Who is in charge of the well regulated militia, and who wrote the rules?

[DainBramaged]

Anyone? Can I get the leader's email address?

:shrug:

[lawodevolution]

1. the authors of the constitution and the 2nd amendment

"a well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state" -- this is a dependent clause and in no part of english can this ever govern an independent clause like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

You cannot create an if then statement using that first clause up there behind the if.

if a well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, then...
you could say: if a well regulated militia is (or were) necessary to a free state, then...
but in the 2nd amendment they say "being necessary to a free state" as if they are stating a well known established truth.

It is obvious that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms given to each individual citizen of the USA. It's been decided in the supreme court that this is true.

[JDPriestly]

6. Perhaps, but it is also clear that the militia is to be well regulated.

What is the difference between infringement and regulation?

Definition of INFRINGE

transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·er noun
Examples of INFRINGE

They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.
Origin of INFRINGE

Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
First Known Use: 1513

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

reg·u·late vt \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
1
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate?show=0&t=1287385700

Sounds to me like individuals have a right to bear arms but that right can be brought under the control of law or in other words can be regulated by law. That is what I understand that the Supreme Court recently said. The right to bear arms exists but subject to reasonable regulation. I haven't read the case, but that is my understanding.

[shadowrider]

7. "Well regulated" AT THE TIME, meant well functioning, NOT subject to government control

[JDPriestly]

39. What is your source on that?

I looked it up in a couple of places. I think I already posted this one.

Here is one:Main Entry: reg·u·late
Pronunciation: \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
Inflected Forms: reg·u·lat·edreg·u·lat·ing
Date: 15th century
1
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>
— reg·u·la·tive\-ˌlā-tiv\ adjective
— reg·u·la·to·ry\-lə-ˌtȯr-ē\ adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/regulate

According to my trusty old Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology published in 1966:

regular . . . subject to a religious rule XIV (Trevisa); conforming to a rule, principle, or standard, XVI. Late ME. reguler (later with ending assim. to L.) -- OF, regule (mod. regulier, with change of suffix), corr. to Sp. regular, It. regolare -- L. regularis (late in present sense), f. regula RULE; see -ar. So regularize XVII (once in a dict.; thereafter not before XIX, after F. regulariser). regulate control, adjust, XVII, f. pp. stem of late L. regulare. Hence regulation XVII; rule presecribed XVIII, regulator. XVII.

So a well regulated militia would be one that must follow certain rules. Since the Constitution applies to the government and the Bill of Rights limits the rights of government, we can assume that the regulation will be done by the government, but that individual citizens are to be bear arms but must abide by the government's regulations for bearing them.

In my opinion, and I believe also in the opinion of the Court, citizens have the right to bear arms, but the government has the right to set rules that citizens must follow with regard to bearing arms.

In my view, when citizens bear arms but refuse to follow the government's regulations regarding the arms, the citizens are in a state of insurrection.

For example, the Civil War officially began when the armies of the South refused to follow the regulation of the federal government with regard to the bearing of arms. That was an insurrection -- the bearing of arms without regard for government regulation.

Laws concerning safety and state militias are generally the domain of state governments. Of course, the state regulations and laws regarding the bearing of arms and the militia must be compatible or adhere to the federal laws. That's how I understand this.

[shadowrider]

40. Jeez. 1966 AIN'T 1770. n/t

[X_Digger]

43. Here are some examples..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

[JDPriestly]

49. The Constitution assigns the authority for organizing and regulating the militia to Congress:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[X_Digger]

52. And if the right were restricted to militia duty, that would amount to a hill of beans..

Let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

[JDPriestly]

65. Here is the key, at the time of the Revolution and in the context of the

frontier state of our country at that time, people had guns. That was a reality, not a question of right or duty.

The militia referred to in the Constitution is clearly that considered in Article I, section 8, which states:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That people owned guns was pretty much a given, just as it is in many rural, very rural areas of the US today. Owning guns is not a given in many big cities. In big cities, mostly only the police and criminals own guns. My neighbor across the street likes to fish. He may like to hunt and therefore may have a gun. A few people have guns in their homes because they think it makes them safer.

My dad always liked to say: If anyone wants to kill me, they will have to bring their own gun.

One of the problems with guns is that you have to practice a bit with the gun in order to be able to use it properly. If you have served in the military or on a police force, you may have been taught to use guns. If your family uses gun, again, you may know how to use a gun. But today, it is probably more useful to learn to drive a car than to use a gun.

