What is a “well-regulated militia” and why are we so sure it refers to everyone?

[miketx]

“The Court expressly rejected Presser’s contention that there was a right to assemble, drill, or march in a militia absent authorization by state or federal law.”

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

When ya comin commie?

 

[Failzero]

Billy failed commas in school.

This FTMFW

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Case closed. The OP is a fucking moron.

 

[Nostra]

What is “the militia” today then?

Doesn’t matter.

 

[Failzero]

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

Case closed. The OP is a fucking moron.

As a Militia Sergeant ( California State Militia ) I concur

 

[mudwhistle]

“The Court expressly rejected Presser’s contention that there was a right to assemble, drill, or march in a militia absent authorization by state or federal law.”

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

This case appears to be a law that forced men of a particular age group to join militias....and prohibited all other organized militias.

 

[Leweman]

It refers to those not under control of the government as those in the government may, and have, act against the security of a free state.

 

[Chuz Life]

So many people on all sides seem to be oblivious to the fact that the Revolutionary War was fought just 10-15 years before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

During the Revolutionary War, "the people" armed themselves with anything they could to defeat the King and his cronies. Guns, cannons, and artillery included.

Clearly the right to keep and bear arms existed even before the 2nd Amendment was written. It's a historical fact.

 

[daveman]

This ignorance makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense -- to anyone who doesn't worship government as god.

 

[Billy000]

Billy, you've lost this fight. The right to own firearms -- for any reason, or no reason at all -- is an individual right.

I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.

 

[Chuz Life]

An anachronism.

It’s not armed private citizens – armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from a state government or the Federal government.

And armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ and claim that they are ‘exempt’ from state or Federal firearm regulatory measures.

Conservatives will also use the militia myth as ‘justification’ for insurrectionist dogma – the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that private citizens have right to be armed to defend against ‘government tyranny’ or foreign invasion.

Claypool, do you need someone to read the Declaration of Independence to you?

 

[daveman]

I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.

Yes, it can certainly be interpreted wrongly.

Did you expect anyone to read your post and give up their guns?

 

[daveman]

Claypool, do you need someone to read the Declaration of Independence to you?

He's angry about that, too. America was perfectly fine and happy under the Crown.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Claypool, do you need someone to read the Declaration of Independence to you?

Someone should, then quiz him on it

 

[Billy_Bob]

I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.

It is NOT vague. It is precise and succinct. The government has no authority to regulate what We the People have as weapons. And that is what burns you up. You want wiggle room and there is none.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This case appears to be a law that forced men of a particular age group to join militias....and prohibited all other organized militias.

Clayton thinks he's a constitutional law professor.

But he is really a gun grabber.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Clayton thinks he's a constitutional law professor.

But he is really a gun grabber.

I'd like to see that fool debate a constitutional lawyer

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.

Law enforcement and security agencies aren't military either therefore I should be able to purchase for my own private use anything that they are allowed.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Billy000]

Yes, it can certainly be interpreted wrongly.

Did you expect anyone to read your post and give up their guns?

Uh no i don’t. You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. You’ll say anything to justify the fantasy you have about suits showing up at your door and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” You would respond with “come take it mother fucker!”

Something like that will NEVER happen so long as the current government exists. It’s just a fantasy you entertain because it makes you feel like a badass.

Why would I be expecting that? I even made it clear I am not opposed to gun ownership.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Claypool, do you need someone to read the Declaration of Independence to you?

Don't insult the Primus front man. Clayton is nowhere near as cool as Les Claypool.