Illinois House of Representatives: Overturn Heller Decision

Even more horrifying is the fact that the statement was made by Stevens, a SCOTUS justice and reflects the way nearly half of the court feels about Heller.

It is entirely possible that within the next decade, Heller could be reversed and the 2nd Amendment reinterpreted as not an individual right after all.

Even more possible if a Democrat gets to pick the next couple of Supreme Court justices.

First of all if you ain’t from here (U.S.) [~ 3-4 generations deep] your entitled to your opinion but no one’s asking you to solve/decide/define/or figure out SH_T for us, you all have enough broken toys to F with. If you are from the other group (from here) no one’s asking you either. If you have a black robe and a gavel then you are there to protect the Constitution FROM OUTSIDE LAW. Further you are to decide in matters of party diversity, and some international law matters. You are not the founding fathers, NEITHER ARE OUR SERVANTS WHO APPOINTED YOU. Chuck the Constitution as prescribed ONLY (at your peril). Or by other means as a revolution (as a citizen, not in that position). In all cases, while you wear the title, you beat back attacks on the Constitution, or pack your sh_t and GO HOME.

Given contemporary usage of the term regulated, well- and un- are by now synonyms. And not just with regards to the militia, either.

The 16th century definition is not so different from the contemporary. People have a penchant for stating otherwise, contrary to established fact.

This, and your following statement, are an abject lie, and you know it.

They are absolute truth. That I know, look it up for yourself. Or try gunsite, they have the definition there for you.

I’ll contribute this, a quote from the Oxford English Dictionary:

“†b.b Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare—1.

   1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.”

Clearly, as the justices noted, the word’s meaning and emphasis have shifted. Nonetheless, a prefatory clause is not determinative of the amendment’s meaning. There is certainly evidence that the citizens of the new nation believed the right to keep and bear arms was theirs. They made frequent and open use of that right.

Properly disciplined is not an obsolete definition. Indeed, written regulations exist as a manner of enforcing discipline.
Also consider regulated pressure sources, voltage, time-keeping, etc…all held to some standard measure of performance.

The meaning hasn’t shifted. We have a well-regulated militia, the National Guard. Read the powers of Congress.
Well-regulated translates something akin to paraprofessional.
The populace may be considered unorganized militia, but that hardly qualifies as well-regulated. Without regular training and drill as a team such is impossible.

Actually, the 2A does exist to create one (that’s why the “well-regulated militia” part is in there). And you are right, we don’t have anything like a functional militia, regulated or un.

The federal gov is commanded to preserve (as in “shall not infringe”) the individual citizens’ right to keep and bear arms and to put that right to use by maintaining a well-regulated militia. It has been an abject failure on all counts.

In regards to the Illinois legislature, they need to take the advice they no doubt gave social conservatives who wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade — just shut the f*** up and deal with reality.

No, the 2a does not exist to create any militia. It is an enumerated right, not duty.
Congress was empowered to organize, arm, train, and equip militias prior to the 2a being added. Congress could arm militia personnel without regard to any people’s right to arms, like is done in many other countries. The 2a exists to enumerate a people’s right, just like the rest of the bill of rights.

” We have a well-regulated militia, the National Guard.”
Which was created AFTER the constitution was ratified.

Try again, genius.

Read the powers of Congress. Maybe you are capable of learning something.

Not really. If you actually read the Constitution (hint: powers of Congress) you will find that the militia we call the National Guard was created by the Constitution.
It doesn’t take genius to see that, just literacy.

“Given the contemporary languague…”

Holy Sh_t you’re reaching. The FLESH LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS THERE AND READABLE. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It’s written because they knew the dictatorial detractors could not all be rounded up and violently destroyed [permanently] or else they would have DEFINED THAT TASK AND MEANS, AND WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY GOT THAT DONE. Instead we continually suffer fools and clowns, that we will be after in due time BECAUSE WE HAVE THE 2nd Amendment TO EQUIP US TO.

Paul, you do realize that the articles of the constitution specifically define who the militia is? Basically any able-bodied male citizen. So if the 2A was only for the milita, any able-bodied male can own a gun. Arguing in circles dude.

I do realize that you are very confused. Maybe read the Constitution, instead of referencing “articles” of it that don’t exist?
I was not arguing against the rkba, just the illogic some use for their justification.
Go ahead, read the Constitution, the “article” you cite isn’t there. I even know where it is, but it isn’t part of the Constitution, nor does it claim the populace as a well-regulated militia. Sorry

“The 16th century definition is not so different from the contemporary.”

It was different enough not to encompass the practical equivalent of an outright ban, which is what the term is largely used as a stand-in for today.

As pertains to the Government, Citizens, the Militia and arms, The Militia was understood to be very different from; indeed an antidote to, should need arise; a potential standing army under government command. As in, should there be a conflict between The Government and The People, the Militia would be the armed wing of The People. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t be regulated, but it does put a pretty solid crimp on the kind and degree of constraints the Government could impose on it.

Sorry, but no. The militia, the organized, trained (well-regulated) one, is a tool under the powers of Congress that could be used against the people. Guess you still haven’t read past the Bill of Rights, huh? Or any of the federalist papers?

“The militia, the organized, trained (well-regulated) one, is a tool under the powers of Congress that could be used against the people.”

I don’t know whether you’re just being obtuse for the sake of it, but does “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.” really read to you like the militia is there to stomp on the people and make their state unfree?

Have you ever read the Constitution? Federalist or anti-Federalist papers? It seems not.
That militia you reference, under the powers of Congress:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Yes, they are not the general populace, and yes they were a threat to the people. Remember, we had just dealt with martial law in the colonies. Guess why the 3a is an enumerated right?
So yes, that militia was a threat, and the right of the people to be armed is to counter that militia. The idea that the general populace could somehow be a well-regulated militia is inane.

The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. Hence the reason the word “unalienable” is used in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away. The Second Amendment “codified” a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed”. Again this is not a right granted by the Constitution.
The use of the word “militia” has created some confusion because we don’t understand the language as it was used at the time the Constitution was written. However in context,it’s clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

@Paul G,

So what you are saying, is that the way to read the second is along the lines of: A well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. But, because any well regulated militia can become a threat to the people, the right of the people to arm themselves should not be infringed. So that they can defend themselves against said militia?

Or generalized and short: the government needs an army. Which can be turned on the people. Therefore the people need to be armed to defend themselves?

I have never heard that particular interpretation before, but it doesn’t sound impossible, given the 2As wording.

Every interpretation I have ever heard, casts the militia as the arm of the people necessary to defend against any possible standing army. And that the people needs to be armed so they can ensure said militia is militarily relevant. What you seem to suggest is that the militia IS the “standing army.” Or at least it’s equivalent in terms of chain of command. And that the people therefore needs to be armed to defend themselves against it. It’s certainly clever and original, even if I’m not 100% sure I fully buy into it. Regardless, thanks for not being an idiot, and bringing up a point diametrically opposed to gun-guy dogma, that actually makes some sense.

You got it, Stuki. Early on, we expected to have a minimal standing army, with a well-regulated militia providing for the common defense. Didn’t quite pan out, so the standing armies stuck around.

Paul G, you show a total lack of understanding of what the Second Amendment says and the Federalist papers. The “militia” are the general population capable of bearing arms. That is the militia that Congress can call forward. That is why the Constitution refers to “the militia,” i.e. a pre-existing body. Note that nowhere does the Constitution itself create a formal select militia that it then refers to for Congress to call forth. That is because the militia is the people. Congress cannot call forth the militia to be used against the people. It can only call forth the militia to suppress insurrections, repel invasions, and things like that. When Congress calls forth the militia, the organization of the militia is handled by each of the states regarding their respective portions of it.

The Second Amendment itself, in speaking of a “well-regulated militia,” is only making a prefatory clause, not a conditional clause. It would be like an amendment stating the following:

“A well educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose information shall not be infringed.”

