapon.

Now with due respect, the last tenure of the Trump Presidency brought to the forefront a dialogue from the head of your country of acomplete lack of respect and tolerance for anyone who did not agree with the President. He demonized anyone and everyone including fellow Republicans and his own military. There is a reason so many former military senior officers wrote a petition warning him not to use the US military as a political weapon in the streets.

Trump I would argue is a blatant example of what happens when an individual can not differentiate his own subjective desires from the needs of the state he represents. To me he was the exact political figure the US constitution was created in contemplation of and feared. Look at your constitution, it is a series of checks and balances so no one whether individual or government can have too much power over others

Your President was at the point of trying to subvert an open election and using the military to impose his own personal agenda. He incited people to violence. My God man, your fellow citizens broke into your most basic symbols of freedom with weapons showing disrepect and claiming it was because they were patriots.

How does the definition patriot and calling for the death of your Vice President make someone a patriot? How does engaging in property vandalism and insulting of your basic institutions of freedom holding weapons constitute freedom of speech let alone the support of freedom of speech?

You have a former President who continues to argue the last election was fixed so when he runs again if he does not win, he justifies a platform to ignore the vote and try force himself into power by insurrection? Do you really think that is what your constitution was designed ot do?

Have any of you seen evidence of a rigged vote? Of course not. Have any of you seen Trump or any of his rigged vote conspirators suggest they would honour any vote? How do you have a democracy when such people will not recognize majority vote setting up the pretext it is rigged so they can impose their own will?

What has happened to your nation that a 17 year old purchases a military assault rifle, and uninvited crosses state lines in violation of gun regulations, and enters another state, self appoints himself a law enforcement agent and then takes to the streets claiming he is protecting property when the property owner he claims to be protecting the property of says I never asked him to.

What the hell has happened that this 17 year old then deliberately places himself in an event where people are expressing opinions he disagrees with, with him carrying an assault weapon? Is that what freedom of speech means-walking into a demonstration with weapons? Are your citizens that afraid of freedom of speech that when they see people on the street expressing views they disagree with they need to walk up to them with assault rifles?

How is a 17 year old not properly trained to understand psychology and the dynamics of group behaviour and crisis management place himself in such a position? Even if you justify his shootings as accidental or self defense caused by panic why was he there in the first place with a weapon? Do you need to be told if there is gas leaking you don't stand by and light up a cigarette? Really?

I think with due respect Americans are too emotionally connected to their gun ownership right to see clearly. It causes such a visceral love it or leave it approach you guys can not hear each other anymore and you play into the hands of a Trump who incites you to think poorly of your fellow Americans who disagree with you and call them your enemy. In that sense you play right into the agenda of Putin or other anti Americans and so is it any wonder Putin is linked to the last election?

As for all these arguments that Clinton was worse than Trump or you have the right to own a gun- do you think such arguments have anything to do with the pith and substance of Golem's argument and that is, if ultimately gun ownership as an individual gives you the right to impose the will of your self appointed militia what kind of state is that?

The answer is simple, Somalia.




https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

@Death , I thank you for your very thorough and insightful post. And I am honored that you would bring up the arguments I expressed (mostly based on historian and linguistic experts, rather than legal experts) in your classes. I completely agree with your comments about our past President. The Trump administration, in particular, is an embarrassment to this country. But one that could have a positive outcome when and if the criminal acts (including the January 6 insurrection) of the government officials involved are brought to justice.

As for the overall "right to own weapons". Full disclosure: my personal belief is that guns in private hands should be completely banned, with only a very few very qualified number of exceptions. But I realize that our gun culture makes implementing that near impossible. But, at least, gun ownership should be limited immensely more than it is today.

The purpose of these four threads (this one, and the three others mentioned in the OP), is to demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment does not grant, guarantee, affirm ... or in any way address an individual right to own weapons. That there is currently a right to own weapons in this country is undeniable. And I believe it's legally granted as a legal "right" only after the "DoC v Heller" Supreme Court decision. Right now, Heller is the law of the land. The point is that, whatever the origin of this "right", the origin is not the 2nd Amendment. And the reason this is an important point is that, if this "right" were granted or guaranteed by the Amendment, it would take another Amendment to reverse it (I'm not an attorney, but that is my understanding). And that would make it impossible to do. Whereas any other way by which this was brought about, including a Supreme Court decision, can be reversed in many other ways. Be it legislation enacted by Congress, or simply another future Supreme Court decision. This is why gun lobbyists keep hammering into the minds of people the misconception that this "right" is enshrined in the 2nd A. And even some gun control groups and legislators have fallen for this narrative.

Much of the reasoning that Scalia used to justify Heller was based on linguistic and historical arguments. And I would not dare try to contradict a legal powerhouse like Scalia on any of his legal arguments. But I can definitely question him about the other two areas.

 

What utter nonsense and shame on Duke for pushing that agenda.

 

The purpose of these four threads is to make you feel good despite how many times others have completely shut down your nonsensical arguments over and over again and yet your too stubborn and pigheaded to realize your utterly wrong

 

I do admit that having facts on my side that nobody has been able to rebut does make me feel good. Thanks for noticing.

