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

Your quote is Golem's not mine.

"the militia' and 'the people' were pretty much the same thing, meaning all able bodied persons who were NOT:

1. Female
2. sickly
3. black.
4. too young.

That's my opinion of the wording of the second amendment. Excluding blacks, Any of these could have a gun and use it, but the question of the 'right' goes to 'the militia' and it's personnage.

My overall point was that the above, i.e., the argument of 'collective right' versus' individual right' was not a settled argument until Heller, which now means 'everyone' ( all individuals ) within the parameters of state regs.

 

My apologies as I did mix you two up. With that being said, on what planet do you think an oath is going to preclude people from usurping the constitution? If these people are willing to murder their own countrymen simply because they disagree, what in gods name makes you think an oath is going to stop them from doing so?

 

Then you’re reading the amendment wrong. 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.

They are essentially making an “if, then” statement.

“IF a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, THEN the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

To further emphasize this point... who or what is the “free state” free from? Was it a foreign entity they were concerned about? Or an internal tyranny?

 

The soldiers, and all professional persons employed by the government whose functions and jobs require swearing an oath to the Constitution, as time has shown us, it has stood up pretty good, thus far. I was in the military, and I don't recall anyone questioning anyone's loyalty to it, nor did I witness anyone acting in ways counter to it. The oath to the constitution, in America, has been a successful institution, particularly when you compare us to other fledgling nations.

However, I will admit, Trump and his minions are doing a good job at chipping away at the oath, and thus defecating on the constitution.

 

I don't see it as an 'if' 'then' statement at all. I see it as a 'because' 'therefore' statement.

 

The answer to your question is addressed in the militia clause of the constitution.

 

So using your reasoning the BLM carry weapons and are threatening your life and you do not feel your police are capable of handling them so you want well armed and regulated militia to do what?.....finish your thought please. .

What do YOU think this militia will do the police can not?

For me your comment is classic. You create in your statement above what you call a "well armed and regulated militia".

I would argue its just a symbolic word, or couched word, or reference to yourself and your own feelings powerlessness you want to compensate for by putting yourself in an armed gang to impose your political views.

On the one hand you find BLM violence unacceptable, but on the other you find self appointed armed militias with like minded individuals walking the streets with guns prepared to shoot people acceptable? Why do you need a group to be in. Using your reasoning you have the right to go out in the street with a weapon anyways and enforce what you think is the law? You need back up?

Oh go on finish your thought.

Do you intend to shoot BLM protesters or any other protesters you dn not agree with? Finish your "thought". What actions of BLM would get them shot in your opinion? Swearing, spitting? Do you think you should shoot them dead if they damage property? Finish your statement.

Can you explain why would you think a civilian not trained and under the direct command of police or the National Reserves under the US Armed Forces is needed? Why do you not join the US National Reserves?

Why do you not want to be controlled and be under the direct supervision and orders of the US Armed Forces National Reserves or a police command structure holding you accountable? Why do you want this freedom to be unaccountable to anyone but your fellow militia?

How is your militia any different than any street gang or for that matter the BLM ?
What is the difference between what Trump patriots did in destroying property on capital hill and what certain BLM protesters did to other property? Whose urine is more yellow?

Tell me will your militia shoot Proud Boys, KKK, or any other groups you approve of?

Do you have any idea what a privilege it is and what a sacrifice your military and police make precisely so that you can walk the streets and express your political views without having to shoot at people?

What are you talking about? Do you want to live with armed people roaming your streets? Go spend a day in Somalia.

Are you a victim? What has BLM actually done to you where you need to fabricate a shield like a militia to protect you? Do you really feel that weak? Do you really need an armed gang to protect you?

Now what? You want your country full of 17 year old idiots with no proper training making idiots of themselves in the street panicking with assault rifles in the name of what you think is political correctness?

That is what you want?

Go on flood your streets with 17 year old idiots fighting your "battle" with your fellow Americans

 

Kyle wasn't perpetuating his political thoughts. He was defending property and offering aid to people. (ironically mostly rioters)

A well armed militia would protect peoples homes and businesses from burning down when the government either can't or won't protect the people. Or is your idea that we should just, you know? Let **** burn in the name of black people?

Because **** that.

If your thought is "hey bro, I'm gonna burn your house down for black people so dont shoot me because human life is more valuable then property..." That wouldn't be healthy for you.