Obviously, the electorate can never be literally “well educated,” but to have anything semblance of a well educated electorate, one needs to protect the right to read and compose information. Same with a well regulated militia. To have any semblance of that, the individual right to keep and bear arms must be protected.

“Well regulated” itself at the time just meant “well functioning,” “in good working order,” etc…the Federalist Papers that you claim to have read state very clearly that the militia can never be expected to possess the level of skill of professional soldiers, that at best, all one can hope for is that they be armed fairly similarly (and even today, that is not doable).

I understand exactly what I am speaking about. You are confusing the “militia”, a generic term, with a well-regulated militia, which is not the same. The people may be “the militia”, but they are not the well-regulated one that was envisioned as the nation’s primary defense, and a government tool that posed a threat to the people. The state militias did exist pre-Constitution, but it was the Constitution that folded them into federal service. That was when they became a likely adversary of the people.
Next time you read, go for comprehension .

Kyle, this:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
makes quite clear that the militia can be used against the people. Capiche?
Well-regulated did not mean well-functioning, it had real meaning. This describes a well-regulated militia:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
organized, armed, trained, disciplined, with a chain of command.
And…..directed by the gov!….a threat to the people.

Kyle, the federalist papers never sought to try and make excuses for why well-regulated could never mean well-regulated. Nope. It explained why the people could never be well-regulated, but that smaller groups could be trained to that standard. Again, comp!etely in agreement with my comments.

I understand exactly what I am speaking about. You are confusing the “militia”, a generic term, with a well-regulated militia, which is not the same.

Except that the phrase “well regulated militia” is just a statement of the importance of the protection of the right, not something created by the Constitution that Congress can then call utilize. The amendments are not what create the powers of the government. Those are found in the articles, where the House, Senate, Executive, etc…are created and described. No where in any of those is there any creation of a militia. But yet the militia is referred to a pre-existing body. That is because the militia is not a government creation, i.e. a select militia, but rather is in reference to the general population. The Bill of Rights came after the Constitution had been written and ratified.

The people may be “the militia”, but they are not the well-regulated one that was envisioned as the nation’s primary defense, and a government tool that posed a threat to the people. The state militias did exist pre-Constitution, but it was the Constitution that folded them into federal service. That was when they became a likely adversary of the people.
Next time you read, go for comprehension .

There was no “well regulated” select militia that was envisioned as the nation’s primary defense. The primary defense was always seen as the militia at large, the general population capable of bearing arms. The Constitution provides Congress the power to raise a formal army if they deem it necessary. The Federalist papers speak of the issue of select militias, which the Founders and many were suspicious of. Nor were there any select state militias at the time that were folded into federal service. That came later, when later select militias were folded into service as part of the newly-created National Guard. But at the time of ratification, the militia was clearly understood as being the people. This federal select militia you speak of never existed (which is why one was formally created later in the form of the National Guard, which is formally part of the United States standing military).

Kyle this:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
makes quite clear that the militia can be used against the people. Capiche?

I specifically stated the militia can be used to suppress insurrections. That is not using it against the people, that is using the people to protect the nation, as an insurrection could be from any number of groups. In modern times for example, you could have Nazis trying to stage an insurrection, communists trying (communists are notorious throughout history for doing just this), radical Muslims, or some other group.

The Federalist papers specifically talk of just this issue, where they state that if an insurrection was to form in one state, the militia of multiple other states could be called and marched into that state to quell it. Again, there was nothing about any select standing federal militia that would be called forth. Just the general population capable of bearing arms.

Well-regulated did not mean well-functioning, it had real meaning. This describes a well-regulated militia:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
organized, armed, trained, disciplined, with a chain of command.
And…..directed by the gov!….a threat to the people.

Well-regulated most definitely meant well-functioning. One can find references to a well-regulated government, a well-regulated society, a well-regulated hairstyle, a well-regulated drawing room, a well-regulated school, a well-regulated machine shop, etc…in the writings of the time and into the 19th century (before formal government regulation). Well-regulated militia meant a well-functioning militia.

Regarding your citing of the Constitution there, look at the language. Note first how it says for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. If this is in reference to a select federal militia, then why is that language even there? A standing select militia will already be organized, armed, and disciplined. Note the Constitution does not mention about organizing, arming, or disciplining an army, because it’s implied that if you raise an army, you’ll do all those things. Same with a standing militia. The reason that language is there is because it is not in reference to any standing select militia, but rather the militia at large, the general population.

If the militia at large is required for a national emergency, it is up to Congress to organize, arm, and discipline it. The appointment of the officers of it is left to the states and the actual training of the militia is also left to the states.

Kyle, the federalist papers never sought to try and make excuses for why well-regulated could never mean well-regulated. Nope. It explained why the people could never be well-regulated, but that smaller groups could be trained to that standard. Again, comp!etely in agreement with my comments.

I never said the federalist papers claimed any such thing. I said that the federalist papers stated that the militia could never itself be well regulated because, being that the militia is the general population capable of bearing arms, that would mean that every general citizen would also have to try to attain the proficiency with arms of a professional soldier. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 29, that would severely hamper the economic productivity of the entire country. Which also makes quite clear that “the militia” is in reference to the general population, not any select federal militia. A select federal militia would be a way to have a well-regulated militia, but there is no provision for Congress to create any such thing in the Constitution, only a standing army and navy. It gets around this by making the select militia it has officially part of the standing military.

Standing armies were highly distrusted, hence the desire to rely on well-regulated militia. Please, actually do the reading. Or try

What you call a select militia is a well-regulated militia. It was not originally part of the standing army. Even the Nat’l Guard of today has a degree of autonomy.

Well-regulated refers to the importance of the right? That’s hilarious! What right to militias? Where is that enumerated? Why would they refer to a well-regulated ideal that is unattainable instead of just saying the ” supremely important” right?
Why? Because you keep redefining terms or disregarding them to fit your own fantasy.

Also keep in mind that the Bill of Rights were only agreed upon by the Founders in order to win the support for ratification of the Constitution by the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists would not support the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, which the Federalists saw as unnecessary and even counter-productive. The anti-Federalists were extremely distrustful of the government created by the Constitution. They would in no way have supported any amendment that claimed the right was tied to a select standing federal militia.

The Federalist papers themselves also talk specifically about how the militia (at large) would be used to defend the country as opposed to any select militias. No where is there talk about there being need to create a standing select militia. The whole history of classical republican political philosophy is filled with talk about how the militia, i.e. the general population capable of bearing arms period, are who protect against invasions, insurrections, and check tyranny. Select militias were the province of kings and princes who didn’t quite have the money to maintain a standing army but wanted a specific military force that could be used to oppress the people, and as such were highly distrusted by the Founders.

So the powers of Congress are no longer part of the Constitution?

Comprehension is obviously a problem for you. I never claimed the rkba is tied to a militia, you imply it with your “the people are the militia” tripe. The people are not a well-regulated militia. Then you try and minimize the meaning of well-regulated to suit your desires, contrary to reality.
Maybe get someone to read and explain for you.

Standing armies were highly distrusted, hence the desire to rely on well-regulated militia. Please, actually do the reading. Or try

Select militias were also highly-distrusted. As said, they were a way for kings and princes to maintain special military forces without having to pay for a full standing army. There was no desire anywhere to rely on any select militia and the Constitution doesn’t create one.

What you call a select militia is a well-regulated militia. It was not originally part of the standing army. Even the Nat’l Guard of today has a degree of autonomy.

The only type of militia that could specifically be literally “well regulated” would be a select militia, but the statement about a well regulated militia in the Second Amendment was a statement about the importance of the right, not a reference to any select militia anywhere (as there is none created in the Constitution). To use the well educated electorate example, a literal well educated electorate would have to be a select portion of the electorate, as the electorate at large can never literally be expected to be well educated. But one could very much imagine writing, “A well educated elecotrate being necessary to the preservation of a free society…” as a statement in an amendment about the importance of protecting the right to read and compose information.

