When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives

[2aguy]

I tailor my arguments to the person I am debating. The deeper end of the pool is not a place that I get to swim in that often, not because I can't swim there, but because most anti-gunners can't keep from drowning in knee-deep water.

I thank you for this post, I enjoyed reading it; I like when quotes from original sources are presented and then directed, "this is what I think this means and why I think my position is supported by it" analysis is given. It is what I try to do, what I like to see.

It's not like anything we say here is really determinative, all we are doing is presenting our most persuasive interpretation and opinion about words, facts and especially statements by SCOTUS and other sources that we both are working from. This debate is about those interpretations. Thank you again and I appreciate the time you spent writing it.

In my reply I'm going to break down your post and post multiple replies and I might combine similar points you made and address them together in one post, just to keep those ideas together. I hope I don't come across as altering or misrepresenting them or your position, if you think I do, please make a note of it.



Correct. The 2nd Amendment has a purpose, a singular intent, and that was to perpetuate the general militia principle. US v Miller speaks to this directly, telling us the "obvious purpose" of the "declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment" was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of militia forces. The 2nd Amendment did that by rendering immune from federal government infringement, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the means by which the people can fulfill their duty if called.

You are correct too that there is no mention of particular recreational or personal uses of arms in the 2ndA. That's because there was never any question that the right to possess and use arms to hunt and defend oneself, along with a myriad of other lawful uses, was considered a birthright of every citizen. That right was possessed by the citizen without any recognition or permission from government. The right wasn't given or granted and was not a product of the benevolence of the magistrate.

As an aside, there's no nota bene for types or topics of speech or writing that are protected under the 1st Amendment. There is no a mention of adventure novels or texts on the sciences but nobody would argue the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the right to converse or write or publish upon those topics.

The aspects of those activities that people demanded be secure and protected from government in the 1st and 2nd Amendment, were the political aspects. By protecting the means and actions that could question or even oppose the political power structure meant that political structure was powerless to injure the right to read romance novels or hunt or justifiably defend yourself.

Holding government impotent to impact undefined speech, press and arms, of course automatically protects ancillary, unrelated and nonpolitical means and actions; a federal government held powerless can't claim a power to restrict citizens in any of those affairs.

.

Again….another excellent set of posts……..thank you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But there were restrictions on who could serve, it wasn't universally open for all, and there certainly wasn't a "right to serve in the militia". First, only the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" could enroll.

Then there were the elected officials, judges, custom house officers, post officers and stage-drivers employed delivery of mail, Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; inspectors of exports; pilots and mariners employed in the sea service and all persons who are exempted by the laws of the respective states, who were all exempted from militia duty.




The "unorganized militia" wasn't created in 1903; it existed before the Constitution. If your read Federalist 29 (which was explaining what the powers would be over the organized militia if the Constitution was ratified) and it speaks of 'the militia' as an entity already in existence.

In Presser the Court states unequivocally:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states,. . . "​

It is those citizens merely capable of bearing arms that constitute the reserve / unorganized militia and it is those citizens that possess the right to keep and bear arms simply because they might be called upon to defend the nation or their state.

.

Well, in the case of women, it wasn't expected of them, and it wasn't expected they'd even want to. Those were the times when "all men are created equal" and they have SLAVERY. Things were like that in those days.

The reality was there was an expectation that people served, rather than people demanding to serve. That the Founding Fathers used "militia duty" and "render military service" leaves no one in doubt that people were expected to serve. But, the Founders foresaw a situation where the feds would not want people to serve. So they protected it, even if it wasn't needed for hundreds of years.

Being exempt from service didn't mean you couldn't join up. Also you have the right to keep arms, where a person who didn't want to fight could give their weapon to someone who would.

No, you're wrong about the "unorganized militia".

Firstly because the term "unorganized militia" came from the Dick Act, whatever came before that wasn't the "unorganized militia"

Secondly because what came before was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. There was a militia with state authority, with state chosen officers which could be called up into the service of the federal government. This is "the militia".

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

Not "a Militia", it's capitalized and it has the word "the". The means "One of one" or "two of two" or "three of three". But as "Militia" is singular, it's "one of one".

There's one "Militia" and this is "the Militia" which can be called up into federal service.

This is a militia separated into many parts, each state having its own part of this. But this is the militia of the United States.

As seen in Supreme Court cases, we have parading and drilling is not protected. Why? Because it's not "the Militia".

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

And then they talk about it:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States,"

"the reserved military force", there being one. All citizens "capable of bearing arms", being men. But looking at the "religiously scrupulous" clause that didn't make it, they clearly didn't want to FORCE people to be in the militia. They EXPECTED them to want to be in it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, but again, the "collective right" interpretation was what the lower court case law directed for 66 years (1942-2008).



No party or amicus in Heller was arguing for an unlimited, absolute right to keep and bear any weapon any where; I don't think it remarkable the Court did not hold such a right exists.



The terms "bear" and "carry" are synonymous. They have to be, that is an unavoidable determination because whatever military / militia activity connotation "bear arms" might be construed to mean, that connotation can't be applied as a condtioning or restraint on the right secured by the 2nd Amendment . . . Because "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

Sure it's a circular argument when you look at it this narrow, but it is the legal reality.

.

1) I don't think we need to go into the "collective right" issue. Neither of us, I assume, thinks it has any validity at all, so it's not really worth looking into. Mostly just embarrassing, like the Heller case (DC side).

Yes, "bear" and "carry" CAN BE synonymous. Not "are", but "can be". Big difference.

My favorite example is the word "stool". "stool" and "wooden three legged place to sit" are synonymous. So we say they are the same, so they HAVE TO BE the same.

Therefore "The doctor asked for a stool sample" and the man cuts off a bit of wood from his stool. Doesn't work.

The reality is that there are many meanings for "bear"

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: bear

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: bear

www.ahdictionary.com

Five transitive and four intransitive.

One of which is "bear children". This doesn't mean to carry the child. It means to "give birth to", which is totally different to carry

Number one in this dictionary is "carry".

But then in Heller they said:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry.""

"When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."

The issue here is that "bear arms" does NOT mean to give birth to arms, it does not mean to conduct arms in a specific way, it does not mean to yield fruit arms.

It means "render military service", it means "militia duty", ESPECIALLY when considering the Second Amendment. This is how it was used in these times.