Just sayin.

 

1. Of course Kyle was pepetuating his political thoughts. That is why he just posed with Donald Trump and that is why he had a dinner right after he was charged with right wing extremists cheering him on as a hero. He was not defending property. No one asked him to defend their property. His "defending property" is a term he used to rationalize his political view that demonstrators were not expressing their political views properly, i.e., "damaging property". That is a political opinion. The majority of demonstrators were on the streets yelling. The minority engaging in property violence could have been contained by police. There were no burning streets out of control at any time.

It was also a political opinion that led Rittenhouse to believe America was on fire and would go up in flames without his being in the street with an assault rifle. Get it clear-he had no training in first aid, he had no training in handling crowds, and he demonstrated he had no clue how to walk and hold an assault rifle and his actions were caused by his panicking, not well trained responses.

2. You claim a well armed militia could protect people when the government either can't or won't protect the people. Please give an example where the police or US Armed Forces National Reserves have refused to protect people from violence.

Please give examples of situations in the US where you and a self appointed group with guns could have answered a call police did not and what you would have done. You never give specific examples why? Just what event are you talking about where you and an armed group were needed and how would you have done a better job? Please explain.

3. Your last comment makes no sense to me. This is not about black or white people. You brought up the skin colour. Why? Its about all violent people why did you select blacks?Are you suggesting whites do not go in the streets as well and become violent? Just who was it at capital hill? You think when Proud Boys or other right wing extremists go out in the streets they are not violent only blacks?

Next, if you think material goods or property are more important than human lives-that is your political belief and moral belief. If that is your political belief then yes, you think you should be able to go in the street and shoot dead a person vandalizing property or looting-the problem is the law does not agree with you. Contrary to your interpretation of the Rittenhouse trial. it did not say you can shoot people dead who you disagree with because they might vandalize property. The people Rittenhouse killed were NOT vandalizing property. They were expressing political opinions he disagreed with. He killed them precisely because he panicked and put himself in a situation where he was not prepared to deal with a crowd. There is a reason why riot police do not carry assault rifles. Clearly you and Rittenhouse do not get it.

We already have police and the US National Reserve in the US that protect the public and do the things you claim need to be done. You on the other hand contend that is not enough but give no specific reasons where the police or National Reserves failed and how your grouo could have helped.

All I know is you don't understand basic training and think you should bring assault rifles to demonstrations with people whose political opinions you disagree with who you think MAY damage property. Even if they did you conclude its justified to use your assault rifle t o protect property. You don't discuss alternative non lethal crowd control methods-you jump to the need to kill and you expect people to think your claim to being of help is legitimate?

You don't want just the government to enforce the law, you and people in the group you choose want to be able to shoot to kill people you disagree with spit it out. You haven't talked about being a non armed militia. You haven't talked about being a militia that reports crimes with their cell phones and limits itself to providing first aid. Your reference to armed is lethal force. Who are you kidding.

No one stops you from forming a neighbourhood watch group or joining civilian volunteer units of the Police or other non profit groups....you want one where you can carry assault weapons and shoot them. Say it. Stop couching your references.

You see no inherent contradiction between you and any other street gang simply because you believe your views are the right ones so can be enforced.

This is not about property. This is not about blacks. This is about people and how best to handle, manage and control people when they become violent.

In a democracy where freedom of speech is crucial, when people like you for any reason join a group to express yourself and then carry weapons, you and your beliefs as to using your assault rifle are a danger to democracy and freedom of speech no matter how convinced you are of your own opinions justifying your shootings and use of weapons.

You are not arguing for the rule of law, you are arguing for the exact opposite. You want the law to be decided and created by your armed group in the moment.

If you really were interested in the welfare of your society and democracy the last thing you would do is take to the streets with a gun. You would stay home and if need be heaven forbid, asked to help by your government or volunteer in a non profit organization that is unarmed.

Your country has the largest and best organized National Reserves in the world for a country not at war.

I had to live in a country where everyone is on call in the military between the age of 18 and 65 and we often had to wear uzis or other weapons in public. None of us wanted to. It was a fact of life. I only hear people demanding their right to carry weapons in countries where they take their freedom of speech for granted.