So the powers of Congress are no longer part of the Constitution?

There is no power of Congress to create any kind of select militia. They only have the power to call forth the militia (and organize, discipline, etc…it), which is seen as pre-existing, not having been created anywhere in the Constitution.

Comprehension is obviously a problem for you. I never claimed the rkba is tied to a militia, you imply it with your “the people are the militia” tripe. The people are not a well-regulated militia. Then you try and minimize the meaning of well-regulated to suit your desires, contrary to reality.
Maybe get someone to read and explain for you.

You must not be very familiar with the writings on the subject from the time as it is very clear that the people are the militia. Hamilton makes this very clear in Federalist 29, and it is clear in how the Federalist Papers distinguish between “the militia” and “select militias.” The Virginia Ratification convention also talks about “the militia at large” versus “select militia.” Of course the people are not a well regulated militia. Nor could they ever be a well educated electorate. But a well educated electorate is essential to preserving liberty, and a well regulated militia is essential as well. Both are statements of importance for protecting their respective rights. They are not conditional clauses at all.

If the mention of a well regulated militia in the Second had anything to do with a select militia, then the rest of the Constitution (which was written and ratified first) would make mention of it. It would say something like, “Congress shall have the power to raise a select militia force out of the militia at large…”

Yes, the well-regulated militia clause does relate to the right, not as in the people are a well-regulated militia, but because such a militia was the expected source of tyranny at the hands of government.
You know, by suppressing insurrections and enforcing laws.
Odd too, lots of countries have select militias without having princes or kings. Are you living in fantasy land?

Yes, the well-regulated militia clause does relate to the right, not as in the people are a well-regulated militia, but because such a militia was the expected source of tyranny at the hands of government.
You know, by suppressing insurrections and enforcing laws.
Odd too, lots of countries have select militias without having princes or kings. Are you living in fantasy land?

Again, no well regulated militia, i.e. select militia, was ever intended to suppress insurrections and enforce laws and repel invasions. That was the militia at large, which the Congress has the power to call forth. That is why the Constitution refers the militia as a pre-existing body and makes no mention anywhere about select militias. The Federalist Papers make very clear that the militia is the general population.

A select militia could very much be a tool for tyranny. So could a standing army. They also could be used to protect the country from invasions and insurrections. But historically, they were also used for oppressing the people.

Yes, lots of countries have select militias without having princes or kings. So what? The United States has the most powerful standing military ever seen and is not a dictatorship. Some countries have no explicit protections for rights at all and are still democratic. But that doesn’t stop the risk from being there. The point also isn’t about modern times so much as the time the Constitution was written, where there was huge concern about select militias and standing armies.

No Kyle, you are just wrong. Well-regulated was not just a euphemism. Look at the articles of confederation:
but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed ande accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Do you really think the states were required to train, arm, and outfit all-able bodied men. Obviously not. Well-regulated meant trained. Even taking your concept of well I functioning, a militia that is not trained does not function.
Fast forward to the Constitution, those same militias are folded into federal oversight. Not general military, but well-trained. Congress was even unpowered to arm them. That is not the general populace.
Your fantasy that well-regulated referee to all able bodied men is just that, fantasy.
It is very clear that the well-regulated militia were not generic, but were well-trained, intended to serve as an alternative to standing armies. Contrary to your assertions, standing armies were highly distrusted, well-regulated militias a little less so, though still distrusted. Still, they were needed for the security of the state, especially without standing armies.
So, those well-regulated militias, being able to be used by government against the people, were a threat, but needed. A very good preface reason for the right of the people to be armed, to opposes government abuses.
Sorry, facts just do not support your fantasy. But hey, you are learning something, that is a good thing.

No Kyle, you are just wrong. Well-regulated was not just a euphemism. Look at the articles of confederation:
but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed ande accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Do you really think the states were required to train, arm, and outfit all-able bodied men. Obviously not. Well-regulated meant trained. Even taking your concept of well I functioning, a militia that is not trained does not function.

Well-regulated meant well functioning or in good working order as stated. But the Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution. Under the Articles, there was no real central government. That was why they came up with the Constitution. The Constitution makes no mention of state militias or any federal militia. Just the militia, i.e. the general population capable of bearing arms.

Fast forward to the Constitution, those same militias are folded into federal oversight. Not general military, but well-trained. Congress was even unpowered to arm them. That is not the general populace.
Your fantasy that well-regulated referee to all able bodied men is just that, fantasy.

Only they weren’t. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution or in the Federalist Papers about the militia consisting of select state militias being folded into a formal select federal militia. If that had been the case, the Constitution would make explicit mention of it. The phrase well-regulated in the Second Amendment is just a declarative statement about the importance of protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. It was not any modification of the rest of the Constitution itself.

It is very clear that the well-regulated militia were not generic, but were well-trained, intended to serve as an alternative to standing armies. Contrary to your assertions, standing armies were highly distrusted, well-regulated militias a little less so, though still distrusted. Still, they were needed for the security of the state, especially without standing armies.

The problem with your claim is that there was no federal well-regulated militia. Again, no mention of it in the Constitution or in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, in Federalist #29, argues that he himself could be for the formation of a select militia, because he saw it that it would be impossible for the militia at large to have the characteristic of well-regulated troops. However, he also said that others would disagree, as they distrust select militias, and that it would be up to the Congress to decide on whether ultimately to form such a militia. This thus shows a few things. For one, it shows that the word “militia” was understood as referring to the general population capable of bearing arms, not any select militia. Two, it shows that the Constitution doesn’t at all create any select federal militia for the government. As Hamilton said, the Congress itself would have to try that if they desired it, as he saw it.

Which is exactly what happened later on, when the National Guard was created.

So, those well-regulated militias, being able to be used by government against the people, were a threat, but needed. A very good preface reason for the right of the people to be armed, to opposes government abuses.
Sorry, facts just do not support your fantasy. But hey, you are learning something, that is a good thing.

The mention of a well regulated militia as a declarative statement in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with it being viewed as a threat and thus it being important to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. To support that assertion, you need to show where in the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, any mention is made of a select federal militia that is created. There are none. In addition, you need to explain why the prefatory clause states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” Nowhere is there anything about how a select federal well regulated militia could be a threat to a free state. If it was written as you are claiming, it would say, “A well regulated militia, being a threat to the security of a free state…” Then you’d have an argument. Instead, it is a statement about the importance of a well regulated militia to the security of a free state (i.e. against tyranny, insurrections, and foreign invasions), and hence why it is important to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Keep trying Kyle. So how do all able bodied men become a well-regulated militia? Oh, you yourself say they didn’t really mean it, proof the government lies!
Or they meant a smaller, dedicated group. Hint, they did. Like the minute men.
Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute’s warning – hence they were called “minute men.”

Did You Know?

Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute’s warning – hence they were called “minute men”

The more you know, the less you try to impose your fantasy on others. Sorry Kyle, you are not part of the well-regulated militia.

Keep trying Kyle. So how do all able bodied men become a well-regulated militia? Oh, you yourself say they didn’t really mean it, proof the government lies!

Not a lie at all, just a declarative statement. You seem unable to understand that concept. I could say to you that a well educated electorate is very important for preserving a free society. Does that mean that the electorate could ever really be expected to be actually well-educated? Likely not. No different than with a well regulated militia.

Look at Article 1, Section 8 where it says:

“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;”

So does this then mean that copyrights and patents are only applicable for things that promote the progress of science and useful arts? So then things like the Game of Thrones novels, Fifty Shades of Grey, all of Stephen King’s novels, Ann Rice’s novels, etc…the government must have zero authority to issue copyrights for any of those, because they do not promote the progress of either science or useful arts. Patents on new toys also would not be under the authority of the government.

Of course that would be ridiculous. “To promote the progress of science and useful arts” is a declarative statement.

Or they meant a smaller, dedicated group. Hint, they did. Like the minute men.
Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

No they didn’t, or the Constitution would explicitly specify it. It doesn’t. There is no mention of a select militia in the Constitution. You made that up out of thin air by trying to claim that the Second Amendment is a conditional statement that grants the government a power, something none of the Bill of Rights do. Their only purpose to government was to limit it.

While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute’s warning – hence they were called “minute men.”

The more you know, the less you try to impose your fantasy on others. Sorry Kyle, you are not part of the well-regulated militia.

There is no well regulated militia, no more than stating that a well educated electorate is important makes everyone part of some well educated electorate. It was only a declarative statement. You are only making this all the more clear by your inability to address the fact that the Constitution says nothing about a select militia and the main work explaining why the Constitution should be ratified, the Federalist Papers, clearly explains that the militia is the general population (hence why Hamilton says that trying to discipline the militia would be impossible and why he thus would support the creation of a select militia, but that such a proposal is merely his opinion and not any part of the proposed Constitution. The mention of the militia by the Constitution is the general population.

It isn’t a declarative statement. If it were it would be contrary to known fact. And prior use of the term makes it quite clear.
Sorry Kyle, you will never be a part of a well-regulated militia.
Even the current US code has the male populace as unorganized militia. Unorganized cannot equal well-regulated. Think of the firing order on a car. Do you prefer it unorganuzed, or well-regulated. It can’t,be both

It isn’t a declarative statement. If it were it would be contrary to known fact. And prior use of the term makes it quite clear.

It has been known fact for quite some time that it is a declarative statement. It is also quite clear from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers themselves that it is a declarative statement. The only time it was “known fact” that it was not a declarative statement was back when there was much historical ignorance about the Second Amendment and the legal profession claimed it was a protection of state militias.

Sorry Kyle, you will never be a part of a well-regulated militia.
Even the current US code has the male populace as unorganized militia. Unorganized cannot equal well-regulated. Think of the firing order on a car. Do you prefer it unorganuzed, or well-regulated. It can’t,be both

The militia will never be well-regulated, that is correct. But in order to have any semblance of it being well-regulated, the right must be protected. Same as how it has often been said that a well educated population or electorate is important to protecting freedom, even though the electorate will never overall be actually well educated. Again, there never was any select well-regulated militia. The Constitution makes no mention of any such thing anywhere. It creates the House, Senate, Executive, Judiciary, and explains the powers of them. It says nothing about a select militia anywhere. And the Federalist Papers, which were written precisely to convince people to support ratification of the Constitution, quite clearly show that the militia was understood as the general population capable of bearing arms.

No Kyle, the Nat’l Guard is a well-regulated militia. Absent the 2a, such wishful thinking statements as well-regulated do not exist. You can make hypotheticals, but they,aren’t there. Thus no reason to believe that it was wishful thinking.
If government had need to arm a militia, well regulated or not, the Bill of Rights is not where they would do so. They already had so provided, in the powers of Congress. So the 2a has nothing to do with arming any militia.
No rkba is required for arming a militia anyways.
Also, militia participation for the security of a free state is not a right, it is an obligation. Huge difference. Again, the BoR is not where such ideas would be presented.
Thus, the idea that a rkba would be linked to militia participation by the 2a is hokum.
That is the true wishful thibking.
The 2a has a preface, a reason the people need a rkba, not participatory, but precautionary.
I already showed you there were differences in militia participation back then, as now. The US code says so.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

No Kyle, the Nat’l Guard is a well-regulated militia. Absent the 2a, such wishful thinking statements as well-regulated do not exist. You can make hypotheticals, but they,aren’t there. Thus no reason to believe that it was wishful thinking.

Where is the National Guard mentioned in the Constitution? The National Guard is officially part of the Army and the Air Force. And the Constitution doesn’t create an army, air force, or military of any kind. It just says that Congress has the power to do so if it feels the need. The creation of a standing military does not entail a militia part of it, which is why the National Guard wasn’t created until long after the creation of the U.S. military. Yet the Constitution repeatedly makes reference to a pre-existing militia. That militia is the American people at large, not the National Guard.

If government had need to arm a militia, well regulated or not, the Bill of Rights is not where they would do so. They already had so provided, in the powers of Congress. So the 2a has nothing to do with arming any militia.
No rkba is required for arming a militia anyways.
Also, militia participation for the security of a free state is not a right, it is an obligation. Huge difference. Again, the BoR is not where such ideas would be presented.
Thus, the idea that a rkba would be linked to militia participation by the 2a is hokum.
That is the true wishful thibking.
The 2a has a preface, a reason the people need a rkba, not participatory, but precautionary.

The preface is indeed precautionary, but it has nothing to do with meaning that there is some select federal militia. Again, just check the Federalist Papers.

I already showed you there were differences in militia participation back then, as now. The US code says so.

That code was created later though, not at ratification.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now go and compare that with the roles, command structure, and training and doctrine of the National Guard.
Wow! So alike! The national guard is the well-regulated militia. The people are the unorganized militia. Big difference. Sorry.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Guard

Its only a legal definition, so you will probably tell me the words don’t really mean what they say, right?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now go and compare that with the roles, command structure, and training and doctrine of the National Guard.
Wow! So alike! The national guard is the well-regulated militia. The people are the unorganized militia. Big difference. Sorry.

The National Guard is a well-regulated militia of today. It is not, however, the militia that is referred to in the Constitution, which is very clearly the general public capable of bearing arms (again, read the Federalist Papers). Because again, it didn’t exist at the time of the ratification of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and the Constitution does not create any militia. It creates a House, Senate, Executive, and Judiciary and spells out the duties and powers of them all. It does not create a militia that is then referred to.

Part of the militia’s purpose is to check tyranny. That goes back to Aristotle who outlines in his work “Politics” how the citizens of the state need to be armed in order to prevent tyranny. And many rulers had continually tried to disarm the militia in England over the years. A select federal militia is not going to check tyranny because it is part of the government.

The National Guard is the type of organized militia that Hamilton said he would be okay with forming in Federalist 29, but that such a thing was just his own opinion and suggestion, but not part of the proposed Constitution and something that many others would be distrustful of (and not surprisingly—in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, it was local police and National Guard who went out and confiscated weapons from law-abiding citizens).

The National Guard was an organized militia, not a part of the Army, in the late 1700’s. I guess you didn’t read that part.
Again, you make claims that are not evident. The federalist papers, and especially Aristotle, are inadmissable, you deny any other sources I offer, you have to play bythe same rules. Besides, Congress had broad powers to organize the militia, remember? Are you part of that organized militia?
Your last paragraph only drives home my point, I thought about bringing it up myself.. It was exactly fear of those type of actions that led to the militia mention in the 2a. Think!!!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Guard

Its only a legal definition, so you will probably tell me the words don’t really mean what they say, right?

The link gets the following wrong:

After the American Revolution, the First Congress of the United States did not consider the formation of a militia a top priority, and it disbanded the Continental Army. Congress did not officially debate the notion of a militia until the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Constitution authorized a standing army in its Army Clause (art. I, § 8, cl. 12) and provided for a militia under the Militia Clauses (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16). Under the Constitution, the militia is to be available for federal service for three distinct purposes: “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Congress is to organize and discipline the militia, and the states are to appoint officers and train the soldiers.

The Constitution never “provided for a militia.” That is a sneaky way of a gun-control academic trying to make it sound as if the Constitution provides for the creation of an army and a militia. It doesn’t. The army is never referred to as a pre-existing entity in the Constitution. Let’s look at the language of the relevant clauses:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

Nowhere are either the army or navy ever referred to as pre-existing entities. They are non-existent entities that the Constitution grants the Congress the power to create. The army and navy are not, themselves, created by the Constitution.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now note how the militia is repeatedly referred to as “the militia,” i.e. a pre-existing entity. Which is not surprising as it is also clearly shown to be the general population by Hamilton in Federalist 29, which is why he also says he would be okay with a select militia, because it would be impossible to make it where the militia itself has the characteristic of being well regulated.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to just create a militia nor does the Constitution itself create a militia. Referring to “the militia” as opposed to “militias” or “a militia” means that the militia is pre-existing, which means it is either the general population or a creation of the Constitution itself. So that would mean that the Constitution creates it somewhere. But it doesn’t.

The militia is the general population capable of bearing arms. That is what the history clearly shows. It is not a select federal militia.

Your denial of fact is very strong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/101
I know, it precludes you being able to say you are your own well regulated militia. Bummer. Comprehension is key.

Unless you have been organized, armed, and disciplined by act of Congress, you are not the well-regulated militia. See, that is exactly what well-regulated means, and is what is necessary of a militia expected to be for the defense of state. Who are your officers, the ones appointed by the state? If you do not meet those criteria, then in your thinking, you have no right to 2a protection . Nowhere does it say well-regulated is wishful thinking, you cannot assume it so.
See, that is the militia, the well-regulated one, the one Congress can call forth to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. That militia, the well-regulated one, is a threat to the people, it is a tool of government, and that is why it is mentioned in the 2a. The people have a right to be armed, and that threat is one of the reasons why.
You are a militia in your mind. You keep referring g to “history”, to support your militia claims, show me in the constitution. You disregarded my reference to the articles of confederation, so obviously in your mind nothing pre-constitution is valid. Just like there was an Army and Navy pre-constitution. Don’t go to the US code, you disregarded my references there as well.
Define the militia, as the Constitution says. What it does do is give Congress broad powers over the militia. Maybe you missed that? You do miss quite a lot, it seems. Historically, anyways, but that isn’t in the Constitution, so is not valid.

Your denial of fact is very strong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/101
I know, it precludes you being able to say you are your own well regulated militia. Bummer. Comprehension is key.

I think i’ve made it pretty clear that you are ignoring the hard facts to suit your own view. That is why you haven’t actively refuted any of my points but rather just claim they’re wrong. Also your link refutes your own argument. Note the first piece of information given:

(1) For purposes of other laws relating to the militia, the National Guard, the Army National Guard of the United States, and the Air National Guard of the United States, the term “Territory” includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.

Note how it says “the militia,” then it says “the National Guard,”. The two are distinct.

Unless you have been organized, armed, and disciplined by act of Congress, you are not the well-regulated militia. See, that is exactly what well-regulated means, and is what is necessary of a militia expected to be for the defense of state. Who are your officers, the ones appointed by the state? If you do not meet those criteria, then in your thinking, you have no right to 2a protection . Nowhere does it say well-regulated is wishful thinking, you cannot assume it so.

So now you’re claiming that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to being a member of a select governmental force, which pretty much negates the entire purpose of protecting the right. The reality is that all individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with the militia or being part of any select militia. And the militia does not need to be well-regulated to defend the state. That depends on the threat to the state. For example, the Founders called up the militia multiple times to put a stop to insurrections during the Articles of Confederacy and shortly after the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers also talk of how the militia would be utilized for such things.

[b]There is no “well-regulated militia”[/b] in the sense of some select militia. That is why Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, suggests that one should be created, in his opinion. But none exists due to the Constitution, and none is created by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights was strictly about limiting government power, not creating further government powers, and they were written to satisfy the anti-Federalists, who most definitely did not trust select militias, not by the federal government anyhow. The militia is the people. That is shown quite clearly in the writings of the time, and the Federalist Papers (which you ignore).

See, that is the militia, the well-regulated one, the one Congress can call forth to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. That militia, the well-regulated one, is a threat to the people, it is a tool of government, and that is why it is mentioned in the 2a. The people have a right to be armed, and that threat is one of the reasons why.

Now you’re making things up. Where is this “well-regulated militia” that Congress can call up created by the Constitution? You’ll find it isn’t. You WILL however find that the writings of the time distinguished very much between “the militia” (the people) and “select militia.” Just read the Federalist Papers.

The protection of the people’s right to be armed has nothing to do with the creation of any select militia, it has to do with it being a basic right that goes back to ancient times and which had been understood as a core part of republican liberty for centuries.

You are a militia in your mind. You keep referring g to “history”, to support your militia claims, show me in the constitution.

No, I referred to history that was highly influential in the writing of the Constitution, in which there never was any concept of select militias in the principles of republican liberty—select militias were a tool of would-be tyrants. I also pointed you to the Federalist Papers multiple times, which are [b]all about[/b] the Constitution, and where the militia is very [b][i]clearly[/i][/b] explained as being the general population and distinct from any select militia.

I also have shown you the Constitution. You are choosing to interpret it to support your predetermined idea however instead of reading it for what it actually says. It mentions the militia, i.e. the general population. That is why it says nothing about creating a militia anywhere. Congress can organize the militia and so forth, but there is nothing about creating a militia.

You disregarded my reference to the articles of confederation, so obviously in your mind nothing pre-constitution is valid. Just like there was an Army and Navy pre-constitution. Don’t go to the US code, you disregarded my references there as well.

I never disregarded either one of those. And regarding the U.S. code, you do realize that that is not part of the Constitution and came later? It is yourself that ignores the historical knowledge that influenced the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, which very clearly refute your argument.

Define the militia, as the Constitution says. What it does do is give Congress broad powers over the militia. Maybe you missed that? You do miss quite a lot, it seems. Historically, anyways, but that isn’t in the Constitution, so is not valid.

The militia is the people capable of bearing arms. Congress has power over the militia to organize it to check insurrections, invasions, enforce the law, etc…but there is no select “well-regulated” militia created by the Constitution anywhere. You made that up out of whole cloth and ignore the glaring evidence that refutes it. If there was intention for there to be a well-regulated militia, then the Constitution would explicitly make mention of it. It would say that Congress shall have the power to raise a select militia. The “well regulated militia” clause of the Second Amendment is just a declarative statement. It doesn’t create any further governmental powers (the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to further limit them).

It also wouldn’t make sense to mention any well-regulated militia as a threat to freedom to protect the right to keep and bear arms when the Founders more distrusted standing armies and yet wrote the ability to create them into the Constitution. If the Second Amendment was worded, “A well-regulated army being a threat to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” you’d have a point. Or even a well-regulated militia being a threat to the security of a free state.

Otherwise, all historical documents refute your claims.

I have consistently refuted your comments. Your denial of fact is illuminating. You still deny that the NG is the organized or well-regulated militia, despite that being in the legal definition, and that historically the state militias adopted the term national guard, on their own ( excluding Virginia), between 1824 and 1903.
The militia that Congress can call out is also defined by the Constitution. The NG, formerly known as organized state militias, meets those requirements. You cannot ignore that. OK, you do anyways.
I never claimed the 2a has anything to do with the militia membership. You infer it, not I. You also keep declaring that the Constitution says the militia is the people. Show me. No other documents allowed, you didn’t allow my references to other documents, like the very relevant Articles of Confederation. Constitutional references only.
Lastly, you reference regarding a well-regulated army proves my point exactly, and the degree of your delusion. Standing armies were not expected to be a regular part of our government, they were expected to be raised when needed, and disbanded. Some, notably Washington, expected a minimal standing army, with the primary military duties being handled by a trained, disciplined, well-regulated militia.Thus,it is the well-regulated militia that was expected to be the threat, not any well-regulated army.

Your denial of fact is very strong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/101
I know, it precludes you being able to say you are your own well regulated militia. Bummer. Comprehension is key.

BTW, when did I ever claim any individual is a well-regulated militia? You seem to think I am saying the general population is a well-regulated militia. I am not. I am saying the general population is not any well-regulated militia, that the Federalist Papers themselves say that such a thing is impossible for the militia, and it is just a basic declarative statement in the Second Amendment.

There is no well-regulated militia in the Constitution. It also would have been massively stupid for the Founders to use the phrase “the militia,” which was used consistently to refer to the general population capable of bearing arms, to refer to a federal select militia when the phrase “select militia” was used for just such things. But yet there is nothing about “select militia” in the Constitution.

You are terribly confused. First you told me that well-regulated was wishful thinking. Then you tell me the National Guard is a well -regulated millitia.
You do not seem to understand that the National Guard is the state militias. I asked you to show me what the constitutional definition of militia is, all you do is refer to some nebulous.and non- legal “historically”.

The NG is absolutely the people’s organized militia. The first states to change the term militia to NG did so in the mid 1820’s, no federal coercion. When the federal government finally called for all organized state militias to be called National Guard, only Virginia had not already done so on it’s own.
Not exactly a select militia, but an organized (well-regulated) militia, just as the Constitution required. And it isn’t a modern phenomenon. Even way back, the militia was never really “the people”. Women were excluded, as we’re men of certain ages and occupations. Within that sub-group of the people, I sh owed earlier that some militia were more organized than others. The Constitution called for an organized, trained, disciplined (well-regulated) militia. It was not a case of wishful thinking to include the term. Nowhere else in the Constitution is there such wishful thinking.
So in conclusion, the words well-regulated in the 2a have real meaning. The Congress was empowered to act upon state militias to create such well-regulated militias, and did so. There was no need for a 2a to do so. The 2a has nothing to do with creating such militias. Of course, with the people’s lingering and justifiable distrust of any armed forces under government control, to mention such militias as a preface justification for why the people require a right of arms to oppose them is natural. All the people have such a right, not just the 30% or so who qualified to be militia.
Also, unless you are a member of the organized militia, you are not part of the well-regulated militia. That was true even back in the day. Congress, in concert with the states, have the power to define that militia. Your fantasies don’t really matter to them.

I have consistently refuted your comments. Your denial of fact is illuminating. You still deny that the NG is the organized or well-regulated militia, despite that being in the legal definition, and that historically the state militias adopted the term national guard, on their own ( excluding Virginia), between 1824 and 1903.

I never denied any such thing. The National Guard is the modern well-regulated militia. But it is not the militia spoken of in the Constitution, which is not a select militia, but a pre-existing body.

The militia that Congress can call out is also defined by the Constitution. The NG, formerly known as organized state militias, meets those requirements. You cannot ignore that. OK, you do anyways.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. First you claimed that the militia referred to in the Constitution is some organized federal militia. Now you are saying that it refers to the state militias. The fact is that the militia that Congress can call out is not defined in the Constitution. It doesn’t need to be, because it was understood as being the general population. Which is explained in the Federalist papers (which you ignore). Nowhere do the Federalist Papers refer to the militia as being organized (select) state militias. In addition, the Constitution does not refer to the militia as being such. It does not say anything about Congress having the power to call forth “the militias” at all. The idea that the phrase “the militia” refers to state militias is something that gun control proponents made up out of thin air, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Also look to the Virginia ratification debate, where they distinguish between “the militia at large” and “select militia.” Who are the militia at large?

I never claimed the 2a has anything to do with the militia membership. You infer it, not I. You also keep declaring that the Constitution says the militia is the people. Show me. No other documents allowed, you didn’t allow my references to other documents, like the very relevant Articles of Confederation. Constitutional references only.

The Federalist Papers and the Virginia Ratification debate, along with all other discussion of the militia at the time. In particular, Read Federalist 29. Why would Hamilton say that disciplining the militia is impossible if it wasn’t the whole people and thus argue that, in his opinion, we should also have a select militia? You keep trying to rely on the Articles as some definition of the Constitution’s talk of the militia when it isn’t. You also ignore how important the arming of the people, the militia, was during in republican philosophy. And in addition, the phrase “the militia” would not be used in reference to select state militias. The Constitution would use a plural, such as “the militias” or the “state militias.”

Lastly, you reference regarding a well-regulated army proves my point exactly, and the degree of your delusion. Standing armies were not expected to be a regular part of our government, they were expected to be raised when needed, and disbanded. Some, notably Washington, expected a minimal standing army, with the primary military duties being handled by a trained, disciplined, well-regulated militia.Thus,it is the well-regulated militia that was expected to be the threat, not any well-regulated army.

I think you missed my point on the well-regulated army. The point there was to show the poorness of the wording of the Second Amendment if that was what the Founders feared. There is no evidence anywhere that there was supposed to be any standing select well-regulated militia. This you make up on your own and ignore history to do so.

You are inane. I referenced, i.e. proved, my assertions. You have proven zero of your own. Saying “historically” proves nothing.
The federalist papers are quite interesting , but not legal documents.
Take a class or two, read for comprehension, not to find tidbits you think support you fantasies, do something. Or continue to argue with me in absentia. The more you state, the more you lend support to my statements.

You are terribly confused. First you told me that well-regulated was wishful thinking. Then you tell me the National Guard is a well -regulated millitia.

Nothing confusing at all with this. I said that the militia is the general population. Having the militia be well-regulated is thus wishful thinking. This was pointed out by Hamilton in Federalist 29. Hamilton argued that, in his opinion, we thus could augment the militia with a select militia. That wasn’t part of the proposed Constitution, and many disagreed with such an idea (he admits so), but that was his opinion. Today, we do augment the militia with a select militia, which is the National Guard.

You do not seem to understand that the National Guard is the state militias. I asked you to show me what the constitutional definition of militia is, all you do is refer to some nebulous.and non- legal “historically”.

The National Guard is not a state militia. It is federally-funded, operates on federally-owned land, uses federally-owned weapons, vehicles, equipment, and can be used to enforce federal law. It is not a state militia. You do not check a tyranny using the National Guard. Regarding the definition of “militia” as used in the Constitution, I showed you how it is defined in the Federalist Papers and how there was a distinction between “the militia” and “select militia” at the time.

The NG is absolutely the people’s organized militia. The first states to change the term militia to NG did so in the mid 1820’s, no federal coercion. When the federal government finally called for all organized state militias to be called National Guard, only Virginia had not already done so on it’s own.
Not exactly a select militia, but an organized (well-regulated) militia, just as the Constitution required. And it isn’t a modern phenomenon. Even way back, the militia was never really “the people”. Women were excluded, as we’re men of certain ages and occupations. Within that sub-group of the people, I sh owed earlier that some militia were more organized than others. The Constitution called for an organized, trained, disciplined (well-regulated) militia. It was not a case of wishful thinking to include the term. Nowhere else in the Constitution is there such wishful thinking.

Completely wrong. The Constitution requires no well-regulated militia nor does it use the word militia to refer to state militias or require states to maintain well-regulated militias that the Congress could then call forth (interesting that the Articles of Confederation explicitly requires the states to maintain select militias while the Constitution requires no such thing).

Regarding the militia not being “the people,” that is why I have repeatedly said that the militia is “the general population capable of bearing arms.” The elderly, the sick, etc…are not going to be the militia. Uncle Fred who is 80 years-old and needs a walker to move around is not going to be a member. In terms of rejecting women, that argument doesn’t really work because the whole entire Constitution at the time ultimately only applied to white males citizens. It did not apply to women or people of color. Today however it does. And thus the word militia today would also include women and people of color.

So in conclusion, the words well-regulated in the 2a have real meaning. The Congress was empowered to act upon state militias to create such well-regulated militias, and did so. There was no need for a 2a to do so. The 2a has nothing to do with creating such militias. Of course, with the people’s lingering and justifiable distrust of any armed forces under government control, to mention such militias as a preface justification for why the people require a right of arms to oppose them is natural. All the people have such a right, not just the 30% or so who qualified to be militia.

The Congress has no power to enact upon state militias as there is no mention of state militias nor is there any requirement for the states to maintain militias for the Congress to call forth in the Constitution. In addition, the prefatory clause of the Second makes no sense if it was stating that the reason to protect the RKBA is to counter select militias. If that was the case, then it would specifically say so. I.E.., it would be worded something like: “Well-regulated militias being a threat to the security of a free state…” but it says no such thing.

The interpretation you have you have essentially made up out of thin air and to do so, you’ve had to claim that the Constitution says things that it does not and completely ignore the Federal Papers and the usage of the phrase “the militia” at the time.

Also, unless you are a member of the organized militia, you are not part of the well-regulated militia. That was true even back in the day. Congress, in concert with the states, have the power to define that militia. Your fantasies don’t really matter to them.

The militia was the people, well-understood at the time. Every person capable of bearing arms is a member.

I am aware of the words in the federalist papers, and their lack of legal standing.

I have outlined the history of the national guard, how they are organized state militias, that chose to rename themselves national guard.

I have given you the legal definitions.

I have thoroughly refuted your every argument.

I have shown you where the militia Congress can call up is state militia that falls under congressional purview for training, arming, and disciplining, with the states appointing the officers….which exactly fits the national guard.

You continue to cite the “historical” militia being the people, with no relevant source. I even showed that no militia has ever been the general populace, as carriage drivers, clergy, men over a certain age, and women were excluded from state militia.

I can only conclude that you are either willfully ignorant, in serious denial, or of extreme low intelligence

I will leave the judging of facts to others, I am 100% certain they can see that I presented facts to counter your fantasy.

Good night.

I am aware of the words in the federalist papers, and their lack of legal standing.

Apparently you aren’t and that is a cop-out in the extreme. It isn’t a matter of whether they have legal standing but of understanding the meaning of the Constitution to be able to obtain proper legal understanding. Documents like the Federalist Papers are what court justices use to aid in their understanding of different aspects of the Constitution.

I have outlined the history of the national guard, how they are organized state militias, that chose to rename themselves national guard.

I have thoroughly refuted your every argument.

You haven’t “thoroughly refuted” anything. All you have done is ignore the facts that refute your claims and make things up out of thin air. You have never shown how the wording “the militia” refers to some select federal militia or how the prefatory clause of the 2nd is about some select militia being a danger. You made all of that up.

I have shown you where the militia Congress can call up is state militia that falls under congressional purview for training, arming, and disciplining, with the states appointing the officers….which exactly fits the national guard.

You have shown no such thing. You have claimed such a thing, but shown nothing to back it (because there is nothing). The Federalist Papers clearly show that the militia is not a reference to select state militias.

You continue to cite the “historical” militia being the people, with no relevant source. I even showed that no militia has ever been the general populace, as carriage drivers, clergy, men over a certain age, and women were excluded from state militia.

And this shows me that you are either being disingenous or ignoring my arguments, as I showed you, multiple times, that the militia is not the whole general populace, but the general populace capable of bearing arms. Of course the elderly, sick, disabled, etc…are not members of the militia. I showed you how right in the Federalist Papers, it is clearly shown that the militia is the general populace. The Federalist Papers are about as relevant a source as you can get for the meaning of the phrase “the militia” in the Constitution as they were written by some of the authors of the Constitution and were arguments explaining why the Constitution ought to be ratified.

I can only conclude that you are either willfully ignorant, in serious denial, or of extreme low intelligence

Good night.

That you so clearly ignored major facts and sources that I pointed out to you while making up things out of thin air I think shows your own level of denial in this.

Aw, so where is that legal definition of militia? Historically doesn’t cut it. Mr. Mason’s words don’t either. I have proven, supplied legitimate definitions, not your “feels g9d for your fantasy” answers. Oh, and who would be empowered to alter any such definition….you know, by organizing it maybe? Disciplining it. So long as the starts appoints the officers.
Literacy is a good thing, but without comprehension it is useless. You proved that.

You have shown quite plainly that when you say “historically”, you think you have defined or proven something. Historically people thought the moon was blue cheese, and that the earth was the center of the universe. This is fun, proving stupid things!
Federalist papers, g9d reads, zero legal standing. Oops.
” Capable of bearing arms”….. So 55 yr old men, clergy, carriage drivers, women, are not capable? Think again. I had to reiterate, since your fantasy blocks your comprehension.
I guess that is another one of those wishful thinking definitions you prefer.
Facts and history disprove you, so you ignore it. Of course!

You also changed your original argument. First you kept arguing that the militia in the Constitution is some select federal militia. When I pressed you repeatedly on where in the Constitution is this militia created, you waffled before then settling on the idea that it is a reference to state militias. When I then pressed you on why then do the Federalist Papers clearly outline the militia as referring to the general population, how there were distinctions made between “the militia” and “select militia” yet the Constitution repeatedly refers to “the militia,” and asked you where in the Constitution the states are required to maintain select militias for the Congress to be able to call forth, you simply ignored these.

In addition, you repeatedly also ignored how I pointed out that the militia consists of the general population capable of bearing arms, not every single person, trying to use this as support for your claim that the militia thus is in reference to select militia. The militia at large (referred to in the Virginia Ratification Debate) always was not every single person. You also used the very weak argument that the Constitution originally only covered males (white males) and not women, so it wouldn’t include those in the militia, ignoring that the whole entire Bill of Rights only protected white males originally. Things have changed since then and the Bill of Rights protects the rights of everybody.

No, I said well-regulated, which was extant even back then. Showed you the constitutional basis even. You introduced select into the discussion. Still confused, huh.

I never argued that the BoR only covered white males. Why must you lie? I merely pointed out the fallacy of your assertions regarding militia as general population, oh wait, you meant all capable of bearing arms, well that still doesn’t work…..and provided examples.
Arguing with someone who prefers op-ed pieces over relevant laws, and prefers to reference “historically” versus actual presented historical facts, is silly. Facts trump your opinion every time.
It was fun for a while.

Aw, so where is that legal definition of militia? Historically doesn’t cut it. Mr. Mason’s words don’t either. I have proven, supplied legitimate definitions, not your “feels g9d for your fantasy” answers. Oh, and who would be empowered to alter any such definition….you know, by organizing it maybe? Disciplining it. So long as the starts appoints the officers.
Literacy is a good thing, but without comprehension it is useless. You proved that.

Your hiding behind a demand for a “legal definition” is a cop-out. Do you need a “legal definition” for free speech as well to understand the First Amendment? A “legal definition” for the phrase “right of the people?” We understand that “the people” is used throughout the Constitution to refer to individual rights. There is no need for any formal legal definition. We understand from the Federalist Papers (and it was Hamilton I was referring to, not Mason) the meaning of the word militia. We also understand its meaning from other uses, such as in the Virginia ratification debate. Although ironically, the U.S. law distinguishes between the unorganized militia and organized militia, so even the law later showed it understood the difference.

You have shown quite plainly that when you say “historically”, you think you have defined or proven something. Historically people thought the moon was blue cheese, and that the earth was the center of the universe. This is fun, proving stupid things!
Federalist papers, g9d reads, zero legal standing. Oops.

When I say “historically,” I am showing what the word or phrase was understood to mean at the time. And comparing what was the widely-understood meaning of a word at the time with what were understood as proper science at the time are two completely different things. The militia was not science. And yes such meanings of words do have legal standing in the sense of any justice who has to interpret the Constitution is going to look to see what the wording in the Constitution meant at the time it was written.

” Capable of bearing arms”….. So 55 yr old men, clergy, carriage drivers, women, are not capable? Think again. I had to reiterate, since your fantasy blocks your comprehension.
I guess that is another one of those wishful thinking definitions you prefer.
Facts and history disprove you, so you ignore it. Of course!

