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

[frigidweirdo]

and in the weirdo's link:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

We now have a standing Army. Why didn't the militia prevent a standing Army?

So, you take one quote from something that doesn't have much or anything to do with what we're talking about, you don't explain why you think it's important.

So... why did you bother quoting this exactly?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's obvious the friggin weirdo cuts and pastes without actually reading what is contained in links it cuts and pastes from

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms"

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown."

You have to remember that the militia is there to PROTECT the constitution.

Yeah, just as Mr Gerry was right?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's obvious the friggin weirdo cuts and pastes without actually reading what is contained in links it cuts and pastes from

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms"

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown."

You have to remember that the militia is there to PROTECT the constitution.

Yeah, just as Mr Gerry was right?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

No, I've read it, many times. You have, again, said nothing.

I managed to read that quote before, and the other hundred times I've read it. Now, will you tell me what the hell the point is you're trying to make? Or is your point that you don't have anything and you're trying to save face by pointing to some useless point to try and get out of this?

Again, the term "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty" and nowhere is it synonymous with carry arms.

Oh, and you ignored every point I made when using the term "bear arms" as carry arms and it makes NO SENSE.

But you keep going off on one about "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." without even telling us WHY you're quoting this.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
  --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Intent of the Founders was we not even have a standing army but rather a well-regulated militia. That was the intent of the 2nd. They knew a regular military force would give corrupt leaders the means to secure power and take liberties away. And voila, albeit centuries later that's exactly what's happened.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

In 1788 did we have a standing Army? Was their a National Guard? Did we have professional Soldiers and Police Officers? Were we a rural nation, for the most part?

Is every man between 18 and 45 trained under Congressional guidelines? Do the states arm, organize and discipline them (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16)?

 

[robertacollier]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

In 1788 did we have a standing Army? Was their a National Guard? Did we have professional Soldiers and Police Officers? Were we a rural nation, for the most part?

Is every man between 18 and 45 trained under Congressional guidelines? Do the states arm, organize and discipline them (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16)?

None of this is really relevant to the separation of the 2nd's two clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the individual right theory over the collective in Heller and McDonald.

The administrative (as in the 1903 militia statute) does not negate the concept. You still have to look at the intent.

 

[hortysir]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

You have got to be joking.

Such a well thought out and precise rebuttal

 

[robertacollier]

George Washington owned slaves, but he was kick ass. Who else would hit those drunk Germans on Christmas?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A militia is always subject to organization by the state.

That's the first few words of the 2nd amendment. That organization follows from the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The second part is further supported by the first part, "being necessary to the security of a free state."

You're not going to have much freedom or security when people are unarmed until the state deems necessary.

You have micharacterized my meaning, perhaps deliberately, perhaps from a lack of understanding about the militia.

The people can own and bear arms. If they create a militia, said militia can be organized by the state at any time the state so decides.

 

[robertacollier]

dupe.

 

[robertacollier]

You have micharacterized my meaning, perhaps deliberately, perhaps from a lack of understanding about the militia.

Sure, blame other people because you can't express yourself. Perhaps you have an understanding gap with English and writing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have micharacterized my meaning, perhaps deliberately, perhaps from a lack of understanding about the militia.

Sure, blame other people because you can't express yourself. Perhaps you have an understanding gap with English and writing

You have projected your inability to properly understand what another has written. Or perhaps you have deliberately mischaracterized for your own silly purposes.

You are either, concerning the OP, woefully ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignantly motivated.

You have the right to own and bear arms.

The organized militia was subsumed in the Militia Act of 1903.

Your right to create unorganized militia units is subject to organization by the governor.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Intent of the Founders was we not even have a standing army but rather a well-regulated militia. That was the intent of the 2nd. They knew a regular military force would give corrupt leaders the means to secure power and take liberties away. And voila, albeit centuries later that's exactly what's happened.

A militia is always subject to organization by the state.

That's the first few words of the 2nd amendment. That organization follows from the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The second part is further supported by the first part, "being necessary to the security of a free state."

You're not going to have much freedom or security when people are unarmed until the state deems necessary.

militia or not it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms

 

[robertacollier]

You have projected your inability to properly understand what another has written. Or perhaps you have deliberately mischaracterized for your own silly purposes.

You are either, concerning the OP, woefully ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignantly motivated.

You have the right to own and bear arms.

The organized militia was subsumed in the Militia Act of 1903.

Your right to create unorganized militia units is subject to organization by the governor.

It is up to you to express yourself clearly and clarify when necessary. You can be lazy, but I am not doing your work for you.

I am not solely talking about administrative aspects, nor am I talking about militia out of context. The thread is about definition (among other things), which would include both letter and original intent. One reason why gun grabbers continually fail in the effort to eradicate guns is that judges have continually referred to original intent.

 

[LOki]

"the militia" as referenced in the 2nd Amendment refers to the militias of the States, which were pretty much made up of all able-bodied males. Since the advent of the national guard, some states still have their constitutional militias, while the US Code defines the national militia...which consists of the national guard and states militias (organized militia) and again, pretty much every able bodied male of fighting age (unorganized militia).

In the context of your right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, it is mentioned only as the reason why "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms.

Wrong, Pumpkin.

The People have the right without regard to participation in, or the existence of, any kind of militia. The fact that the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms predates both the U.S. Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the organization of militias is fully affirmed in constitutional jurisprudence and case law.

The necessity of a well regulated militia for the security of a free State, is the reason for enumeration of the right--it speaks nothing to any reason for having the right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have projected your inability to properly understand what another has written. Or perhaps you have deliberately mischaracterized for your own silly purposes.

You are either, concerning the OP, woefully ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignantly motivated.

You have the right to own and bear arms.

The organized militia was subsumed in the Militia Act of 1903.

Your right to create unorganized militia units is subject to organization by the governor.

It is up to you to express yourself clearly and clarify when necessary. You can be lazy, but I am not doing your work for you.

I am not solely talking about administrative aspects, nor am I talking about militia out of context. The thread is about definition (among other things), which would include both letter and original intent. One reason why gun grabbers continually fail in the effort to eradicate guns is that judges have continually referred to original intent.

I don't care if you fart.

My points articulate clearly the facts of the matter.

I don't care if you don't grasp that.

You will be corrected everytime you misspeak.

That is a fact of life between us.

 

[robertacollier]

You will be corrected everytime you misspeak.

.

Misspeak? You're the one whining because you can't express yourself.

That is a fact of life between us.

Between us? Sorry, I am not your type.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You will be corrected everytime you misspeak.

.

Misspeak? You're the one whining because you can't express yourself.

That is a fact of life between us.

Between us? Sorry, I am not your type.

You are an ideologue who does not grasp Constitutional principles. So many libertarians and far right and far left ideologues share that failing.

 

[danielpalos]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Our Second Article of Amendment clearly states not all of the militia of the United States is necessary to the security of a free State, but, Only well regulated militia of the People of the United States.

 

[robertacollier]

You will be corrected everytime you misspeak.

.

Misspeak? You're the one whining because you can't express yourself.

That is a fact of life between us.

Between us? Sorry, I am not your type.

You are an ideologue who does not grasp Constitutional principles. So many libertarians and far right and far left ideologues share that failing.

So your argument now is to brand someone because you can't address the wider discussion.