• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

Vox said:
Justice Scalia held that it had to be arms you can "bear" (meaning "carry").

However.......early militias that faced off against Federal troops DID possess cannon.
Click to expand...
Ok, so what does "bear" mean? To me, it means "convey" and/or "use". I can carry (convey) a rifle on my shoulder. I can transport (convey) a cannon by towing it behind my truck. I can use both when I get there.

"Bearing" arms against my enemy is similar to "bearing" witness against someone in court.
 
radcen said:
Ok, so what does "bear" mean? To me, it means "convey" and/or "use". I can carry (convey) a rifle on my shoulder. I can transport (convey) a cannon by towing it behind my truck. I can use both when I get there.

"Bearing" arms against my enemy is similar to "bearing" witness against someone in court.
Click to expand...

View attachment 67215283
 
radcen said:
Ok, so what does "bear" mean? To me, it means "convey" and/or "use". I can carry (convey) a rifle on my shoulder. I can transport (convey) a cannon by towing it behind my truck. I can use both when I get there.

"Bearing" arms against my enemy is similar to "bearing" witness against someone in court.
Click to expand...

Scalia disagreed.

But then we can't easily legally own an M16 even though it can be carried........no grenade launchers either. F16s are out as well.

Today's militia couldn't hope to compete with the Federal troops.........technology has outstripped the concept.

Doesn't mean armed citizens are not a deterrent to government mischief, though.......because they are reluctant to kill us.
 
radcen said:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

There are two types of militia according to the government. The unorganized militia which is composed of people who are willing to do what is necessary to protect their state and/or country and is not backed by a government be it state or federal.

The other type is the well regulated militia which is composed of people who are willing to do what is necessary to protect their state and/or country but IS backed by a government be it state or federal.

Being "backed" means that they are given support in terms of recognition of their status, money, and supplies necessary to carry out the objective the the militia.

That said, when the 2nd Amendment was written it was recognized by the writers that the militia consisted of every able bodied male over the age of 16 (think it was 16...can't remember exact age) and below the age of 45. (anyone older was considered too old to serve effectively in a capacity that could get them in a battle) In today's terms that male part would be scratched and it would apply to anyone that's an adult. It was required at the time that all abled bodied persons would provide for their own gun and one pouch of ammo in the case that they were needed to defend the country or their state. If they were called up then they would be provided additional training if needed. Though frankly in that day and age training to use a gun wasn't needed all that much as most people knew how to use a gun in those days as they needed to in order to hunt for their food. As such the training mainly consisted of battle tactics.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are two types of militia according to the government. The unorganized militia which is composed of people who are willing to do what is necessary to protect their state and/or country and is not backed by a government be it state or federal.

The other type is the well regulated militia which is composed of people who are willing to do what is necessary to protect their state and/or country but IS backed by a government be it state or federal.
Click to expand...

Is there a source for that info?
 
WCH said:
"We the People" are the government. The Militia is us.
Click to expand...

Not really. Because the year after the ratification of the 2nd amendment, congress (many of whom were involved in framing the Constitution and the amendments as well), passed the Militia Act of 1792:

"The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794...

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.


The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
________________
So, in today's terms, what this means is that all able bodied men over age 18 would be conscripted into the militia, at the very least reporting every 6 months for mandatory intensive training and discipline. They would be required to purchase certain weapons and ammo on their own dime, and to make sure they are in working order.

Barack Obama, as your commander in chief, could then order you to go in and suppress a tax uprising at any time, like George Washington did with the Whiskey Rebellion. And if you disobeyed any of the above, you could be facing court martial.

That's the original intent behind the 2nd amendment.

So why don't you go out now and yell and scream about how unconstitutional we have become.
 
Vox said:
Scalia disagreed.

But then we can't easily legally own an M16 even though it can be carried........no grenade launchers either. F16s are out as well.

Today's militia couldn't hope to compete with the Federal troops.........technology has outstripped the concept.

Doesn't mean armed citizens are not a deterrent to government mischief, though.......because they are reluctant to kill us.
Click to expand...
I do believe that the government is kept in check as much as it is because of the extent that we are armed, evin if it does now pale in comparison to them.