Here's George Washington using it in 1783.

"SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783​

George Washington"

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Even looking at "bear arms" in state constitutions, we don't see anything individual until Mississippi in 1817.

That's a long time after the Bill of Rights. There's little not no evidence of "bear arms" being "carry arms" and NONE when considering the Second Amendment.

The best Heller could do to appease the gun crowd was:

"We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

It no way connotes participation in a structured military organization is the best they could do. When in reality "bear arms" doesn't have to be "bear arms" in the militia. It could be "bear arms" in an informal militia. COULD BE. It isn't in the Second Amendment, the Amendment is clear on it being "the Militia" as set out in Article one, Section eight, BUT it COULD have been used to mean something else if it were written somewhere else.

​

 

[frigidweirdo]

This argument is a shiny trinket that only catches the attention of anti-gunners on message boards.

Heller's "in the home" wasn't establishing or even acknowledging a limitation of the RKBA ending at one's door frame; it was acknowledging the focus of the DC law's specific words and action that was being challenged, (and invalidated). SCOTUS was respecting its duty to keep its decisions narrow, to just the issues and arguments before them . . . Heller says:

"We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. . . .​

​

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."​

To read that specific, direct response to the challenged DC's law's particular wording and action, as a Court "established" restraint on the RKBA across the nation, is the most ridiculous exercise in anti-gunner over-reading. The Court isn't endorsing the idea, the Court is rejecting it and declaring it a violation of the 2nd Amendment . . .

We can agree that it is obvious the DC statutes that set the restrictions and "good cause" qualifications for citizens to carry a gun outside the home were not being challenged or reviewed by Heller.

DC's "good cause" qualifications for citizens to carry a gun outside the home have been challenged in recent years and it is interesting that the DC lawyers did not argue that the Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment only protects gun possession and use "in the home".

In 2017 the DC Circuit applying Heller invalidated DC's restrictive "good cause" requirements and ordered DC to issue to any person not disqualified to keep and bear arms, a license to carry a gun for self defense outside the home, WRENN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 864 F.3d 650 (2017). Did the DC Circuit ignore / disobey SCOTUS?

No . . .

Even in the NY case before SCOTUS now, the New York lawyers, on page 9 in their reply brief filed on Feb. 22nd, in discussing four federal Circuit decisions UPHOLDING various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses, concede that those courts all say the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home.

"All of these courts proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment right applies outside the home. The First Circuit explained that while this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald invalidated laws that prohibited the possession of firearms in the home, the Court’s reasoning “impl[ied] that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited to the home.”​

​

Brief of respondents Keith M. Corlett, et al. in opposition​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

​

This imagined Heller established "in the home" restriction has never been recognized let alone enforced.

Well, the Supreme Court is talking about this for a reason.

They did say, in their main decision:

"(1) 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. "

Not "self-defense" but "self-defense within the home". Why?

Why not say the Amendment protects the right to self defense with a gun if that's what they want to put in place?

Perhaps it's because they're limited in scope, based on the DC law and they want to overturn the DC law. Perhaps it's because the realize the 2A doesn't protect a right to carry. The whole case is one of trying to make pro-gun people think one thing, while all the time not actually saying it.

 

[Kilroy2]

Not "my" interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Supreme Court.



The 2nd Amendment is comprised of two clauses, a dependent, declaratory clause that is legally inactive / inert and an independent, restrictive clause that is operational.



The declaratory clause doesn't do anything but speak to a (then) universally known, understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).



True. And part of that is understanding how this one thing fits into the larger entity. You are reading the 2nd Amendment in a vacuum, applying all manner of outside influences and effects that are driven by your leftist / communitarian / statist politics that is at its core, hostile to regular citizens possessing arms, especially militarily useful arms.

That baggage you put on it demands the 2nd Amendment be something it isn't and to violate the framework of rights theory the Constitution is founded upon. . . . To transform from a prohibition on government action to an empowering article, commanding government do what is actually forbidden.

That is why you are so confused.

.

You say it is restrictive but there is nothing restrictive in the statement if you interpret it correctly that it means that the government can raise an army. A new nation needs to raise an army because they are breaking away from English rule. So to join this army it might help if you had a weapon. Of course something like that is not needed today as the government will supply it military members with weapons. They do not need to bring one when they join.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please specifically tell us what is restrictive. The only thing you can say is that the government cannot stop the people from bearing arms. Yet the government can prevent people from bearing arms for various reason such as mental state, criminal background , etc.

even if the supreme court says that it is restrictive you fail to state that court opinions can go both ways and the one that win is based on numbers or the majority. 5-4 wins.


mumble jumble about dependent clauses

You ignore the two commas in the sentence and their meaning.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

They just combined the two points into one sentence. They work together and not separately as they are being used in used in one sentence.

Clearly the main thought is about the militia and the need to raise one. Realizing that when they join they may need to bring their weapons as the government does not have any at that point in time. Thus when it is over the militia members would go home if they survived the war.

The rest is easily transference when you talk about what democrats are misunderstanding something when it is republicans that are doing it.

Republican's just want to focus on fear. The government can't restrict based on "the right to bear arms" and interpret it as meaning the right to protect their home when in fact it just that they want to shoot guns whether it's hunting , target practice, or letting others touch it. Nothing wrong with that but gun violence is a problem that needs to be address.

Responsible gun owners is okay. Democrats or Republicans own guns.

The problem is when guns end up in the hands of those who will deprive citizens of their life for various malicious reasons.

Whose pursuit of happiness is more important? If a person does not want to bear arms then that is a right that they can choose. IT does not mean that they can be subject to random people shooting at the crowd because the shooter has problems.

Gun laws are not about whether responsible citizens can own guns and rifles.

 

[2aguy]

1) I don't think we need to go into the "collective right" issue. Neither of us, I assume, thinks it has any validity at all, so it's not really worth looking into. Mostly just embarrassing, like the Heller case (DC side).

Yes, "bear" and "carry" CAN BE synonymous. Not "are", but "can be". Big difference.

My favorite example is the word "stool". "stool" and "wooden three legged place to sit" are synonymous. So we say they are the same, so they HAVE TO BE the same.

Therefore "The doctor asked for a stool sample" and the man cuts off a bit of wood from his stool. Doesn't work.