I live in a city. Practicing use of a gun would be a huge, time-consuming activity, and I have no need for a gun since we have a good police force. Frankly, I am suspicious of neighbors who are overly interested in guns. City dwellers should not need guns, not if they have good communication with their neighbors and neighbors watch out for each other.

Most of the incidents of gun use in my area involve gangs and domestic violence. So, I may have a different view of guns than did my great-great grandfather who was said to be the best shot in the County at a time when the using a gun well was something to brag about.

Times have changed. I don't bake bread every day -- but I assure you that my great-great grandmother did. But then she didn't cook with gas or electricity. Times change. So do cultures.

[RSillsbee]

75. Logic failures

I live in a city. Practicing use of a gun would be a huge, time-consuming activity,

May or may not be true but most cities have public firing ranges. Also you can practice w/ airsoft if nothing else is available.

and I have no need for a gun since we have a good police force.

Can your good police force get to your home before a burglar can get to you?


Frankly, I am suspicious of neighbors who are overly interested in guns. City dwellers should not need guns, not if they have good communication with their neighbors and neighbors watch out for each other.

These are all opinions that you are welcome to hold but please don't try to impose them on me.

[X_Digger]

77. You went for the ten-pack, I see..

Pasting the same thing ten times and thinking it proves your point without any explanation as to why it supports your position isn't logical.

Yes, congress has the power, granted by the constitution, to raise, train, and discipline the militia.

Your point?

You didn't connect the dots- you can't. I've demonstrated that 'well-regulated', in this context, meant well-functioning, and in good order. I've demonstrated the grammatical syntax, and how the prefatory clause places no burden on the operative clause. I've demonstrated that the Bill of Rights places burdens on the government, not the people. The right protected by the second amendment (not granted) is unconnected to militia service. That is the reality that you wish to weasel out of.

In big cities, mostly only the police and criminals own guns.

Big cities like Dallas? Big cities like Houston? Phoenix? Birmingham? Atlanta?

The rest of the nation isn't LA. Nor is LA indicative of what all 'big cities' think.

City dwellers should not need guns, not if they have good communication with their neighbors and neighbors watch out for each other.

"Should"? I agree. In a perfect world, nobody would need to protect themselves. A 120lb woman wouldn't need a gun to keep from being raped by a 200lb man. A 65yo retiree wouldn't need a gun to keep the 17yo gang banger from killing him. A 35yo father wouldn't need a gun to keep the home invader from killing his family.

In a perfect world, the cops would always be within range to stop such occurrences, and liable for failing to protect people.

But, hey, we're not talking about 'need'. Civil rights don't work on 'need'. It's not the 'Bill of Needs'.


eta: Check out Rhode Island's constitution for another example of this grammatical structure- Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..".

[Glassunion]

89. But this in no way gives the government the power to place restrictions on the arms of the people.

#2

[S_B_Jackson]

64. And Congress has done so....

under the The Effiency of Militia Bill HR11654 (aka, The Dick Act of 1902)
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

Since that time, there have been changes to federal statutes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of age (at least those over the age of 21), as well as on the basis of gender, thus expanding the militia to be all persons over the age of 17 and (probably) under the age of 65 (64 being the mandatory retirement age in the US Armed Forces).

I and likely yourself are, therefore, members of the UNORGANIZED militia as defined by US Code.

[JDPriestly]

67. If so, we still answer to laws established by Congress.

Article I, section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

A militia that does not comply with the regulations set forth by Congress could, under certain circumstances, be crushed as being an insurrection. Not all militias, certainly, but the Southern armies were considered to be in insurrection. The Constitution provides for the suppression of insurrections.

[shadowrider]

68. It's quite obvious you're asking a question to which you accept no answer n/t

[S_B_Jackson]

80. And as I demonstrated, Congress has done so

to the degree that they feel necessary. The fact that they have chosen NOT to organize the "unorganized militia", have chosen NOT to issue arms to the "unorganized militia", or to provide rules and regulations for the "unorganized militia" seems to be a point that you choose to ignore.

However, that does not mean that Congress may infringe upon the individual right of US citizens, under the 2nd Amendment, to keep and bear arms OUTSIDE of militia duty or service.

Under current statute, Congress may only federalize the National Guard, but not state militia units.

Last I checked, there were no armed insurrections which are taking place. So that begs the question: Just who exactly do you believe that the Federal Government should be using troops to suppress?