I also believe that is part of why they keep wanting more and more restrictions and bans. More liberals than conservatives, yes, but still...
 
radcen said:
I do believe that the government is kept in check as much as it is because of the extent that we are armed, evin if it does now pale in comparison to them.

I also believe that is part of why they keep wanting more and more restrictions and bans. More liberals than conservatives, yes, but still...
Click to expand...

First of all, I am not sure why this means that we can't close the loophole on schizophrenics, felons, and suspected terrorists buying the weapons of their choice.

Second of all, all other developed democracies on the planet, from Sweden and France, to Israel and Japan, have more sensible regulations on gun ownership. And we are still waiting for the tyrannies to rise in them. Still... nothing. If anyone should be worried about personal safety, it should be the Israelis. And yet even they require registration and training for those purchasing firearms. This obsessive suspicion in the US with their government is highly unusual, strange, and dysfunctional.

That paranoia is just being exploited now by the NRA to line their pockets, that's all.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Not really. Because the year after the ratification of the 2nd amendment, congress (many of whom were involved in framing the Constitution and the amendments as well), passed the Militia Act of 1792:

"The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794...

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.


The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
________________
So, in today's terms, what this means is that all able bodied men over age 18 would be conscripted into the militia, at the very least reporting every 6 months for mandatory intensive training and discipline. They would be required to purchase certain weapons and ammo on their own dime, and to make sure they are in working order.

Barack Obama, as your commander in chief, could then order you to go in and suppress a tax uprising at any time, like George Washington did with the Whiskey Rebellion. And if you disobeyed any of the above, you could be facing court martial.

That's the original intent behind the 2nd amendment.

So why don't you go out now and yell and scream about how unconstitutional we have become.
Click to expand...
In Today's terms, the militia is divided into the organized and unorganized militia. The people still comprise the militia. The people were then and still are...the militia. The rights of the people to keep and bear arms to fulfill their role in the militia is today as it was then...guaranteed.
 
VanceMack said:
In Today's terms, the militia is divided into the organized and unorganized militia. The people still comprise the militia. The people were then and still are...the militia. The rights of the people to keep and bear arms to fulfill their role in the militia is today as it was then...guaranteed.
Click to expand...

"Unorganized militia"?! What the heck is that? Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. That amendment STARTS with the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary...".

Now you're just making stuff up. What are you, Trump now?
 
ataraxia said:
"Unorganized militia"?! What the heck is that? Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. That amendment STARTS with the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary...".

Now you're just making stuff up. What are you, Trump now?
Click to expand...
Wait...you...really dont know?

Seriously...you dont know?

As you yourself would admit (and pointed out) the 2nd Amendment was ratified BEFORE the passage of the Militia Act of 1792. The original intent was and remains that citizens (the people) preserve the right to keep and bear arms and have not only the right but responsibility to own weapons and be trained in their usage.
 
Vox said:
Justice Scalia held that it had to be arms you can "bear" (meaning "carry").

However.......early militias that faced off against Federal troops DID possess cannon.
Click to expand...


Well I hear nowadays you can get nukes that can fit in a briefcase. When can I start getting them at the local gun shows?
 
VanceMack said:
Wait...you...really dont know?

Seriously...you dont know?
Click to expand...

No. I seriously don't know. Show me where it talks about them in the Constitution, or in the Militia Acts which were passed right after it.
 
ataraxia said:
No. I seriously don't know. Show me where it talks about them in the Constitution, or in the Militia Acts which were passed right after it.
Click to expand...
See the amended post. And since you are discussing post passage legislative actions you might consider studying the composition of the militia as constituted in the US Code.
 
radcen said:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


Basically, I think SCOTUS got it right in Heller and McDonald: whatever the specific intended definition of "militia", there is no way that the right to bear arms could protect a militia's ability to resist tyrannical government unless the right is individual. You couldn't have a functional militia if people couldn't individually possess arms. If they could only be stored on government property, then how could they ever be used if government turned tyrannical? (And there is no doubt that resisting tyrannical government was very much on the founder's minds, in this and many other provisions).

I also tend to agree that the history and general context of the times indicates that people also personally possessed firearms for self-defense, hunting, and murdering Indians. It was very much an individual right at the time.