Fifty-five year-old men, especially back then when that was about the life expectancy, along with women, were not seen as physically robust enough to handle the rigors of military fighting. It still is questionable if they are. Clergy were exempted for religious reasons if they so wished and carriage drivers were needed for messaging and transport. If a war happened in modern times, you wouldn’t call up all the people who are truck drivers, as you’d hault the war effort through that alone and crash the economy.

I do not know of what “fantasy” you speak of. No one claimed that the militia is well-regulated or capable of being well-regulated. My argument is that there is no select well-regulated militia created by the Constitution. There is no requirement for any of the states to maintain select militias for the Congress to call forth.

No, I said well-regulated, which was extant even back then. Showed you the constitutional basis even. You introduced select into the discussion. Still confused, huh.

A well-regulated militia is a form of select militia. You showed no Constitutional basis for any such well-regulated militia and even changed your argument from the Constitution being about a select federal militia to being about state militias (when there is no requirement in the Constitution for the states to maintain militias). On select militia, just read the Federalist Papers where they multiple times distinguish between militia and select militia. Look at the Virginia Ratification debate where they distinguish between “the militia at large” and “select militia.” Yet the Constitution only makes mention of “the militia” as a pre-existing entity. Pretty obvious what it is referring to. It most definitely not is a reference to select militia of any kind. In addition, there also was mention in writings of the time of militia living in the territories. They were not referring to members of select militias that were living in the territories.

I never argued that the BoR only covered white males. Why must you lie? I merely pointed out the fallacy of your assertions regarding militia as general population, oh wait, you meant all capable of bearing arms, well that still doesn’t work…..and provided examples.
Arguing with someone who prefers op-ed pieces over relevant laws, and prefers to reference “historically” versus actual presented historical facts, is silly. Facts trump your opinion every time.

Where are these “actually presented historical facts” you speak of? You can’t get more historical and factual on the meaning of the Constitution then documents like the Federalist Papers. Your view that the government gets to define militia as it sees fit is a government-centric view that undermines the whole purpose of the Constitution. The government answers to the Constitution, not the other way around. The word “militia” in the Constitution is not supposed to be dependent on how the government defines it.

Regarding white males, you wrote:

Not exactly a select militia, but an organized (well-regulated) militia, just as the Constitution required. And it isn’t a modern phenomenon. Even way back, the militia was never really “the people”. Women were excluded, as we’re men of certain ages and occupations. Within that sub-group of the people, I sh owed earlier that some militia were more organized than others. The Constitution called for an organized, trained, disciplined (well-regulated) militia. It was not a case of wishful thinking to include the term. Nowhere else in the Constitution is there such wishful thinking.

Okay, my mistake there, you didn’t say the BoR only was about white males. But your logic that the word “militia” referred to a select militia because it didn’t cover every single person still makes no sense, because the BoR period at the time didn’t apply to women or people of color. So the idea that because not everyone was considered a member of the militia, that that meant it referred to a select militia, is a very weak argument.

The courts have ruled on the definition of free speech many times. The cop out is referring to an op-ed piece to try and overrule the Constitution and federal law.
I figured as much.
Pres. Obama famously remarked regarding a piece of landmark legislation that “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”. But his opinion and words are not legally binding.
Oh well.

The courts have ruled on the definition of free speech many times. The cop out is referring to an op-ed piece to try and overrule the Constitution and federal law.
I figured as much.

If you are referring to the Federalist Papers, they are not exactly an “op-ed.” They were written by some of the main authors of the Constitution. And said Federalist papers do not over-rule the Constitution anywhere, they explain precisely what it means. It is yourself that is trying to claim that the Constitution says something that it doesn’t. Nor do the Federalist Papers go against any existing federal law even (although if they did, the argument would be that existing federal law goes against the Federalist Papers, and thus the Constitution itself). Existing federal law distinguishes between the unorganized militia and the organized militia.

Pres. Obama famously remarked regarding a piece of landmark legislation that “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”. But his opinion and words are not legally binding.
Oh well.

Totally different. The Constitution is not a piece of legislation and the discussion is about the meaning of specific language that the Constitution uses. The Obama comparison would be in how the Founders said that the a Bill of Rights wasn’t needed (it was added to satisfy the anti-Federalists). They were wrong in that claim. But that isn’t what we’re discussing, we’re discussing the meaning of certain language in the Constitution from the time at which it was written. It is very clear that the meaning of the word “militia” in the Constitution was in reference to the general population capable of bearing arms, not to any select federal militia or select state militias.

Pretty good parallel. Fed papers were opinion pieces on pending federal legislation. You didn’t know that? Aw, gee.

Pretty good parallel. Fed papers were opinion pieces on pending federal legislation. You didn’t know that? Aw, gee.

Sure, but they were not opinion pieces on what the Constitution was saying, but rather on how well it would do what it said it would do. So for example when the Federalist Papers mention the militia, that isn’t an opinion about the meaning of the word but rather an opinion about the militia itself. That’s why there were the anti-Federalist Papers as well, as they claimed the the Constitution would not protect against abuses of power in the way that the Federalists claimed it would.

Opinion pieces can say anything they like.

And Congress has broad powers to organize and discipline the militia, which can profoundly alter any imagined definition
Bummer.

…politicians. Illinois has got nothing to do with it.

Otherwise they may have been passing badly needed legislation.

No legislation will ever be as good as no legislation.

Joe- I ‘ve stood up for you-time to up your meds. I dislike dumbocrats too. But I’m stuck in Illinois for now. You don’t understand the ignorant Chicago theatrics “I need to get my name out there” BS in the legislature. Go ahead and rant-I don’t respond to Sex Ty either…

Then convince one of your friends and/or family to run against them on a strong liberal platform, and then Manchurian Candidate on their supporters. Libs do it to us.

I stick w/my comment though, that, should a civil war start, IL (especially Chi-com-cago) and other liberal centers that drove them to it, would be ground zero. That’s got nothing to do w/me or my feelings or motivations. Treat it as a PSA.

I can see full well what u mean. The problem with wall street, where i used to work, is that they do not give half a care about what becomes of the assets they are dealing with. The one and only target, is to reap money off of whatever there is in the portfolio. I was on the seller side and my job was to make a belly-up company look like the next Apple to the buyers. Buyer’s side was doing the opposite. And the desperate business owners, who could only understand 10% of what is written on the contract, pay us large sums of management fees upfront or else good luck finding a buyer for his crappy company. The financial industry is to connect buyers and sellers like craigslist, but they got way too big. The problem is, if we let free market flow, wall street, consisting of people with great intelligence (u gotta give them this one) and resources, will eventually happen. This is part of what we pay for a non-nanny state. The govt cannot step into business owners personal decisions too much claiming to protect them. It’s like telling us to give up our guns and let the cops come when seconds count.

The 2a is part of the Constitution. It enumerates a rkba. This right exists in the USA. The US constitution is supreme to state constitutions, ergo the state cannot abrogated a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
That some states violate this, and get away with it, doesn’t make it less true. There are a lot of things that blatantly violate the Constitution, yet are still happening. Just on that last remark alone your argument falls flat.

That was sarcasm, and you ain’t from here.

Where is here? Loonyville? No, I ain’t from there.

Paul ain’t from here. They hate us because they anus.

Capitalized terms not defined in that document have the meaning found in the Declaration of Independence. WE THE PEOPLE…
Got rid of our a-hole king, and the sh_t-bag fellow citizens that were ok with him.
When any of our fellow people try to treat us like they’re our king, or bunch up, call themselves government, and exert undue pressure and influence. WE DO IT AGAIN.
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Sorry Joe, please tell me where “here” is. If you mean the USA, I am a citizen, born and raised here by two citizen parents.
Perhaps your problem is that my literacy confuses your ignorance.

Sorry Joe, please tell me where “here” is. If you mean the USA, I am a citizen, born and raised here by two citizen parents.
Perhaps your problem is that my literacy confuses your ignorance.

[sic] the 2nd Amendment