[Glassunion]

90. But this in no way gives the government the power to place restrictions on the arms of the people.

#3

[Glassunion]

88. But this in no way gives the government the power to place restrictions on the arms of the people..

#1.

[DissedByBush]

86. Federalist Papers #29

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia..."

Context is obviously that being well-trained is equated with being well-regulated.

[Francis Marion]

131. 18th century textual evidence

JD:
The oldest dated source you mention is from 1966. You really need to go two centuries beyond that to appreciate the military connotation of ‘regular’ in 18th century diction.

For example, read the memoirs of British soldiers from the 1770s, and evaluate their usage of the term 'regular'. Consider Ensign Jeremy Lister of the 10th Regiment of Foot. He was guarding Concord's North Bridge with three or four companies of Redcoats on April 19, 1775, while Patriot militia and Minutemen marched toward his formation. Lister's original spelling, punctuation is preserved in the quotes.

"...we had not been long in this situation when we saw a large Body of Men drawn up with the greatest regularity and approach'd us seemingly with an intent to attack..."

and moments later,
"... the Rebels begun (sic) their March from the Hill we before had retired from with as much order as the best disciplined Troops..."

The Redcoats fired upon the Acton Minutemen at the head of the Patriot column- led by Isaac Davis, their Captain- whereupon Davis' well-regulated company of minutemen took the British under fire. The Acton Minutemen may be called well-regulated by 18th century standards, because for the preceding several months, Davis, a gunsmith, made sure that his men practiced musket firing on his property. Practice paid off: four out of eight British officers were shot by Davis' men. Half the command structure were hit, whereas only two enlisted Redcoats were shot. Davis, the state hero of Massachusetts, was shot through the heart.

"...fortunately for us in consiquance (sic) of the Message sent to Lt Col Smith he had considered to send the 47th Compy of Granadiers to our assistance, tho two late to be of any service at the Bridge yet they serv'd as a Cover for us to draw up our scattered Compy again, we then retired in reagular order to Concord..."

Let's step back a bit earlier in the day, to dawn, when Smith’s Redcoat raiding force marched into Lexington,

"it was at Lexington when we saw one of their Compys drawn up in regular order Major Pitcairn of the Marines second in Command call'd to them to disperce, but thier not seeming willing he desired us to mind our space which we did when they gave us a fire then run of to get behind a wall."

This descriptor, 'regular' pertains to a military unit that's squared-away, well drilled, well ordered. In fact, the redcoats were known as 'the Regulars,' to distinguish them, as professional soldiers, from mobs, civilians, rabble, or as the British were wont to describe us, 'Country people'. British Redcoats, it seems to me, are the cultural experts to consult to appreaciate the meaning of Regular.

Another British source, Lieutenant Frederick Mackenzie of the Royal Welch Fusiliers.
Mackenzie was not with the same formation as Ensign Lister; he Mackenzie came afterward with Hugh Earl Percy, the relief force. This formation left Boston well after sunrise, and arrived at Lexington outskirts in the early afternoon. They saw a most unusual sight: British Regulars in a rout, out of ammunition, taking fire, and running for their lives toward Boston.

"As we pursued our march, about 2 o'Clock we heard some straggling shots fired about a mile in our front:-As we advanced we heard the firing plainer and more frequent, and at half after 2, being near the Church at Lexington, and the fire encreasing, we were orderd to form the Line, which was immediately done by extending on each side of the road, but by reason of the Stone walls and other obstructions, it was not formed in so regular a manner as it should have been."

Note Mackenzie's usage of the negative form, irregular, (i.e., tactics anathema to European 'Regular armies) to describe Patriot partisan tactics:
"The Grenadiers and Light Infantry being exceedingly fatigued by their long march, kept at the head of the column, where indeed, latterly, the fire was nearly as severe as in the rear. During the whole of the march from Lexington the Rebels kept an incessant irregular fire form all points at the Column, which wsas the more galling as our flanking parties, which at first were placed at sufficient distances to cover the march of it, were at last, from the different obstructions they occcasionally met with, obliged to keep almost close to it."

Here is a second-hand anecdote, recorded by Mackenzie, of an unnamed British Officer who was with Smith's force. The officer describes the deployment of militia and onset of Patriot fire near Concord and on the way back to Boston:

"The Rebels now appeard in considerable numbers, drawn up in a regular manner, keeping principally on the high grounds, firing occasionally on the troops, but never attempting to make any regular or serious attack. As soon as they found the groops had got into a Column of march, they grew bolder, extending themselves on the flanks and rear of the Column, and fired briskly from behind any thing which afforded them shelter."

