What is the meaning of "militia" in the second amendment?

[kaz]

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

Perhaps, you should read up on cause of our Civil War.

i didn't know Canada had a civil war, when was that? Was it the English versus the frogs?

 

[kaz]

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

You're putting a spin on something I didn't post - Art. I, sec 8 clause one gives the Congress the power to "provide for the common defence","to raise and support armies (clause 12), "to provide and maintain a Navy" (clause 13) and to "make the rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (clause 14).

Only someone who reads with the blinders of bias would infer these statements in Art. I Sec. 8 describe Federal Activities which would not by their nature include weapons of war!

Exactly my point, so why did they write the second amendment if government can already have guns and according to you the second amendment is not to protect individual rights? Why have it if government can already have guns?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Second has only been an individual right since Scalia and his four pals on the Supreme Court voted by a single vote to make it so.

Nonsense.

"Nonsense" isn't a rebuttal or a refutation and not even substantive to the issue. It's your pattern, and you've yet to demonstrate anything I've read which is thoughtful or factually relevant. In short you seem only adept at posting fatuous ad hominems.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

You're putting a spin on something I didn't post - Art. I, sec 8 clause one gives the Congress the power to "provide for the common defence","to raise and support armies (clause 12), "to provide and maintain a Navy" (clause 13) and to "make the rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (clause 14).

Only someone who reads with the blinders of bias would infer these statements in Art. I Sec. 8 describe Federal Activities which would not by their nature include weapons of war!

Exactly my point, so why did they write the second amendment if government can already have guns and according to you the second amendment is not to protect individual rights? Why have it if government can already have guns?

That has been explained already this morning. look above and prove the point is not credible.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

Perhaps, you should read up on cause of our Civil War.

i didn't know Canada had a civil war, when was that? Was it the English versus the frogs?

^^^Idiot-Gram.

 

[LOki]

The Second has only been an individual right since Scalia and his four pals on the Supreme Court voted by a single vote to make it so.

Nonsense.

"Nonsense" isn't a rebuttal or a refutation and not even substantive to the issue.

Of course not. It's just pointing out the salient quality of your assertion.

It's your pattern, and you've yet to demonstrate anything I've read which is thoughtful or factually relevant. In short you seem only adept at posting fatuous ad hominems.

You should look up those big words before you use them, Cupcake.

 

[kaz]

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

You're putting a spin on something I didn't post - Art. I, sec 8 clause one gives the Congress the power to "provide for the common defence","to raise and support armies (clause 12), "to provide and maintain a Navy" (clause 13) and to "make the rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (clause 14).

Only someone who reads with the blinders of bias would infer these statements in Art. I Sec. 8 describe Federal Activities which would not by their nature include weapons of war!

Exactly my point, so why did they write the second amendment if government can already have guns and according to you the second amendment is not to protect individual rights? Why have it if government can already have guns?

That has been explained already this morning. look above and prove the point is not credible.

Post #?

 

[danielpalos]

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

Perhaps, you should read up on cause of our Civil War.

i didn't know Canada had a civil war, when was that? Was it the English versus the frogs?

Still stereotyping ,chic? Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms.

And, dear, they are the letters of secesion written by southern States and gives their reasoning.

 

[danielpalos]

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

You're putting a spin on something I didn't post - Art. I, sec 8 clause one gives the Congress the power to "provide for the common defence","to raise and support armies (clause 12), "to provide and maintain a Navy" (clause 13) and to "make the rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (clause 14).

Only someone who reads with the blinders of bias would infer these statements in Art. I Sec. 8 describe Federal Activities which would not by their nature include weapons of war!

Exactly my point, so why did they write the second amendment if government can already have guns and according to you the second amendment is not to protect individual rights? Why have it if government can already have guns?

Silly chic, I told you where the answer is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Second has only been an individual right since Scalia and his four pals on the Supreme Court voted by a single vote to make it so.

Nonsense.

"Nonsense" isn't a rebuttal or a refutation and not even substantive to the issue.

Of course not. It's just pointing out the salient quality of your assertion.

It's your pattern, and you've yet to demonstrate anything I've read which is thoughtful or factually relevant. In short you seem only adept at posting fatuous ad hominems.

You should look up those big words before you use them, Cupcake.

Oh, I do. In fact I always look up words in my reading I'm not sure of, some seem obvious but in context not so much. It's what educated people do.

Of course your education stops the second anything posted contradicts your beliefs. Is it fear of cognitive dissonance, the result of a brain wash or simply laziness? Not that I care, you've offered sufficient evidence to conclude you're an arrogant asshole.