 

If you are going to quote me, here I am. Do not tell me what my intent was and use my quote to insult Golem.

First off you want to name call him do not hide behind my post.

Secondly, if you can't debate what I said do not, but to use it as a pretext to claim I was making Golem feel good is nonsensical.

I am not here to play therapist to Golem. He did not ask nor would I. I was addressing specific issues he did. Period.

Attacking someone personally and assigning personal motives as to feelings means you have nothing to debate so you deflect from the issues you can't discuss. Either discuss the specific issues you disagree with and why or move on. Do not use my threads to attack people personally. Stop hiding behind my words and trying to ignore what they stated.

 

Can you discuss any position you hold and provide the reasoning for it? Coming on this thread to stick your tongue out is pointless.

 

You did not address the issues of the thread. You attacked a poster personally and you tried to use me to do it. You have something to say to me here I am. What positions did I state you have a problem with and why?

 

My post directly responds to Invictus who deliberately tried to misrepresent what I said to attack Golem with a personal insult and ignore the legal issue I presented. I will state it again for Invictus.

On June 3, 1916, then US President Wilson passed g the National Defense Act. That law in fact brought state militias under the control of the federal military and among other things is the law that gives the right to the President in the event of a delcared war or national emergency to mobilize the National Guard. This is the law Trump wanted to use, to have US reserves placed on US streets to engage in police action against demonstrators. Trump wanted to use the US military reserves not self appointed vigilante groups.

Invictus read this law you won't address It combines the state militias into the primary reserve force of the UNITED STATES ARMY.

It also created specific training standards and qualifications for its officers.They go to Army schools. It established a Reserve Officer Training Corps to train and prepare high school and college students to prepare for service in the US Army.

That law made it clear a militia is not anyone who grabs a gun and calls himself a militia its a part of the nation's permanent US Army in reserve for emergencies and wars.

Address this issue Invictus. If the militias are just anyone who wants to call himself one, address this law. Please explain how it does not now control any militias and anything outside its jurisdiction is still legal.

 

Can we please talk of the existing US laws and not fantasy.

Trump supporters and certain Libertarians argue unorganized militia groups can exist. However in the real world, all 50 states, have laws on the books that prohibit private, militias from engaging in paramilitary activity.

While there are SOME states whose Governors could authorize their state governments to officially make a privately-organized militia part of the state's official enforcement systemuntil that is done they have no authority to enforce or break a law. They would simply be people who form a group with guns but who have no more power or authority than any individual with a gun has to take the law into his or her hands.

Some states like Massachusetts (the National Lancers and Honourable Artillery Company of Massachusetts) or Rhode Island have "state militias" but they are in fact historic societies commemorating US history not self appointed vigilantes taking to the streets to enforce laws.

Today's persons claiming to be non government militias of course can call themselves that or anything else they but they are not the militias originally formed to fight against the British. Any enforcement of laws now through militias is controlled by the US Army Reserves.

In reality the militia people argue remains since 1776 ended when the US became a nation. The need for reserves for different reasons, i.e., emergencies and wars, not internal revolutions created a new reserve system in 1916.

The 1776 militia became an anachronism. Today's people pretending to be independent vigilante units who can form and take to the streets to either enforce laws or break laws they do not like is partisan political fiction being used by Trump supporters to justify forming groups to engage in violence and impose their political views on others who they think disagree with them. This is precisely why they will argue they can take to the streets with weapons and engage in "enforcement of laws" (i.e., Rittenhouse) but also breaking laws (Capita; Hill) depending on their political views. Its not about law, its about using guns to impose political will.

Common sense alone would tell you if the US was created to allow anyone to form armed units and impose their subjective unorganized will of course there could be no democracy. The reason they were formed in 1776 long since past.


https://www.npr.org/2020/08/30/907720068/are-citizen-militias-legal

 

It originally referred to militias run and organized by individual states.
However, you seem to be erroneously inferring that if individuals are not part of such a militia that this amendment does not grant them any rights or protections under this amendment.

Of course this issue has been discussed in other threads.

Today the state militias have mostly taken the form of the National Guard. They are not used much, other than occasionally suppressing large scale riots and civil disobedience.

 

I don't know if it grants them or not "any" right or protections. Beyond the militia, I do believe it does grant (or should be interpreted as granting) the people the right to bear arms against our enemies, and defend the security of a free state. Referring to the right that Trump violated in the case of transgenders. But this thread is only about the "well-regulated militia" mentioned by the 2nd A.

 

Golem between the National Defense Act (federal) and both other federal and state laws regulating use of firearms and prohibiting armed groups on the streets, its beyond me why anyone would think acting no different than Hitler's SA or Mussolini's blackshirt brigade is a fundamental principle of the US constitutional system.

Using this logic the KKK is a militia. So are Black Lives Matter, Proud Boys, etc.

Enough of this bullshit.

 

Well... it worked for Hitler and Mussolini. There are people in this country hoping that it will work for them one day too.