Hugh Earl Percy, in a letter dated April 20, 1775 to a friend in Parliament:
"During the whole affair the Rebels attacked us in a very scattered, irregular manner, but with perseverence & resolution, nor did they ever dare to form into any regular body. Indeed, they knew too well what was proper, to do so. Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself very much mistaken. They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about, having been employed as Rangers against the Indians & Canadians, & this country being much covd w. wood, and hilly, is very advantageous for their method of fighting."

So based upon these 18th century sources, a well-regulated militia meant a militia that was skilled and well-practiced in martial pursuits.

Well-regulated did not mean heavily burdened by prohibitions and surrounded by legal obstacles. Well-regulated therefore most certainly does not mean 'gun control' or 'gun ban'. With respect to arms, well-regulated means knowing how to properly use them, to be true to the language of the document.

Nor does the right to keep and bear arms pertain to the militia- alone.

The right pertains to The People, of whom the militia form a subset.

[spin]

142. Great post. (n/t)

[JDPriestly]

48. Shadowrider, have you read the Constitution?

Other than the 2nd Amendment, I mean:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Pretty clear.

[Glassunion]

91. But this in no way... You know the rest.

#4

[slackmaster]

17. The prefatory clause to the Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia is desirable

But it doesn't require militias to be maintained or operated in any particular way.

[JDPriestly]

50. But Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does state how the militia

is to be organized, ruled, regulate, governed:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Glassunion]

92. This thing you keep saying. I don't think it means what you think it means.

#5

[slackmaster]

103. That refers to the federal militia, not the state militias

Please look up the Dick Act a.k.a. the Militia Act of 1903, and the National Defense Act of 1916 for information on how the federal government executes its militia-related responsibilities under Article I, Section 8.

Because the Constitution does not prohibit states from having their own militias, the states can and do just that.

[Euromutt]

109. Admittedly, it USED to refer to the state militias, prior to the Dick Act

But even then, the purpose of that particular provision was simply to give Congress the power to standardize equipment and training among the militias of the several states so that, in the event of the militias being called to federal service, units from different states wouldn't be using weapons of differing calibers, not understand each other's drill commands, message formats, etc.

[X_Digger]

104. And that has fuck-all to do with the right protected by the second amendment.. next? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Keep looking for additional etymological sources of 'regulate'. The synonym you seek is 'equipped'.

[beevul]

35. The document in question...

The nature of the document in question, that being the bill of rights, is to place restrictions on government.

The way you read amendment 2, twists the meaning of the amendment away from being a restriction on government, and is therefore wrong, specifically your "but it is also clear that the militia is to be well regulated".

Read in the modern sense, it would read :

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Well regulated=well equipped.

[Euromutt]

119. "The difference between infringement and regulation" lies in WHAT is being infringed/regulated

Yes, the Constitution grants to Congress the power to regulate the militia, in the sense that it can set standards for equipment and training, originally for the state militias, in order to assure that if those state militias were called into federal service, they would all be using the same firearms, drill, tactics, etc.

In so doing, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to infringe upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; in fact, it explicitly forbids it.

The unspoken premise in your argument is that "the people" and "the militia" are the same thing; they are not. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not dependent on their service in a militia. Rather, the theory is that any service in a militia they may be required to perform will be facilitated by their exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

[shadowrider]

120. Dude, there you go introducing facts into an emotion based argument n/t

[Euromutt]

130. I can quit anytime I want to

I just don't want to!

[RSillsbee]

2. This wiki article has a list of active state militia's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

That are not conected w/ the National Guard I suppose it would be a starting point

And just so no one falls for your misuse of the term 'well regulated"

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

UNREC for deliberate misuse of the term "Well Regulated"

[JDPriestly]

51. Authority to set rules for the militia was given to Congress as follows:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That is in the Constitution.

[RSillsbee]

73. OK so what is your point?

The second amendment codifies (It doesn't grant anything) an individual right to keep and bear arms unconected w/ service in a militia. If there were no militia and no BOR I wouls still have the right to keep and bear arms

[Glassunion]

93. I lost count

#6 maybe?