Postscript:

"nonsense" has not been addressed. One more bit of data to suggest "arrogant asshole" is fitting and for others to conclude you're all hat and no cattle (though you have accumulated plenty of bull shit - and interesting paradox).

 

[toxicmedia]

I love jumping in on the last part of a thread, having read none of it, especially when it's a simple question, and I know the answer.

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.

The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry.

The 2nd amendment is not the reason people should be allowed to carry weapons.

I support open carry, and think citizens should be allowed to keep any type of hand carried armaments.

What I would exclude are arms that allow you to shoot something out of your line of direct sight, or shoot explosives.

dime-store historians and academics are always welcome...

Welcome

The right to carry arms is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

The security of a free State of a collective of the People.

Not in this case, you're fighting for the security of a State from it's people

I hear that a lot, but when the framers talked about security, the threats mostly included external threats.

I'm a reasonable man, willing to learn, and change my point of view.

I have plenty of quotes from Jefferson's letters that mention external threats. The loyalist British governorship was mentioned more than an American government filled with your elected opposition, that just happens to disagree with you.

Help me understand more about what you mean

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

A driver's license protects an individuals privilege to drive a car, suspending a license protects the public from drunks, addicts and reckless drivers.

Irrelevant to the point made.

Notwithstanding the Second Amendment's final phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". it is in fact infringed! Most felons, mentally violent people and those on parole (not those on probation) have this right infringed; even LE officers entering a prison or county jail must port their weapons in gun lockers.

These are not examples of infringements.
But then, you knew that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

 

[danielpalos]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

dear, recourse to well regulated militias of the People, is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

 

[Dan Daly]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

dear, resource to well regulated militias of the People, is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

Uh, no. Hey, do they give ID cards to ya'll Idiocrats, or would that be like a poll tax?

 

[bendog]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

I believe what Wry is attempting to explain is that Heller was the first scotus case to expressly state there is an individual right in the 2nd Amend. And that is correct. And McDonald v. Chicago furthered Heller in holding a state or local govt may not "go too far" in regulating the individual right, and McDonald went too far. And what may be interesting is whether in light of McDonald, NYC's regulations are OK, and frankly I think both sides are very wary of finding out.

Wry also attempted to respond to your question as to why would the Founders have put a collective right applicable to militias into the 2nd if there already were state and local militias. And, the answer is that originally the BoR initially only limited federal power. The founders feared a standing national army could be used by a despotic federal govt to "war" on states. Thus, the 2nd prevented the federal govt from doing away with state militias.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

I believe what Wry is attempting to explain is that Heller was the first scotus case to expressly state there is an individual right in the 2nd Amend. And that is correct.

No. he's saying that before Heller, the 2nd was "understood" to protect a state right rather than an individual right.
There's no support for this claim; all SCotUS cases pertaining to the issue speak in support of the individual right view.

And what may be interesting is whether in light of McDonald, NYC's regulations are OK, and frankly I think both sides are very wary of finding out.

There's no way that a $500 permit to exercise a fundamental right in your own home passes constitutional muster.

Wry also attempted to respond to your question as to why would the Founders have put a collective right applicable to militias into the 2nd if there already were state and local militias.

I did not ask that question

 

[bendog]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

I believe what Wry is attempting to explain is that Heller was the first scotus case to expressly state there is an individual right in the 2nd Amend. And that is correct.

No. he's saying that before Heller, the 2nd was "understood" to protect a state right rather than an individual right.
There's no support for this claim; all SCotUS cases pertaining to the issue speak in support of the individual right view.

And what may be interesting is whether in light of McDonald, NYC's regulations are OK, and frankly I think both sides are very wary of finding out.

There's no way that a $500 permit to exercise a fundamental right in your own home passes constitutional muster.

Wry also attempted to respond to your question as to why would the Founders have put a collective right applicable to militias into the 2nd if there already were state and local militias.

I did not ask that question

Yes there is support for the notion that before Heller the 2nd only applied to a collective right. One can read Miller to say that, and this position of there only being a collective right was shared by FOUR dissenting Justices in Heller.

Personally, I disagree with the dissents position, but the notion that no regulation or limits are OK is historically .... false. There were restrictions in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[danielpalos]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

dear, resource to well regulated militias of the People, is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

Uh, no. Hey, do they give ID cards to ya'll Idiocrats, or would that be like a poll tax?

Dear, those of you that have nothing but fallacy should be required to pay a poll tax.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia

 

[Wry Catcher]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.