The reality is that there are many meanings for "bear"

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: bear

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: bear

www.ahdictionary.com

Five transitive and four intransitive.

One of which is "bear children". This doesn't mean to carry the child. It means to "give birth to", which is totally different to carry

Number one in this dictionary is "carry".

But then in Heller they said:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry.""

"When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."

The issue here is that "bear arms" does NOT mean to give birth to arms, it does not mean to conduct arms in a specific way, it does not mean to yield fruit arms.

It means "render military service", it means "militia duty", ESPECIALLY when considering the Second Amendment. This is how it was used in these times.

Here's George Washington using it in 1783.

"SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783​

George Washington"

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Even looking at "bear arms" in state constitutions, we don't see anything individual until Mississippi in 1817.

That's a long time after the Bill of Rights. There's little not no evidence of "bear arms" being "carry arms" and NONE when considering the Second Amendment.

The best Heller could do to appease the gun crowd was:

"We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

It no way connotes participation in a structured military organization is the best they could do. When in reality "bear arms" doesn't have to be "bear arms" in the militia. It could be "bear arms" in an informal militia. COULD BE. It isn't in the Second Amendment, the Amendment is clear on it being "the Militia" as set out in Article one, Section eight, BUT it COULD have been used to mean something else if it were written somewhere else.

​

It i do”

You say it is restrictive but there is nothing restrictive in the statement if you interpret it correctly that it means that the government can raise an army. A new nation needs to raise an army because they are breaking away from English rule. So to join this army it might help if you had a weapon. Of course something like that is not needed today as the government will supply it military members with weapons. They do not need to bring one when they join.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please specifically tell us what is restrictive. The only thing you can say is that the government cannot stop the people from bearing arms. Yet the government can prevent people from bearing arms for various reason such as mental state, criminal background , etc.

even if the supreme court says that it is restrictive you fail to state that court opinions can go both ways and the one that win is based on numbers or the majority. 5-4 wins.


mumble jumble about dependent clauses

You ignore the two commas in the sentence and their meaning.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

They just combined the two points into one sentence. They work together and not separately as they are being used in used in one sentence.

Clearly the main thought is about the militia and the need to raise one. Realizing that when they join they may need to bring their weapons as the government does not have any at that point in time. Thus when it is over the militia members would go home if they survived the war.

The rest is easily transference when you talk about what democrats are misunderstanding something when it is republicans that are doing it.

Republican's just want to focus on fear. The government can't restrict based on "the right to bear arms" and interpret it as meaning the right to protect their home when in fact it just that they want to shoot guns whether it's hunting , target practice, or letting others touch it. Nothing wrong with that but gun violence is a problem that needs to be address.

Responsible gun owners is okay. Democrats or Republicans own guns.

The problem is when guns end up in the hands of those who will deprive citizens of their life for various malicious reasons.

Whose pursuit of happiness is more important? If a person does not want to bear arms then that is a right that they can choose. IT does not mean that they can be subject to random people shooting at the crowd because the shooter has problems.

Gun laws are not about whether responsible citizens can own guns and rifles.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

They just combined the two points into one sentence. They work together and not separately as they are being used in used in one sentence.

Wow……what a bunch of crap…….

They fought over every phrase and word, nothing was done without purpose………

They are not “working together.”

The Right to keep and bear arms is an individual Right …..and you guys can play word smash up all you want to lie and distort the truth, but we aren’t buying it. Sell it to Biden voters….

You don’t address gun violence by taking guns away from people who don’t use them for crime……you lock up the actual criminals.

 

[Kilroy2]

It i do”


A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

They just combined the two points into one sentence. They work together and not separately as they are being used in used in one sentence.

Wow……what a bunch of crap…….

They fought over every phrase and word, nothing was done without purpose………

They are not “working together.”

The Right to keep and bear arms is an individual Right …..and you guys can play word smash up all you want to lie and distort the truth, but we aren’t buying it. Sell it to Biden voters….

You don’t address gun violence by taking guns away from people who don’t use them for crime……you lock up the actual criminals.

yet who is taking guns away from people and who are these people that had their guns taken away.

They are working together as it is one sentence. Otherwise they would have just said

2nd Amendment
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

then they could have used another amendment to raise an army. There are plenty of numbers and paper to do that.

crystal clear meaning no need to interpret

 

[Abatis]

I don't think hunting or self defense were not included in the 2A because they were obvious. They weren't included because they didn't serve a political purpose.

Any right, or no right, of hunting wasn't needed in the Constitution. At the time I suppose they would never imagine people banning hunting.

We agree on this and even if some government interest could have been be argued in 1787-89, it was not a federal issue, thus the right needed no recognition, nor any duty of protection from the federal government. . . . Well, until the Civil War, Reconstruction and the states enacting the Black Codes, making the ratification of the 14th Amendment necessary.

Self defense is probably included in the Constitution elsewhere, rather than the Second Amendment.

Self defense in itself is not a government issue. This is between two people.

Self defense could result in injury or homicide thus it implicates the criminal justice system, justiciability and the acknowledgement in law for justifiable homicide or harming another person out of self-preservation. But again, those are not federal issues or actions of the federal government so no recognition or protection is needed as a federal right.

With the First Amendment, everything is protected, with those exceptions like Libel, Treason etc etc, because if you limit the right beyond things that harm others or the country, then where does it stop?

Agree. And that libel and slander and even treason are specific crimes by individuals, that destroys using the "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" etc. example as a justification for enacting gun control. Guns and gun use is limited in exactly the same fashion as speech; you can't brandish a gun or threaten with it, shoot at, actually shoot or kill someone without legal justification. The "crowded theater" example is only a restriction on speech to cause panic and harm. It doesn't ban yelling if there is an actual fire and is done to save life.

Laws assuming all gun use is bad and all people must be banned from owning one (especially banning public carry) is as absurd and offfensive as cutting the tongues out of everyone entering a theater. Gun control is essentially, prior restraint.

.

 

[Abatis]

We see the debates in Congress over the "religious scruples" argument and we see that they worried one little crack would turn into a massive hole.

With guns, this would mean that it doesn't just apply to 18th century weaponry. However there's plenty of weaponry that can be limited. Like nukes. SAMs etc.

Correct, but I will say I don't assign the government's legal, constitutional ability to restrict citizens from possessing weapons of open warfare as a limitation on the rights secured by the 2nd Amendment.