[proteus_lives]

3. Still trying to get this turd to float?

[RSillsbee]

107. Even If the turd DOES float

it's still a turd

[krispos42]

4. Congress wrote the rules

...and they say that the organized militia is the National Guard, and thus answers to the state and federal executive branches.

They also say that the unorganized militia is all males between the ages of 17 and 45.

[JDPriestly]

5. You mean, who regulates the well regulated militia?

Good question.

[DainBramaged]

12. I keep seeing all these Constitutional explanations, but no answer.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

28. Uh no, you have seen the answer, you just don't like it..

of coarse that answer is you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge what "well regulated" meant in the 18th century.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Strictly speaking, the 'head' would be the various state governors, and the president.

Is that a narrow enough answer for your mis-use of 'well regulated'?

[SteveM]

37. Sometimes reading the Constitution can answer questions. nt

[pipoman]

27. One must first understand language usage of the 18th Century

at a time when pretty much everyone understood the term,"four score and seven years ago". Is it really a shock that the term, "well regulated" would have a different meaning than what our 21st century sensibilities indicate to us?

[JDPriestly]

41. I posted a couple of excerpts from etymological dictionaries.

Please see them. "Regulated" means governed by rules. It does not say whose rules. Our government's rules are pretty permissive when it comes to gun ownership. We do not want guns used carelessly or for crime or for insurrection. But gun owners and users must follow the rules -- and the governments set the rules -- including local and state governments. Historically, state governments are responsible for establishing laws that provide for the safety of citizens within the state. State governments establish the state police and the National Guard. Local governments establish the local police and other safety institutions. So, gun owners have the right to have guns but must follow the regulations set by the federal, state and governments. That is what "well regulated" means.

[X_Digger]

44. See my counter-examples- using definition 2.

"to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>"

Of course, the prefatory clause has no restriction or limitation on the operative clause.

If I said, "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the store."- would you assume that stores only sell soda? Or that's all I'm going to buy?

[pipoman]

70. Uh, no, no it isn't

at all what "well regulated" meant in the 18th century in the given context.

[SteveM]

36. One more time -- with feeling:

"well-regulated" at the time of the Constitution's writing meant properly equipped; in fact, when orders were given to the various militia during the Revolutionary War, citizens were required to report bearing THEIR OWN ARMS, or if not equipped, required to purchase a suitable arm. Any training beyond this point was particular to the individual militia (as opposed to the standing or Continental Army), and not at all equivalent.

In other words, well-regulated was showing up with a suitable weapon.

You may wish to review the pertinent Article of the Constitution, with an understanding that the Articles described the powers of the Federal government -- one of which was to authorize the calling forth of the militia.

[JDPriestly]

42. I would be interested in reading your source on that. Thanks in advance.

I know that people were supposed to show up with their own weapons in the Revolutionary War. That may also have been true in the War of 1812 and other wars prior to the Civil War.

But then, in Article I of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to establish armies (for two years at a time only, I believe).

I would be interested in finding out when the last time was that the government called up a militia and asked them to bring their own weapons. It would be pretty laughable to see a bunch of guys standing out on street corners to defend citizens against a bunch of nuclear missiles -- but then.

When we had the riots here in L.A. in the early 1990s, a number of people defended their properties with guns or tried to do so. They were not, I assure you, "a well regulated militia." They were just people defending their own properties. I don't know how successful they were.

[RSillsbee]

82. The last time the government called up the militia

Was during WWII the Alaskan Territorial Guard was called up in '42/43 to protect the Alaskan mainland against Japanese invasion. Oregon Governor Charles Sprague called up the unorganized militia (the Oregon State Guard) the day after Pearl Harbor.

The Maryland State Militia was mustered under Governor Herbert L. O’Connor on March 10 1942. Part of his call up orders stated “For the present, the hard pressed Ordnance Department of the United States Army cannot be expected to furnish sufficient arms, ammunition or equipment. Hence the volunteers, for the most part, will be expected to furnish their own weapons."

My source is the March 2009 edition of America's First Freedom Published by the NRA

When we had the riots here in L.A. in the early 1990s, a number of people defended their properties with guns or tried to do so. They were not, I assure you, "a well regulated militia." They were just people defending their own properties. I don't know how successful they were.

I happened to have been assigned to the 7th ID when that happened and we were called out to help put down the riots and I can tell you from my own experience that they were very successful.

[one-eyed fat man]

102. World War 2

State militias were called out to guard plants, dams, rail lines and other facilities considered critical. National Guard units had been Federalized and unavailable to the States.