I don't think the meaning of "well regulated Militia" is clear. Does it mean, regulated a lot? Or does it mean that the regulations are not crappy? Does it mean government supervision? Or does it mean that the purpose of bearing arms is so that there might be a "well regulated militia", whatever that may be, at need? Does it mean then, in turn, that people should be able to bear whatever kind of arms the army bears, such that the "well regulated militia" could actively resist a tyrannical government? I don't know.

I don't know for certain and nobody who claims to does either. We all have opinions, sometimes argued, sometimes assumed. But no, it isn't clear. Nothing in the constitution is clear because everyone wants words to mean different things. "Probable cause" is not clear, "cruel and unusual" is not clear, etc. All you have to do to prove it is ask twenty different people want they consider to be probable cause to arrest someone for murder, or what punishments are cruel and unusual.

Of course, these are generally hopeless debates because of the people who insist that the constitution is clear and they're the chosen person to tell us what it so clearly means, all other interpretations be damned.
 
ataraxia said:
First of all, I am not sure why this means that we can't close the loophole on schizophrenics, felons, and suspected terrorists buying the weapons of their choice.
Click to expand...

Schizophrenics and felons are already barred by law from buying guns. And in our system of justice you cannot remove someone's rights simply because of them being "suspected" of doing something illegal. So what more do you want? Do you really think that a criminal will get the gun they have registered? How about a schizophrenic?

ataraxia said:
Second of all, all other developed democracies on the planet, from Sweden and France, to Israel and Japan, have more sensible regulations on gun ownership. And we are still waiting for the tyrannies to rise in them. Still... nothing. If anyone should be worried about personal safety, it should be the Israelis. And yet even they require registration and training for those purchasing firearms. This obsessive suspicion in the US with their government is highly unusual, strange, and dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

Hate to godwin but Hitler lived in a democratic country and was elected to his office. He banned guns for every single Jew in the country.

Just because there may be countries with more stringent laws regarding guns that are not tyrannical, yet, doesn't mean that they won't become tyrannical. History shows that tyranny is always preceded by a populace that has been disarmed and cannot defend themselves. Ignore history at your own peril is an old axiom that should be listened to.
 
VanceMack said:
As you yourself would admit (and pointed out) the 2nd Amendment was ratified BEFORE the passage of the Militia Act of 1792. .
Click to expand...

Seriously?
The 2nd amendment was ratified December 15, 1791.
1st militia act: May 2, 1792.

For those with wanting math skills: that's less than 5 months difference. And yet nothing about an "unregulated militia". :lamo
 
ataraxia said:
"Unorganized militia"?! What the heck is that? Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. That amendment STARTS with the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary...".

Now you're just making stuff up. What are you, Trump now?
Click to expand...

Read post 32 before you continue with this line of thought....
 
ataraxia said:
Not really. Because the year after the ratification of the 2nd amendment, congress (many of whom were involved in framing the Constitution and the amendments as well), passed the Militia Act of 1792:

"The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794...

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.


The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
________________
So, in today's terms, what this means is that all able bodied men over age 18 would be conscripted into the militia, at the very least reporting every 6 months for mandatory intensive training and discipline. They would be required to purchase certain weapons and ammo on their own dime, and to make sure they are in working order.

Barack Obama, as your commander in chief, could then order you to go in and suppress a tax uprising at any time, like George Washington did with the Whiskey Rebellion. And if you disobeyed any of the above, you could be facing court martial.

That's the original intent behind the 2nd amendment.

So why don't you go out now and yell and scream about how unconstitutional we have become.
Click to expand...

Well, no, not necessarily. Acts passed in the founding area on a subject also addressed by the constitution logically should carry weight in constitutional interpretation, but they certainly aren't the be-all/end-all.
 
Schizophrenics and felons are already barred by law from buying guns. And in our system of justice you cannot remove someone's rights simply because of them being "suspected" of doing something illegal. So what more do you want?
Click to expand...

Any schizophrenic can buy whatever they want through the gun show loopholes. Why the fierce opposition to closing them?

Because it might hurt sales for NRA members. That's why.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, no, not necessarily. Acts passed in the founding area on a subject also addressed by the constitution logically should carry weight in constitutional interpretation, but they certainly aren't the be-all/end-all.
Click to expand...

It shows original intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom