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

There is no standing militia the people who live in the area and make up the militia when it's necessary. So people have to have guns so that the militia can exist. So it can have regular equipment. That's the reason why in the amendment it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because if you interfere with that right you are eliminating the ability to form a militia.

 

that is not a militia that is a standing military and militia are not synonyms. A militia cannot be controlled by Congress it must be by the people because if the enemy happens to be Congress you need a fighting force against them.

So this isn't just about guns this is about subjugating people taking away their power and giving it to the government.

This is what gun control advocates have sought since it's beginning in the 17th century.

 

He had to cherry pick things that fit his narrative.

 

1. I would argue your need to pose yourself as right and Golem wrong is illogical as it assumes personal bias in favour of yourself did not prevent you from being able to properly assess his opinions and yours

2. I would further argue your need to state you are right and anyone wrong could be a compulsion which causes you to overcompensate your correctness generated from self doubt . People who believe in their views do not need to say they do, they let the words speak for themselves.

3. I would also argue your interpretations of the 2nd amendment ignore and pretend the words "well regulated" before the word militia do not exist.

4. Given 3, I would argue while you would have people believe its logical to require people be regulated if they want to drive a car because its dangerous, you do not think they should be regulated with arms even though they are as if not more dangerous.

4.I would argue you would have us believe the complex details to regulate your laws and behaviour of its people stated in the constitution are simply subject to people simply ignoring all those regulations if they feel like it and creating their own authority with guns to make it up as they go along.

So in summary because of the above I would argue you use selective partisan arguments not logic. You set out with the belief you have a right to own a gun and a right to form an armed group to express political views.

You in fact ignore history. You ignore the context that when militias were first created it was because the US broke away from a state to form its own and did not trust armies or governments and so armed people to protect each other from corrupt governments but as the US developed things changed and so did its militia being further regulated by state and federal governments.

You argue your country must remain suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome because of what King George may have done and is emotionally crippled forever unable to trust authority and so needs to remain violent and armed.

My God man how do you justify a country you live in where you try argue owning guns and the right to shoot people you disagree with politically is acceptable?

Using your logic, the KKK, Proud Boys, BLT, neo Nazi groups, Hells Angels, armed street gangs, hey they are all militias.

None of them needs to be well regulated by government. While the constitution regulates police, armies, government agencies at all levels, hell who cares about people on the streets forming groups with guns to impose their beliefs? Its just a way of American life....

Does that sound logical to you? Of course it does. You think a failed state run by anarchy is logical..

 

Does being in a well-regulated militia, ready and trained, on the payroll and wearing a US military uniform not actually move that group of people from militia status and place them in a standing army? By the basic definition a militia is a force made up of people from the civilian population available to supplement the regular military. When I was in the National Guard I was sworn in and bound by rules and regulations, 24/7. Yes, even on my "own" time I was bound under the same laws that governed the Regular Army. In the Guard we referred to people, who were not Guard, Reserve or Regular, as civilians. Should those civilians, not in the Guard, Reserve and Regular Military, be the ones considered to make up the well-regulated militia?

A well trained, well disciplined, well armed portion of the population controlled by Congress is simply another branch of the standing army. It is not the militia.

 

Interesting how those two words are constantly ignored isn't it.

 

Your argument is hyperbole at best. The united states is far from a failed state. Its the worlds only super power and projects strength throughout the world. When it falls, and it will eventually fall as all nations, do the world will be poorer for it. The right to bare arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT found in a document of INDVIDUAL RIGHTS which was crafter by the founders of our nation. There is no confusion about its meaning, history, text, or logical conclusion that its the duty of EVERY American to own and know how to operate at the least a semi automatic rifle for the defense of the nation. I would argue that every male between 18-50 should be minimum trained to an infantrymen's standard on use of whatever the standard issue rifle used by the army or navy is. This could easily be done in High school and it should be the STATES responsibility to do so. The federal government has no right no restrict American citizens from owning any common use firearm unless a criminal or shown to be mentally incapable of doing so.

 

There not ignored they just don't mean what you think they mean. The meaning of well regulated in the early 1800s to today has changed.

 

It certainly became that way when a US federal law was passed bringing the militia under the National Guard. It could also include militia appointed by a state governor as duly deputized officers of the law but the pro militia advocates simply ignore the words "well regulated". The question really is can what is referred to as the "well regulated" media mean an armed group NOT regulated by some form of government and would it make logical sense to arm people to protect a state if they were not part of the state.

The interpretation given by those who ignore the term "well regulated" believe the context of a militia means a NON government militia. If that was the case and many strongly believe it is it would necessarily mean people can take to the streets with guns and if they do not like what government does take law into their own hands.

That belief fuels the American psyche. Its very much a belief of vigilantism that so many Americans believe is an inalienable right. Its deeply tied to the right to own guns. From a psycho-analytic perspective its a result of post traumatic stress syndrome the collective American psyche obtained because of the tyranny of King George. You would think by now Americans could have moved on from this "trauma" but they cling to the need to have guns and gun gangs or packs because of this on-going trauma they can not resolve over authority.

Their constitution goes into complex intricate detail with regulations and fail safe checks and balances to create a system where they can trust government as it has 3 authorities balancing one another unable for any one of them to have absolute power to prevent tyranny and provides the gift of electing law makers and courts separated from political influence to interpret laws and yet many believe its better to take to the streets with guns.

The terms "well regulated" has never been fully defined. Its left open to be defined on a fact by fact basis but what we do know is the US federal government passed a law never challenged to assimilate or amalgamate the militias into the US Army Reserves. as well US states passed similar laws bringing them under the domain of the state governors. No one has challenged that in court.

So we are left with a debate as to does it make legal or logical sense to have armed groups unregulated? If they are unregulated by government how could they be regulated? One alternative is a neutral public non profit body that would oversea training these militia and holding them to a code of ethics and conduct. That does not exist.

Right now any idiot can get together with other idiots and their guns and call themselves a militia if we believe "well regulated" has no meaning.

That would be a recipe for failed state and anarchy which is not what lawmakers would deliberately create. That would make no sense.

To answer those trying to second guess history, historians believe the initial reference to militia were citizens vigilante groups to protect the country against the British Army and their own government. It could be argued it was based on both fears but was it set up to be so absolute in power it would not be regulated by anyone but the committees themselves? Would that make sense if you were creating laws for a peaceful nation to emerge from a tyranny? Would you create a state of perpetual armed conflict?

 

The Second Amendment’s recognition of a “right” that belongs to “the people” indicates a right of individuals. The word “right,” standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have “rights,” the Constitution itself does not use the word “right” in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a “right” on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any “right” restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a “right of the people” discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures “right” to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person’s “right” to a jury trial in civil cases. By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only “powers” or “authority.” It would be a marked anomaly if “right” in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.

In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when “right” is conjoined with “the people,” as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The “people” are not a “State,” nor are they identical with the “Militia.” Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a “right” only to the “people.” The phrase “the right of the people” appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and the Fourth safeguards “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to “rights . . . retained by the people.” I see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments. The Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, likewise has recognized that the Constitution uses “the people,” and especially “the right of the people,” to refer to individuals:

“[T]he people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the People of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.”

 

My arguments are not hyperbole. They are the conclusions to your arguments. They are precisely the questions Judges have asked in court cases or law professors and lawyers debate as to the meaning of the second amendment actually. I can see how you think they are hyperbole though because they raise questions you are not prepared to answer but are in need of answering if you want a state of armed vigilantes to work hand in hand with a supposed peaceful civilized government and not try overthrow it.

Your reference to strength is based on fascism an extremist ideology that believes the best way to express power of a state is through imposition of power against the unwilling. It reflects ironicallyu the mentality of the very tyranny the US was created to break away from and you fail to see that irony. The might is right ideology you state is the ideology of the old monarchs and military dictators and the head of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jin Ping, or Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Fat Boy Kim of North Korea, Erdogan of Turkey, Pinochet, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Peron, Noriega, Sadaam Hussein. It fails to understand that strength does not come from forcing people to do things against their will but convincing people peacefully why something is both in their individual interest and the interest in the greater good. Power doesn't just come from brute strength but to motivate people to align and unite group and indvidual interests to form a successful nation.

It also fails to understand the very basic reason your country was created and that was to create laws peacefully with consensus after orderly, logical discourse, not shooting of weapons.

The world is poorer for it precisely because people using your ideology killed peaceful leaders such as Martin Luther King and Ghandi. Isn't it also ironic the majority of Americans who support militias would be the first to call themselves good Christians a religion whose leader would never condone people carrying guns let alone forming armed groups to shoot their way to the views they want implemented. Ironic indeed.

As for your arguments about the right to bare arms and form militias I being a lawyer have had to study your constitution in intricate detail and have been part of many forums discussing and debating constitutions of many countries. I do not argue that it does NOT say you can own guns. I do not argue you it did not set up militias. What I have argued is that it also contemplated the militias should be "well regulated". I also would remind you NO US constitutional case interpreting your constitution has ever stated what regulation means but has never stated governments can NOT regulate guns.

I would also argue using the concept of rule of law which you can look up, that no one is above the law and that means the President government but the people as well. People are not exempt from following laws because they do not like them and have the right to just arbitrarily form a militia to disobey laws. If they could that would be anarchy and a failed state. That is the point you do not address/

I do not disagree with you when you attempt to define how to regulate militias. Thank you. That is my crucial concern and you addressed it and I do not argue the right to own arms individually just how does one regulate the militia.

Yes personally I have a bias against owning guns unless its for essential hunters who need them to eat. My personal bias is not relevant when interpreting the constitution. However the arguments I make about "well regulated" before the word militia very much are attached to asking you and others, if the context for "well regulated" was not intended, why put it in? Surely a constitution that has checks and balances to all authority would have one for its militias would it not or do you think militias would be the only authority your forefathers meant to be completely free to run amuck with no accountability?

Your country has at the state government level and he federal level specific procedures for regulating militias. One was to assimilate them into the US National Reserves of the United States Armed Forces and the other under the powers of each state governor. That was done to assure "well regulated". I would also argue your citizens can and are asked to join a wide range of volunteer groups that help assist a strong unified country but most of them are non profit organizations that do not carry weapons. I am sure you would agree those organizations just because they do not carry guns do not do a good job helping your country remain unified and civilized.

How about you look at some of them and explain to me how because they do not have weapons we should not see them as doing more for their country than Proud Boys?

Also people can join the auxiliary volunteer branches of their local police forces. Or they can join volunteer groups that assist the families of war veterans or war veterans who suffer now from neglect. That is true power helping the soldiers, police, front line workers who had to d eal with the violence and conflicts head on, and now after the fact suffer for it. Surely that is important and more important than taking to the streets with guns.

Is it hyperbole for me to ask you....do you think soldiers who had to fight and be placed in armed conflict and forced to shoot at civilians or police them wanted to? You have any idea what a toll it has taken on some of them? You really think you want to have an armed weapon and shoot at a civilian or even point your gun at them? You think it does not have a cost on your psyche if you do that?

Its not something to wish on someone. Yah that is my bias too. Of course. See I lived a life where I saw humans who were shot dead or blown up and the toll it takes on certain people who witnessed what happened, suffered from the attacks of the people shot dead, or the people who stopped these crazy idiots and now blame themselves for what they had to do. I know guys who came back from Vietnam or Afghanistan and saw crap they could not do anything about and blame themselves for. I know people who live in Israel who do NOT hate Palestinians or are Palestinians who do not hate Israelis who both can not sleep because of what happened to their children.

That is not hyperbole. That is the result of armed humans.

We disagree but I respect your opinions. I think many of them are illogical but I get you. I do not think I am smarter than you. I get why you may not trust government. I sure as hell do not. Its just my idea of power is not a weapon, its a human who can influence others through peaceful means not shooting. That to me is real power.

That said its kind of ironic too, because I am preaching a very basic level of Christianity and I am a Jew. That is because we both have the ideology that to heal the world we must do positive things. That was the point of Christian teachings not to kill people but to find peaceful ways to get along. Its the difference between a civil society and reverting back to ape packs where we clobber each other over the head fighting over territory,

To put it in a nutshell hell no I have no problem with the Salvation Army They are a militia but they have no guns. I will applaud and advocate what they do over armed militias any day.

 

I find it ironic that you are a jew and are preaching disarmament when your own people were some of the worst victims of government democide. Had your people been armed and put up even a token resistance you might have been able to help many escape. You apparently learned nothing from that failure.

 

The American Founders made it clear that the militia was in part a check on the power of the military.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason

 

Yeah... so do cops.

I don't think you're getting the point of this thread.

 

Cops are not a militia

Well yeah I do it's for you to try and pretend that the second amendment doesn't mean what it clearly means and you're attempted gaslighting people is being thwarted by people like me.

If you're intent was to have no contention whatsoever you probably shouldn't have started this thread in a forum.

 

So you didn't understand the point. I'll spell it out for you: cops are as irrelevant to this discussion as what you said.

The second amendment means what is described on the OP of this thread and the other threads (English 101, English 102 and History 101) I opened. You keep changing the subject. This thread is only about WHO forms part of a well-regulated militia. I responded to one of your posts here when you appeared ready to discuss THAT. Now you change the subject again.

 

Disagree.

Militia is made up of ordinary citizens and the militia only exists when it's needed. Thus citizens need to have guns so there can be a militia when necessary.

No it doesn't. It means what it says.

It's plain simple language. You are trying to interpret something that isn't there.

 

You can't disagree. I KNOW what this thread is about and is not about because i opened it.

It is... so what?

You couldn't form part of a well-regulated militia defending the security of a free state if you didn't have a gun. Again: so what?

If you have anything to say that is relevant to this thread.,.. say it! Because so far you haven't.

 

Yeah it's about fabricating nuance that doesn't exist in order to gaslight others.

The right to own firearms must be individual so that the militia can exist.

It's like the second amendment doesn't need interpretation.

So the individual must be able to have guns.

You sure are talking to me a lot for something that is irrelevant.

 

They aren't. Well regulated means well equipped with regulation. Such as fire arms and ammunition.

The militia is made up of dentists farmers repairmen and such. It isn't a standing military.

I think it's odd how the word militia is constantly misrepresented.

 

Not necessarily according to Article I, Section VIII, Clause 16 of the Constitution.

But this thread is not about owning firearms.

Again: if you have anything to say that is RELEVANT to this thread, say it! You still haven't contributed anything. If you want to discuss something else, open your own thread. Stop derailing this one (or the other similar ones). All you do is constantly change the subject. This is about WHO forms part of the well regulated militia.

 

You better go tell the supreme Court because these professionals who study the Constitution think otherwise.

then it can't possibly be about the second amendment or about gun control.

Shame on you for your misleading title and posting this in the incorrect forum.

apparently I have plenty that is relevant to say. I make a point you make a counterpoint and then you cry about how I not understanding your topic.

If my posts are off topic and you want me to stop posting stop responding otherwise I'm going to keep going because by you engaging in the conversation you are acknowledging that it is relevant to you.

I don't need to you oblige right here.

I'm not derailing anything you are responding to me over and over so apparently what I'm saying is relevant enough to elicit a response from you. By responding to my posts you are engaging with me so you are derailing your own thread.

If something wasn't relevant you would have no need to address it over and over and over again.

No I don't think I'm derailing your thread I think I'm defeating your position. This is just another way that you left us authoritarians try and get other people to shut up.

The only subject I've perpetually posted on is the language in the second amendment if that is not the topic of this thread you made a misleading title.

You keep whining about your OP I responded directly to your OP.

If you want me to stop posting successfully argue against my position if you can.

 

The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right. Disarming human populations in the age of genocide is very dangerous.

"There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns."
THE NEW YORK TIMES, A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary, By ADAM LIPTAK, MAY 6, 2007.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

 

You made many points and I numbered some of them for easy reference above.

In regards to 1, there is considerable legal debate to this day.

In regards to 2, it does and that can be subject for another debate but there are numerous powers or rights conferred to the state and federal governments so many in fact that to list them would take literally pages of state and federal laws and regulations and state regulations broken down further to confer rights to lower levels of government.

In regards to 3, of course there is doubt and Supreme Court Judges have said in their decisions there is doubt and still have no close ended or fixed or absolute definitions for the very things you say are clear.

In regards to 4, yes of course but it does not say to do so in a manner that breaks the law or engages in violence or without limitations as to how to express that and this is precisely why it qualifies that right with "peaceful". The very pith and substance of that word "peaceful" means you do not have an unlimited right to use a gun and shoot people you disagree with or take to the streets and become violent and take the law into your own hands.

In regards to 5, think about it. In your thesis a "militia" or people could violate those very rights. You phrase 5 as if it only applies to government abusing their powers but not "the people"? Why? Than makes no sense that governments are regulated from abusing the people, but the people can abuse each other.

In regards to 6, the Judges in courts have stated in numerous decision the term "people" is a collective term for society and any agency that represents the best interests of that society. People is a group of persons. People is not a singular word." Person " or " Persons " is the word used for individuals when discussing rights. People was used in the constitution as "WE the people" the operate word being WE.

WE is most often construed as the the interests of the majority. However the constitution attempts to treat collective and individual rights not in two distinct vacuums opposed to one another, but two sets of equally valid concerns that need to be balanced. At times the greater needs of the majority prevail over individual's needs as reflected in laws. In other laws, it is crucial to protect the needs of the individual because if its not done, in other instances, the rights of the majority could be in an unintended manner taken away or damaged by the same law that protects the individual and vice versa.

The US Constitution like any founding document of a nation is a living, breathing reference. Its meant to constantly re-interpret as times change and moral values and political situations change. It is mean to be dynamic that means constantly try balance collective and individual rights depending on each new fact situation. It is not a one size fits all approach and that is why we have Judges struggling to re-adjust its meaning to new fact situations. Judges when possible try to be consistent and use past legal principles whenever possible yes, but sometimes they have to create new applications given the change in facts. Judges balance past case precedents with current new fact situations to decide how much they use from past cases and how much they need to create in legal principles from the new situation.

So sorry while I understand your arguments and state they are quite popular and held by many legal scholars, they are not the only positions by any means and its not as black and white as you argue but you do a fair job of arguing the classic arguments you made. Its just there is another side.

That all said nothing you stated addressed my concerns as to the issue of what "well regulated" means. I would suggest your Constitution never intended a double standard of regulating its government but not its "people" from unlawful actions and this is why I challenge anyone who argues a militia can do whatever the phack it wants and is not regulated by government or anything or anyone but itself. That would not make logical sense in a country that was trying to create "peaceful" law and order in a legal system.

 

What is deliberately unclear with the US Constitution is as follows:

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the States, to either the States or to the people.