One of the more notable militia units from WW2 was the Alaska Territorial Guard. Native Alaskans who served UNPAID from 1942 to 1947, the Eskimo Scouts served many vital strategic purposes to the entire Allied effort during World War II:

* They safeguarded the only source of the strategic metal platinum in the Western Hemisphere against Japanese attack<8>.
* They secured the terrain around the vital Lend-Lease air route between the United States and Russia.
* they placed and maintained survival caches primarily along transportation corridors and coastal regions.

Those Who Stayed Behind: The Georgia State Guard In World War II

During the early years of World War II, the Vermont State Guard was a classic militia, that is, a constitutionally sanctioned defense force; the type of "well regulated militia" referred to in America's fundamental legal document. The National Guard was overseas during the war, so the State Guard offered a first line of defense against any enemy attacks. Read more

Guarding the home skies. When the Army Air Corps flew off to war, the civilian volunteers of the Civil Air Patrol filled the void left behind—even driving Nazi subs from US coasts. Most Americans were unaware of the CAP’s vigil off the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (and even of the existence of combat in those areas). Private pilots flying their own planes, on their own dime, and ARMED with bombs or depth charges are officially credited with sinking two German submarines off the Atlantic coast.

In December 1941 and the most of 1942, the Goodyear airships Resolute and Volunteer operated as anti-submarine privateers based out of Los Angeles. As the only US craft to operate under a Letter of Marque since the War of 1812, the Resolute and Volunteer , ARMED and flown by civilian crews, patrolled the seas for submarines. Their success convinced the US Navy to use blimps for anti-submarine duties and particularly for convoy escorts.

[Bitwit1234]

8. I do know that the president is in charge of the

so called well regulated militia. Check the constitution and see. So all these militias being organized are still supposed to be controlled by President Obama.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

9. Here is your clear, succinct answer!

Who is in charge of the well regulated militia, and who wrote the rules?]

Originally, the states had "the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" and Congress exercised this organizational power through the http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm">Militia Act of 1792.

That Act was rescinded by the The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Dick Act. That Act effectively removed all vestiges of state authority under Art I, Section 8, cl. 16 of the federal Constitution by federalizing the state guard units. The constitutionally agreeable militia (as decrepit as it was) was extinguished and as was warned about, a standing army was erected on the ruins of the ignored militia.

Since 1903 there is no legal structure to call up the general population, no entity is presently authorized to organize, train or direct the citizens as militia. The "State Defensive Forces" mentioned above (post 2) were just Congress' consolation prize for blatantly stealing state powers; those organizations / entities have zero constitutional connection nor do they have any philosophical agreement with the general militia concept embraced by the founders.

Now the unspoken, underlying truth . . . Since Congress has chosen to extinguish all authority to call me up as militia they have also extinguished any duty I, as a member of the general unorganized militia could be said to owe the state and federal governments, SO . . . Congress has also extinguished any and all constitutionally legitimate governmental interest in what guns I own.

If you would like to see the federal government have a constitutionally legitimate interest at any level in the guns of the general citizenry then I would lobby your Senators and Representative to introduce a new Militia Bill modeled on the original 1792 Act. At that point the federal government could require me to disclose the particulars of only the specific weapon(s) I would furnish to perform my militia duty if called.

[DainBramaged]

13. Are you in charge?

So, if you have the right to keep and bear arms, then who is in charge of the well-regulated militia?

[spin]

25. Are you an authoritarian?

You seem to believe that there should be someone in charge. Why?

Lets look at some quotes from the times:

Tench Coxe: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... 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.", Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper
#29)

Alexander Hamilton: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped" – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2 emphasis added

Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

source: http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

[JDPriestly]

45. George Washington rode a horse, had no central heating in his house,

and ate the food produced on his own farms. He held slaves and even was attended by a slave during the Revolution (at least at times).

The world has changed. The United States has changed. We have plenty of guns in the U.S.

We should be focusing on creating a more peaceful society and not on defending against imaginary threats to gun owners.

As violent crimes have decreased in our society, so has concern about guns. This is no longer a big issue. The history is interesting, but no one needs to be paranoid about losing their right to have guns. As long as there is not a lot of crime involving guns, people really don't care if you want to have a gun.

[spin]

76. George Washington and the other founding fathers ...

did something unique in history.