It is a foundational principle that all power emanates from the people. We the People established the federal government by surrendering powers via a contract and that structuring and specific enumeration limits the extent of the powers of the federal government.

The weapons of modern open indiscriminate war like rockets and missiles and fighter jets and NBC WMD's are legitimately under the sole control of the federal government because We the People have surrendered the control of those types of arms to government through the war powers.

In Article I, § 8: the Constitution states:

Congress shall have the power:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,. . .
12. To raise and support armies, . . .
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:​

The powers granted to the federal government preempt other entities acting in similar fashion, i.e., states or the people printing their own currency or raising and supporting their own army or entering into treaties with foreign nations . . . Laws restricting people from doing those things are not restrictions of any right because they are not claimable as rights. We the People relinquished all those powers in Article I, § 8, for as long as the Constitution is in force.


The interests we have conferred (surrendered) to government we can not claim as a right.
Those interests that we have not surrendered but fully retained, the government cannot claim as a power.


Interestingly, this principle of the restriction on owning weapons of open warfare is actually applied to private citizens in the Constitution in clause 11 and remains true and is applicable today.

The most devastating weapon of the time (Man o' War's) were owned by private citizens (Privateer's) and after the War, through the Constitution, power / control over those weapons was granted to Congress. Private citizens could not maintain or sail a warship without the permission of Congress (receiving a letter of marque and reprisal).

The same principle allowing government to place restrictions on citizens owning / using those weapons of open warfare in 1789, is applied to restrictions over citizens owning weapons of modern open / indiscriminate warfare today.

.

 

[Abatis]

The reality was there was an expectation that people served, rather than people demanding to serve. That the Founding Fathers used "militia duty" and "render military service" leaves no one in doubt that people were expected to serve.

One look at the Militia Act of 1792 should remove any doubt that that for those liable by law to serve, it was a compelled duty to serve, with penalties for refusal. That duty also included providing yourself with an appropriate firearm (militarily useful, not a fowling piece) and some measure of ammo and some supplies in a knapsack to sustain yourself for a short time in the field.

Another thing that is brutally obvious is nothing an enrolled militia member does is an exercise of a right, nor does he require or need any immunity from government power to fulfill his duty -- he is entirely under the control of law. He is armed according to the law set-out by Congress which is preemptive of any state law possibly interfering.

No aspect of militia duty / service is ever associated with any "right"; there was/is no free will or discretionary aspect of militia duty.

But, the Founders foresaw a situation where the feds would not want people to serve. So they protected it, even if it wasn't needed for hundreds of years.

But it wasn't protected. The feds allowed the states to ignore and neglect their militias and the militia structure became debilitated and useless, hence the Dick Act.

Being exempt from service didn't mean you couldn't join up. Also you have the right to keep arms, where a person who didn't want to fight could give their weapon to someone who would.

Or you could be paid by someone that's obligated to serve, to serve in their stead.

No, you're wrong about the "unorganized militia".

Firstly because the term "unorganized militia" came from the Dick Act, whatever came before that wasn't the "unorganized militia"

Well the militia that existed before the Constitution sure wasn't organized by the national government, it was just, 'the militia', which was every able bodied male capable of bearing arms and working in concert, 25% give or take of the total population -- some of which were organized under nonuniform, irregular state authority.

The militia did not need to be created, what needed to be created was a uniform, regular [national] scheme of command, training and control and setting out exactly how --the part of the militia obligated under law to serve-- would be regulated (organized).

That endeavor never meant to bring all the militia under government regulations but the proposed §8, cl's 15 & 16 powers, was the subject of major dispute. Granting such wide authority to the proposed federal government over any part of the militia, especially the parts under state authority, was seen as dangerous.

If you read Federalist 29, which is explaining the proposed powers over the militia, you can see the militia is an entity that was in existence.

Actually, Federalist 29 argues that obligating the entire militia ("the whole nation") to undergo the training necessary to allow the accolade of "well regulated militia" to be awarded, would be "injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution".

Hamilton gives many reasons why such a demand, that the militia must attain the degree of perfection to be called, "well regulated militia", must be abandoned.

He comes to the realization that, "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

Secondly because what came before was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. There was a militia with state authority, with state chosen officers which could be called up into the service of the federal government. This is "the militia".

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

Not "a Militia", it's capitalized and it has the word "the". The means "One of one" or "two of two" or "three of three". But as "Militia" is singular, it's "one of one".

There's one "Militia" and this is "the Militia" which can be called up into federal service.

Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 and the law written under those powers (Militia Act of 1792) does not operate on anyone not mentioned in the law. This rule of interpretation is demanded by the statutory canon of
expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- the express mention of one thing excludes all others.

The Militia Act made only impressed militia regulations on enrolled, free white male citizens aged 18-45; anyone not included in those criteria are not covered by the law nor bound by militia regulations. That would be "the people", all the rest of the citizens not duty-bound to enroll and serve, the people is however the entity mentioned in the 2nd Amendment as possessing the right to keep and bear arms. Again, enrolled militia members have no need for, or opportunity to claim "rights". Everything an enrolled militia member does with the one arm he chooses from his possessions to muster with, is under operation and demand of law -- without any "rights", exceptions or immunities to be claimed.

There are actually three militias if one only examines the law's impact and the levels of government's interest in the militia member.

First is the "entire nation", the "whole people", all those capable of bearing arms and working in concert. They are immune from militia regulations, they have no militia impressment nor any expectation of any duty owed to the nation.

Second is the Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 militia, those specific citizens called out in the duly enacted law written under those clauses, and who are obligated to serve and provide themselves with a gun and accoutrements, with mustering and training under the direct control of the states.

Third is the part of the state militias called into service of the nation. The entire complexion of the militia transforms once they become in the employ of the federal government. When in actual service they fall under the UCMJ not civil law and are prosecuted federally for violations of their duty or crimes committed. They no longer have the protections of the 5th Amendment, the military courts and their procedures are the controlling law. This specific moment, of when an enrolled militia member comes into federal service, is a vital determination in those cases heard by SCOTUS deciding disputes between the states and federal government, see Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827).

.

 

[Abatis]

As seen in Supreme Court cases, we have parading and drilling is not protected. Why? Because it's not "the Militia".