Your brave soldiers did not die so you would walk the streets carrying weapons to impose your views. They died defeating regimes just like the one you advocate. My God man, you really do need a day in a police state or a failed state to see what it is you think you want.

You clearly need to spend some time in a war torn zone with no rule of law like Syria or a failed state like Somalia or 3rd and fourth world countries like the Congo or Afghanistan where self appointed militias rule their zones of control.

This is not Batman and video games shooting people dead. Batman is a vigilante fantasy. Tell you what Batman. If you want to play it out why even carry a weapon? Does Batman carry an assault rifle lol? Learn martial arts. You will then not carry a weapon. You will know better and how counter productive they are in protecting you or others from physical harm. Finish your damn fantasy. Batman doesn't use rifles or hand guns.

Next go learn first aid then ell me how many paramedics do you know, how many nurses or doctors do you know, who carry weapons. You have any idea why paramedics could but choose not to be armed? You have any idea why nurses and doctors exposed to violent people all the time are not armed? You ever talked to a military medic about their job when they are under fire and what role they choose in such situations and why? You really think they do both at once or want to do both at once and what it does to them having to do both?

One last thing...when was the last time you spoke to any war vet or a police officer? You really think they believe civilians should go out in the streets and point their assault rifles at fellow Americans? You think that is what they stand for? You ever talked to a Vietnam vet about their interactions with civilians? Where were you when over 10 retired senior military personnel wrote a petition warning Trump not to turn the US Armed Forces into a political tool against the American people? Why do you think they did not want the army being used to round up fellow citizens and arrest them or shoot at them, etc.? You think soldiers want to shoot civilians and act as police against them?

For that matter you think the police want untrained people in the streets with weapons shooting in their name?

You ever been to a domestic call or a car stop when guns come out? You really think the police want you armed?

 

Of course law enforcement wants me armed. I wouldn’t live somewhere they didn’t.

 

That's what I would do, yes. Unfortunately, off-topic.

 

Sorry, but you are "outgunned" (so to speak) by the Standard Model of 2A interpretation.

Standard Model scholars muster substantial evidence that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms. ... This point is the key underpinning of the standard model's approach. The right to keep and bear arms exists in the people because it is there for their own protection.

A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT - GunCite

And remember: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

 

He is a disciple of Goebbels: the Big Lie.

 

We're not talking about a "militia". We're talking about the 2nd A. What is addressed there is a well regulated militia.

 

Incorrect. The Constitution mentions militias twice. In Article I, Sec. 8 and Article II, Sec. 2. Each time the word refers to a supplemental army to the US Army. Article I, Sec. 8 says it's Congress' job to organize, arm, discipline, govern, and set training for the militia. Article II, Sec. 2 says the prez is the commander-in-chief of the militia. So clearly the militia the was meant to be federally controlled though states are given the right to choose its own officers.

You might also want to read...https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html[/QUOTE]
Except you are incorrect as Heller and McDonald clarify both points.

 

Heller doesn't clarify anything. It's just a decision by 5 justices with no basis in history. And which Scalia tried to justify with made up linguistic arguments that have been debunked by ALL prominent linguists and philologists. Plus historic arguments debunked by historians.

Scalia is a lawyer. If you want clarification about history, ask a historian. If you want clarification about grammar, ask a philologist. The Heller decision includes neither. It's just a piece of legislation passed by very activist justices.

 

I think I will stick with the lawyer. But even if I did not History, Grammar, and Basic logic are all in my favor. You have been debunked repeatedly in each of these threads on all four.

 

He's fishing from a slow-moving boat.

 

Ok. It kinda makes sense that right-wingers who prefer the opinion of political pundits over medical professionals about health issues would prefer lawyers over historians for facts about history.

It's pathetic and a little scary that we have come to this point, but now we should learn to expect it.

 

A well-regulated militia requires firearms and because there's not just armories scattered everywhere the citizens must own them.

A militia is made up of citizens. Well regulated means armed there's a reason why that sentence is included in the second amendment.

If you don't know what the militia is then you can't talk about the subject at all.

 

The militia is the population as a whole, and all able-bodied citizens should be armed and ready to serve in units of the militia.

 

Absolutely there is a reason. As to who makes up a well regulated militia, it's explained by the OP.

 

Your research should include reviewing all of the Militia Acts especially this one:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unit.../Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_33