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Correct, private citizens, not enrolled in the militia have no militia duties impressed upon them but neither are they allowed to perform militia actions such as drilling or parading with arms. The only procedure to call-up, assemble, organize, train and deploy citizens as militia, is set-out in Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16, and performed under the authority of Congress and the powers given to states by Congress.

The 2nd Amendment can not be pointed to to authorize or protect any militia interests or activity for anyone, state or the people. There are no "militia rights" to be found in the 2nd Amendment which is why it was/is never cited by states when SCOTUS decides militia disputes between the states and the federal government.

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States,"

That is the "first" militia I speak of above, the body of the people who are not bound by militia law but also, even though they possess the right to keep and bear arms, they do not have any authority to perform the activities of the organized militia. Because the 2nd Amendment does not confer or authorize any organized militia activity,it cannot be claimed as an immunity from state laws forbidding paramilitary activity like, a group drilling or parading with arms.

"the reserved military force", there being one. All citizens "capable of bearing arms", being men. But looking at the "religiously scrupulous" clause that didn't make it, they clearly didn't want to FORCE people to be in the militia. They EXPECTED them to want to be in it.

Except under law (Militia Act of 1792) there absolutely was a legal obligation to enroll, provide yourself with a gun that is appropriate for military use, and serve and muster when called, with legal exposure and fines for refusing. Again, no aspect of any action of an enrolled militia member could be described as, or was ever understood to be the exercise of any "right" (an exception of government power).

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, . . .​

​

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."​

​

Only "enrolled and notified" citizens had militia regulations impressed upon them and were obligated to serve.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We agree on this and even if some government interest could have been be argued in 1787-89, it was not a federal issue, thus the right needed no recognition, nor any duty of protection from the federal government. . . . Well, until the Civil War, Reconstruction and the states enacting the Black Codes, making the ratification of the 14th Amendment necessary.



Self defense could result in injury or homicide thus it implicates the criminal justice system, justiciability and the acknowledgement in law for justifiable homicide or harming another person out of self-preservation. But again, those are not federal issues or actions of the federal government so no recognition or protection is needed as a federal right.



Agree. And that libel and slander and even treason are specific crimes by individuals, that destroys using the "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" etc. example as a justification for enacting gun control. Guns and gun use is limited in exactly the same fashion as speech; you can't brandish a gun or threaten with it, shoot at, actually shoot or kill someone without legal justification. The "crowded theater" example is only a restriction on speech to cause panic and harm. It doesn't ban yelling if there is an actual fire and is done to save life.

Laws assuming all gun use is bad and all people must be banned from owning one (especially banning public carry) is as absurd and offfensive as cutting the tongues out of everyone entering a theater. Gun control is essentially, prior restraint.

.

Yes, for the most part self-defense and even homicide are state issues.

For me there are two issues with guns in the US. One is what the current situation and my understanding of the Second Amendment. The other is what I feel would be better.

Guns in the US make things worse. The police are on edge in certain places, which results in more problems and more deaths, police deaths and deaths at the hands of the police. It's inevitable. Even cases like the Floyd George case are because the police's mentality is different in the US than in other first world countries with less guns.

The US murder rate is up to five times higher than other first world countries (well more than ten times for some countries). That's a problem. But..... there are other issues at play too. Like how politicians are there for the ride, rather than actually to represent people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Correct, but I will say I don't assign the government's legal, constitutional ability to restrict citizens from possessing weapons of open warfare as a limitation on the rights secured by the 2nd Amendment.

It is a foundational principle that all power emanates from the people. We the People established the federal government by surrendering powers via a contract and that structuring and specific enumeration limits the extent of the powers of the federal government.

The weapons of modern open indiscriminate war like rockets and missiles and fighter jets and NBC WMD's are legitimately under the sole control of the federal government because We the People have surrendered the control of those types of arms to government through the war powers.

In Article I, § 8: the Constitution states:

Congress shall have the power:​

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,. . .​

12. To raise and support armies, . . .​

13. To provide and maintain a navy:​

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:​

The powers granted to the federal government preempt other entities acting in similar fashion, i.e., states or the people printing their own currency or raising and supporting their own army or entering into treaties with foreign nations . . . Laws restricting people from doing those things are not restrictions of any right because they are not claimable as rights. We the People relinquished all those powers in Article I, § 8, for as long as the Constitution is in force.


The interests we have conferred (surrendered) to government we can not claim as a right.
Those interests that we have not surrendered but fully retained, the government cannot claim as a power.


Interestingly, this principle of the restriction on owning weapons of open warfare is actually applied to private citizens in the Constitution in clause 11 and remains true and is applicable today.

The most devastating weapon of the time (Man o' War's) were owned by private citizens (Privateer's) and after the War, through the Constitution, power / control over those weapons was granted to Congress. Private citizens could not maintain or sail a warship without the permission of Congress (receiving a letter of marque and reprisal).

The same principle allowing government to place restrictions on citizens owning / using those weapons of open warfare in 1789, is applied to restrictions over citizens owning weapons of modern open / indiscriminate warfare today.

.

The definition of what can and what cannot be banned, in terms of arms, is not written in the Second Amendment. Limitations there are, all rights have them. So where is the line?

Literally the line is a line of power. People pushing and people pulling and that's where the line is. The line has been drawn at "assault weapons" right now, and that's where the fight is mostly.

The founding principle that all power lies with the people, but really this hasn't been the case for a long, long time. The reality is that the people who want to control, use people on the left and the right to keep their own power.

They'll use issues like guns, abortion etc to keep people entertained while they get on with stuff that bores people who want to be entertained.

So I guess I disagree that the people have actively surrendered certain rights, or parts of rights. For me it's that the people are puppets on strings.

 

[Abatis]

You say it is restrictive but there is nothing restrictive in the statement if you interpret it correctly

Get it through your thick skull, it isn't my term, it isn't my definition or my characterization of the action and effect of the 2nd Amendment. It is the word used by the framers of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court explaining and enforcing the Constitution.

Go and find retrieve those statements and explanations, bring them here, you quote them and then you parse them and use your vast scholarship of the Constitution and its fundamental principles to explain the incorrectness of the framer's and Court's use of the word "restrictive"and "restriction".

that it means that the government can raise an army.

JHFC-FJB No it doesn't. Not unless you feel the framers all worked in the Department of Redundancy Department.

The powers of the federal government are set-out and contained in the body of the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything; it doesn't create anything or allow or let anything be done or mandate anything be established or maintained.

Not once, not ever, was the 2nd Amendment ever inspected to inform or held to direct or permit any aspect of establishing or maintaining or the operations of, the militia or the military.

If you were correct, the Supreme Court's "militia cases" would be our "2nd Amendment cases" because the Court would have examined and used the 2ndA to decide questions and disputes centered on the militia . . . But no, those militia cases, those militia disputes were decided by examining the powers granted in Article I (Congress) and Article II (President) and NOTHING else. In those militia cases the 2nd Amendment was mentioned once, in 1820, in a dissent, but only to say the 2nd Amendment offered no illumination on militia powers.

Just stop with the idiocy, please.

mumble jumble about dependent clauses

Yeah, who cares about those stupid framers and their affinity for Lockean political theory and individual, inherent rights and then their use of old Latin stuff like ablative absolutes or even how dependent and independent clauses work in English, when all that crap interferes with my politics, influenced by leftists who gained prominence in the early 20th Century.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One look at the Militia Act of 1792 should remove any doubt that that for those liable by law to serve, it was a compelled duty to serve, with penalties for refusal. That duty also included providing yourself with an appropriate firearm (militarily useful, not a fowling piece) and some measure of ammo and some supplies in a knapsack to sustain yourself for a short time in the field.

Another thing that is brutally obvious is nothing an enrolled militia member does is an exercise of a right, nor does he require or need any immunity from government power to fulfill his duty -- he is entirely under the control of law. He is armed according to the law set-out by Congress which is preemptive of any state law possibly interfering.

No aspect of militia duty / service is ever associated with any "right"; there was/is no free will or discretionary aspect of militia duty.



But it wasn't protected. The feds allowed the states to ignore and neglect their militias and the militia structure became debilitated and useless, hence the Dick Act.



Or you could be paid by someone that's obligated to serve, to serve in their stead.



Well the militia that existed before the Constitution sure wasn't organized by the national government, it was just, 'the militia', which was every able bodied male capable of bearing arms and working in concert, 25% give or take of the total population -- some of which were organized under nonuniform, irregular state authority.

The militia did not need to be created, what needed to be created was a uniform, regular [national] scheme of command, training and control and setting out exactly how --the part of the militia obligated under law to serve-- would be regulated (organized).

That endeavor never meant to bring all the militia under government regulations but the proposed §8, cl's 15 & 16 powers, was the subject of major dispute. Granting such wide authority to the proposed federal government over any part of the militia, especially the parts under state authority, was seen as dangerous.

If you read Federalist 29, which is explaining the proposed powers over the militia, you can see the militia is an entity that was in existence.

Actually, Federalist 29 argues that obligating the entire militia ("the whole nation") to undergo the training necessary to allow the accolade of "well regulated militia" to be awarded, would be "injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution".

Hamilton gives many reasons why such a demand, that the militia must attain the degree of perfection to be called, "well regulated militia", must be abandoned.

He comes to the realization that, "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."




Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 and the law written under those powers (Militia Act of 1792) does not operate on anyone not mentioned in the law. This rule of interpretation is demanded by the statutory canon of
expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- the express mention of one thing excludes all others.

The Militia Act made only impressed militia regulations on enrolled, free white male citizens aged 18-45; anyone not included in those criteria are not covered by the law nor bound by militia regulations. That would be "the people", all the rest of the citizens not duty-bound to enroll and serve, the people is however the entity mentioned in the 2nd Amendment as possessing the right to keep and bear arms. Again, enrolled militia members have no need for, or opportunity to claim "rights". Everything an enrolled militia member does with the one arm he chooses from his possessions to muster with, is under operation and demand of law -- without any "rights", exceptions or immunities to be claimed.

There are actually three militias if one only examines the law's impact and the levels of government's interest in the militia member.

First is the "entire nation", the "whole people", all those capable of bearing arms and working in concert. They are immune from militia regulations, they have no militia impressment nor any expectation of any duty owed to the nation.

Second is the Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 militia, those specific citizens called out in the duly enacted law written under those clauses, and who are obligated to serve and provide themselves with a gun and accoutrements, with mustering and training under the direct control of the states.

Third is the part of the state militias called into service of the nation. The entire complexion of the militia transforms once they become in the employ of the federal government. When in actual service they fall under the UCMJ not civil law and are prosecuted federally for violations of their duty or crimes committed. They no longer have the protections of the 5th Amendment, the military courts and their procedures are the controlling law. This specific moment, of when an enrolled militia member comes into federal service, is a vital determination in those cases heard by SCOTUS deciding disputes between the states and federal government, see Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827).

.

The Militia Act of 1792 was UNDER the Second Amendment. It was a law passed by Congress.

The US needed a militia. So they made a militia and they put all able bodied males (more or less) between 18 and 45 in those militias.

This was compelled because of the times. But the Founding Fathers knew this might not always be the case. Hence why the Act was just law, and not Constitutional law.

This is akin to compulsory military service in WW2 or VIetnam.

The issue here is that the right to be in the militia was there for "just in case". If the Feds wanted to get rid of the militia. They never did, because they new they couldn't. Until the Dick Act when they got smart. But by then the situation had changed and people still had the right to keep arms.

So, the reality is the RKBA did its job. It made it impossible to be rid of the militia.

You're saying that because it was never needed (because it did its job) therefore it wasn't a thing.

It's like saying that you drink milk, and it gives you strong bones. But you don't need to drink milk because you have strong bones. That doesn't make sense.

The problem for you is that the Founding Fathers literally said that the right to bear arms was "militia duty".

The issue with ignoring and neglecting their militias is totally a different issue. This is article 1, section 8, not the Second Amendment. HOWEVER, the reality is that the militia is a last resort. The militia might be neglected, but it could be brought back with the arms people owned, and the people joining the militia at short notice. Why? Because they're both protected.

The Dick Act happened because the militia was poor. But this is 1789 we're talking about, when the militia was all they had. They couldn't foresee that the militia would be so poor in the future. You can say the future influenced the Founding Fathers in 1789

The militias that existed before the Constitution were militias of SEPARATE COUNTRIES, more or less. Then the Constitution brought these together in Article one, section eight.

The militia didn't need to be created. But it needed to be organized for the modern world, to defend the USA. They did that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Correct, private citizens, not enrolled in the militia have no militia duties impressed upon them but neither are they allowed to perform militia actions such as drilling or parading with arms. The only procedure to call-up, assemble, organize, train and deploy citizens as militia, is set-out in Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16, and performed under the authority of Congress and the powers given to states by Congress.

The 2nd Amendment can not be pointed to to authorize or protect any militia interests or activity for anyone, state or the people. There are no "militia rights" to be found in the 2nd Amendment which is why it was/is never cited by states when SCOTUS decides militia disputes between the states and the federal government.



That is the "first" militia I speak of above, the body of the people who are not bound by militia law but also, even though they possess the right to keep and bear arms, they do not have any authority to perform the activities of the organized militia. Because the 2nd Amendment does not confer or authorize any organized militia activity,it cannot be claimed as an immunity from state laws forbidding paramilitary activity like, a group drilling or parading with arms.


Except under law (Militia Act of 1792) there absolutely was a legal obligation to enroll, provide yourself with a gun that is appropriate for military use, and serve and muster when called, with legal exposure and fines for refusing. Again, no aspect of any action of an enrolled militia member could be described as, or was ever understood to be the exercise of any "right" (an exception of government power).

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, . . .​

​

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."​

​

Only "enrolled and notified" citizens had militia regulations impressed upon them and were obligated to serve.

.

It's not about people not in the militia not having militia duties. Of course they don't.

You have the right to be in the militia. If you choose to be in the militia.

The thinking there is that when the militia is really necessary, people will join up.

Why? Because they don't want random militias. Those random militias would be a threat to everyone. A threat to the very Constitution. You want to join up, you join up to the one that has state appointed officers and does things properly.

If you stopped people from being in the militia, because they're not in the militia, then you don't have a militia.

Why are you talking about "militia rights"? I didn't say the militia had any rights.



It's simple:

To protect the militia, you need to protect the two things a militia requires. The personnel and the arms.

So they did that.

You have the right to free speech even if you do not speak.
You have the right to protest the government, even if you do not protest.
You have the right to freedom of religion, even if you choose the government's preferred choice of religion.
You have the right to be in the militia, even if you never join up the militia in your whole life.

WOMEN have the right to be in the militia. It was never, ever expected of them to join up. But they had that right. Even if they didn't want to be in the militia.

That the militia was not needed in the way the Founding Fathers envisaged is not the point. The point is that having these powers, having these individual rights to own weapons and be in the militia, has kept the US government at bay.

 

[Abatis]

For me there are two issues with guns in the US. One is what the current situation and my understanding of the Second Amendment. The other is what I feel would be better.

And that is fine but having a personal "understanding" of what the 2nd Amendment is and what it does, may not have any relationship to what is really is and what it really does.

Often I find that people's understanding has more to do with massaging and molding the 2nd Amendment to fit their politics, rather than having their politics and policies fitting within the Constitution. For me, it is a useless endeavor to make grand proposals (or worse, demands) of what you want to see government do, without first determining what can be legally, constitutionally enacted and enforced.

Guns in the US make things worse.

The unrestrained and uncontrolled illegal misuse of guns makes things worse.

The police are on edge in certain places, which results in more problems and more deaths, police deaths and deaths at the hands of the police. It's inevitable. Even cases like the Floyd George case are because the police's mentality is different in the US than in other first world countries with less guns.

Well, that's a different discussion than gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. There's no right to be a criminal, no right to misuse guns or even own them if you have a criminal history. The government possesses wide uncontested authority to arrest and prosecute criminals and to segregate them from society. The failures of government to employ those powers to insulate society from those who can not operate within its rules, is not a constitutional matter.

The US murder rate is up to five times higher than other first world countries (well more than ten times for some countries). That's a problem. But..... there are other issues at play too. Like how politicians are there for the ride, rather than actually to represent people.

Most murder is perpetrated by people with with established criminal histories and are actively engaged in criminal enterprise. In our homicide hubs, the percentage of homicide victims and perpetrators with significant criminal records is upwards of 80%, often higher.

Back in 2007, USAToday had a series of articles on how police were examining the backgrounds of victims and perpetrators to find ways of breaking the cycle of murders. The articles are no longer on the main site but are archived.

One article, Criminals target each other, trend shows, reported, again, in 2007:

​

"In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.​

​

In many cases, says Frederick Bealefeld III, Baltimore's interim police commissioner, victims' rap sheets provide critical links to potential suspects in botched drug deals or violent territorial disputes.​

​

Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.​

​

In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.​

​

While it was common in the past for murder victims to have criminal records, the current levels are surprising even to analysts who study homicides.​

​

"Anecdotally, the detectives on the street knew" victims with prior police contact were being killed, "but we wanted people to start to look at this" in the community, O'Brien says.​

​

In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show.​

​

David Kennedy, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the rise in criminals killing criminals has escaped policymakers' attention.​

​

"The notion that these (murders) are random bolts of lightning, which is the commonly held image, is not the reality," says Kennedy, who has examined the backgrounds of murder suspects and victims in multiple U.S. cities. "It happens, but it doesn't happen often.""​

​

​

This trend has not been corrected, if anything it has worsened.

 

[2aguy]

And that is fine but having a personal "understanding" of what the 2nd Amendment is and what it does, may not have any relationship to what is really is and what it really does.

Often I find that people's understanding has more to do with massaging and molding the 2nd Amendment to fit their politics, rather than having their politics and policies fitting within the Constitution. For me, it is a useless endeavor to make grand proposals (or worse, demands) of what you want to see government do, without first determining what can be legally, constitutionally enacted and enforced.



The unrestrained and uncontrolled illegal misuse of guns makes things worse.



Well, that's a different discussion than gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. There's no right to be a criminal, no right to misuse guns or even own them if you have a criminal history. The government possesses wide uncontested authority to arrest and prosecute criminals and to segregate them from society. The failures of government to employ those powers to insulate society from those who can not operate within its rules, is not a constitutional matter.



Most murder is perpetrated by people with with established criminal histories and are actively engaged in criminal enterprise. In our homicide hubs, the percentage of homicide victims and perpetrators with significant criminal records is upwards of 80%, often higher.

Back in 2007, USAToday had a series of articles on how police were examining the backgrounds of victims and perpetrators to find ways of breaking the cycle of murders. The articles are no longer on the main site but are archived.

One article, Criminals target each other, trend shows, reported, again, in 2007:

​

"In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.​

​

In many cases, says Frederick Bealefeld III, Baltimore's interim police commissioner, victims' rap sheets provide critical links to potential suspects in botched drug deals or violent territorial disputes.​

​

Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.​

​

In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.​

​

While it was common in the past for murder victims to have criminal records, the current levels are surprising even to analysts who study homicides.​

​

"Anecdotally, the detectives on the street knew" victims with prior police contact were being killed, "but we wanted people to start to look at this" in the community, O'Brien says.​

​

In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show.​

​

David Kennedy, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the rise in criminals killing criminals has escaped policymakers' attention.​

​

"The notion that these (murders) are random bolts of lightning, which is the commonly held image, is not the reality," says Kennedy, who has examined the backgrounds of murder suspects and victims in multiple U.S. cities. "It happens, but it doesn't happen often.""​

​

​

This trend has not been corrected, if anything it has worsened.

Yes...we do not have a "gun problem..." we have a criminal problem...exacerbated by the policies of the democrat party, a party that attacks the police to the point they stop doing their jobs, and then the party continues to release known, violent offenders, over and over again....it is these individuals...not normal gun owners, who are doing almost all of the illegal shootings in this country.........

We do not have a gun problem here....we have a criminal problem created by the democrat party.

 

[2aguy]

Well, in the case of women, it wasn't expected of them, and it wasn't expected they'd even want to. Those were the times when "all men are created equal" and they have SLAVERY. Things were like that in those days.

The reality was there was an expectation that people served, rather than people demanding to serve. That the Founding Fathers used "militia duty" and "render military service" leaves no one in doubt that people were expected to serve. But, the Founders foresaw a situation where the feds would not want people to serve. So they protected it, even if it wasn't needed for hundreds of years.

Being exempt from service didn't mean you couldn't join up. Also you have the right to keep arms, where a person who didn't want to fight could give their weapon to someone who would.

No, you're wrong about the "unorganized militia".

Firstly because the term "unorganized militia" came from the Dick Act, whatever came before that wasn't the "unorganized militia"

Secondly because what came before was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. There was a militia with state authority, with state chosen officers which could be called up into the service of the federal government. This is "the militia".

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

Not "a Militia", it's capitalized and it has the word "the". The means "One of one" or "two of two" or "three of three". But as "Militia" is singular, it's "one of one".

There's one "Militia" and this is "the Militia" which can be called up into federal service.

This is a militia separated into many parts, each state having its own part of this. But this is the militia of the United States.

As seen in Supreme Court cases, we have parading and drilling is not protected. Why? Because it's not "the Militia".

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

And then they talk about it:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States,"

"the reserved military force", there being one. All citizens "capable of bearing arms", being men. But looking at the "religiously scrupulous" clause that didn't make it, they clearly didn't want to FORCE people to be in the militia. They EXPECTED them to want to be in it.

An actual look at “bearing arms” and the history of the U.S…..the Amicus brief to the Supreme Court for the New York case…..

During the colonial and founding period, no colony or state forbade carrying arms. Only a few addressed the issue. Massachusetts in 1692 outlawed going "Armed Offensively." Likewise, New Hampshire in 1699 ordered justices of the peace to arrest "affrayers, rioters, disturbers or breakers of the peace, or any other who shall go armed offensively." Being armed "offensively" is the opposite of peaceable defensive carry.
———
The Heller case cited five antebellum state supreme court cases concealed carry laws. Only one of them asserted that concealed carry was outside the right to bear arms. The main line of the cases indicate that concealed carry can be banned as long as open carry is allowed. Or vice versa. Because New York State prohibits open carry, the statutory system of concealed carry licensing may not be misused so as to prohibit the vast majority of law-abiding, trained adults from obtaining a carry permit.

Second Amendment professors brief in Supreme Court right to bear arms case

On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case will decide whether the

reason.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

And that is fine but having a personal "understanding" of what the 2nd Amendment is and what it does, may not have any relationship to what is really is and what it really does.

Often I find that people's understanding has more to do with massaging and molding the 2nd Amendment to fit their politics, rather than having their politics and policies fitting within the Constitution. For me, it is a useless endeavor to make grand proposals (or worse, demands) of what you want to see government do, without first determining what can be legally, constitutionally enacted and enforced.



The unrestrained and uncontrolled illegal misuse of guns makes things worse.



Well, that's a different discussion than gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. There's no right to be a criminal, no right to misuse guns or even own them if you have a criminal history. The government possesses wide uncontested authority to arrest and prosecute criminals and to segregate them from society. The failures of government to employ those powers to insulate society from those who can not operate within its rules, is not a constitutional matter.



Most murder is perpetrated by people with with established criminal histories and are actively engaged in criminal enterprise. In our homicide hubs, the percentage of homicide victims and perpetrators with significant criminal records is upwards of 80%, often higher.

Back in 2007, USAToday had a series of articles on how police were examining the backgrounds of victims and perpetrators to find ways of breaking the cycle of murders. The articles are no longer on the main site but are archived.

One article, Criminals target each other, trend shows, reported, again, in 2007:

​

"In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.​

​

In many cases, says Frederick Bealefeld III, Baltimore's interim police commissioner, victims' rap sheets provide critical links to potential suspects in botched drug deals or violent territorial disputes.​

​

Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.​

​

In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.​

​

While it was common in the past for murder victims to have criminal records, the current levels are surprising even to analysts who study homicides.​

​

"Anecdotally, the detectives on the street knew" victims with prior police contact were being killed, "but we wanted people to start to look at this" in the community, O'Brien says.​

​

In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show.​

​

David Kennedy, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the rise in criminals killing criminals has escaped policymakers' attention.​

​

"The notion that these (murders) are random bolts of lightning, which is the commonly held image, is not the reality," says Kennedy, who has examined the backgrounds of murder suspects and victims in multiple U.S. cities. "It happens, but it doesn't happen often.""​

​

​

This trend has not been corrected, if anything it has worsened.

Well, my understanding of the Second Amendment is very deep, based on decades of research and looking at everything.

Most other people's understanding is based on what they want to be true. I've had plenty of discussions with people who, once they'd seen all the facts, said "no, I prefer my uninformed view of the amendment, thanks"

Most murder is committed in certain places. Places that have been developed by the politicians to allow them to be "tough on crime".