“I give you a Republic if you can keep it”. With these words Ben Franklin famously is quoted as issuing a challenge to his and future generations. This past presidential election should give us pause to consider what a Republic is, how it is distinguished from the fraudulent “Democratic Republics” in the Third World, and encourage us to engage in serious introspection on why the United States Constitution, based as it is on 18th century ideas, is the greatest political document ever written. This includes the provision to elect the President via an Electoral College, described recently by the newly elected Senator from New York as an outmoded 18th century idea. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan ably disposed of such comments by pointing out that our Constitution is the oldest written Constitution and that it established the most successful and longest lasting Constitutional Republic in the history of the world. To repeat the apocryphal response to the King of England at the completion of the first America Cup race won by the United States “your Majesty, there is no second”, compared to our Constitution, there is no second, anywhere in the world..
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/preselection2000.html

George Washington' was a man of his times. You state:

"George Washington rode a horse, had no central heating in his house and ate the food produced on his own farms. He held slaves and even was attended by a slave during the Revolution (at least at times)."

Of course he rode a horse and had no central heating in his home. He couldn't drive a car to the grocery store to buy food. If that is meant to demean him as somewhat of a barbarian, just think of how the people in 250 years will view us.

True, Washington did own slaves but:

George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.
http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/

George Washington and slavery

Examination of the history of George Washington and slavery reveals that he was a typical Virginia slave owner for most of his life. After the Revolutionary War, Washington sought a way to free his slaves, ultimately emancipating them in his will upon the death of his wife.

***snip***

After the war, Washington often privately expressed a dislike of the institution of slavery. In 1786, he wrote to a friend that "I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." To another friend he wrote that "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the abolition" of slavery. He expressed moral support for plans by his friend the Marquis de Lafayette to emancipate slaves and resettle them elsewhere, but he did not assist him in the effort.<6>

The personal circumstances faced by Washington prove that his convictions were indeed genuine and not merely rhetorical. The excess number of slaves which he held was economically unprofitable for Mount Vernon and caused a great financial burden on him. Washington wrote "It is demonstratively clear that on this Estate (Mount Vernon) I have more working Negroes by a full than can be employed to any advantage in the farming system." Washington could have sold his "surplus" slaves and immediately have realized a substantial income. As prize-winning historian James Truslow Adams correctly observed, "One good field hand was worth as much as a small city lot. By selling a single slave, Washington could have paid for two years all the taxes he so complained about." Washington himself acknowledged the profit he could make by reducing the number of his slaves, declaring "alf the workers I keep on this estate would render me greater net profit than I now derive from the whole."

Despite the financial benefits he could have reaped, Washington adamantly refused to sell any slaves, saying "To sell the overplus I cannot, because I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in families to any advantage, and to disperse the families I have an aversion."

This stand by Washington was remarkable for his day. Refusing to sell slaves and also refusing to break up their families differentiates Washington from the culture around him during that early era and particularly from his State legislature. Virginia law, contrary to Washington's personal policy, recognized neither slave marriages nor slave families. Not only did Washington refuse to sell slaves or to break up their families, but he also felt a responsibility to take care of the slaves he held until there was, according to his own words, a "plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery

True, violent crime has decreased in our nation and has been on a significant downward trend for years. Since firearm and ammunition sales have reached record levels it should be obvious that more guns does not equal more violent crime. Some will say that more guns and concealed carry has caused this decrease as "shall issue" concealed carry and the decrease in crime started at about the same time. To me far too may factors exist to draw such a conclusion. I suspect better police work is the main cause of the drop in crime.

Concern about RKBA has decreased in our nation as our party has finally figured out that pushing draconian gun control laws is like shooting yourself in the foot. Still, many extremely liberal members of our party wish to impose foolish and useless schemes such as another assault weapons ban. Obviously, they play to their base and hurt many others in our party.

I do agree that I don't have to be excessively paranoid about the "evil Democrats taking away my firearms." That's simply bullshit propaganda pushed by the NRA to gather donations and the Republicans to get votes. The will and the votes do not exist currently to push such bans and laws. That doesn't mean that I will not post my opposition to any such schemes that I see in the Gungeon.

You say that:

" As long as there is not a lot of crime involving guns, people really don't care if you want to have a gun.
Alert

if so, why do I read so many anti-RKBA posts on this forum?

[SteveM]

123. Some misconceptions, here...

"We should be focusing on creating a more peaceful society and not on defending against imaginary threats to gun owners."

Work on creating a peaceful society all you want, but as long as gun owners have their Second Amendment rights threatened, then there WILL be focus placed on those violations. As a country, we cleaned out a lot of those threats with the 1964 Civil Rights Act which put the hammer to Jim Crow gun control laws (even as those "prototypes" moved north to settle in some cities above the Mason-Dixon Line), but there continue threats to the Second Amendment.

"This is no longer a big issue."

You can't wish it away. The Democratic Party CONTINUES to state its support for a strenghtened, permanent "assault weapons ban," President Obama calls for the same, as has his Attorney General Holder (as late as last year). As long as these positions remain, locked into documents as they are, then candidates -- good candidates -- must suffer the consequences.

At the very least, why not join us in ridding us of this language in our own party platform? It's a 'Kick Me' sign of the worst sort.

[JDPriestly]

53. Spin, that was clearly sorted out at the Constitutional Convention

and the result can be found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[spin]

79. True, but as many concepts, it changed over time...

The early colonists of America considered the militia an important social structure, necessary to provide defense and public safety.<6> "They were a group of citizens who would be ready to fight in any emergency" All able-bodied males were expected to be members of the local militia, though in practice there were many possible exemptions to service including: conscientious objection, attendance at college and engagement in important business. The important and wealthy could avoid service, if they wanted, by paying others to go in their place. The colony of Pennsylvania did not have a militia, prior to 1755, due to the large and pacifist Quaker population.<7>

***snip***

Confederation period (1783-1787)

Politically, the militia was highly popular during the postwar period, though to some extent, based more on pride of victory in the recent war than on the realities.<15> This skepticism of the actual value of relying upon the militia for national defense, versus a trained regular army was expressed by Gouverneur Morris:

***snip***

State Defense Forces

Since the Militia Act of 1903 Many States have created and maintained a Reserve Military Force known as The State Defense Forces (Some States refer to them as State Military Reserve, State Guard, or Foot Guard). They were created to assist, support and augment National Guard forces during peacetime conditions. Also during the call up of National Guard forces for wartime deployments, State Defense Forces can be used to assume the full military responsibilities of the State. Their mission includes the defense of the State and the enforcement of military orders when ordered by their Governor.

Throughout the 20th Century, State Defense Forces were used in every major war. New York Guard Soldiers patrolled and secured The Water Aqueduct of New York, Mass Transit Areas, and were even deployed to France to assist in Logistical operations in World War 1. Texas State Guard Soldiers suppressed a riot and maintained peace and order in Texas throughout World War 2.

***snip***


The reserve militia

All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the Reserve Militia, also known as the sedentary militia. Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 311) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313). All female citizens who are members of National Guard units are also included in the reserve militia pool (10 USC 311).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

[Glassunion]

94. Wait... What?

#7

[cleanhippie]

61. Are you dense?

You have been given a very clear and succinct answer, repeatedly, yet you ignore the answers over and over and over. What gives?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

81. Total fail on the philosophical underpinnings of th COTUSA

My right to arms is not dependent upon the existence of a militia structure or organization. The right to arms is a pre-existing right wholly and completely retained by the people. No aspect of its scope or exercise was conferred to government thus no federal power exists to impact it.

In reality all the 2nd Amendment "does" is to redundantly forbid the federal government from exercising powers it does not possess. Perhaps you should read Federalist 84 explaining why they thought adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was such a bad idea.

BIG HINT - - Your argument is a fruition of a central theme of the Federalist argument of why adding a bill of rights was dangerous. Congratulations!

Here, digest this and tell us what you think it means and how it affects your argument; Hamilton argues:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? . . . (T)he Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given . . ."

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm">The Federalist 84

[PavePusher]

10. Which of these do you recommend:

http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/boating-electric-trolling-motors/_/N-1100544?rid=20&WT.srch=1&WT.tsrc=PPC&WT.mc_id=58000000000380390&WT.z_mc_id1=131995599

[alabama_for_obama]

101. are you saying...

that there is a troll amongst us? or are you going to go out looking for one? I think I already know who it is.

[one-eyed fat man]

11. Start here

Title 10 of the United States Code outlines the role of armed forces in the United States Code

Title 32 of the United States Code outlines the role of the United States National Guard in the United States Code

State Defense Forces

State Defense Forces (SDF) (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

US CODE

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The official classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

* The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia<2>. The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.

* The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)

What YOU and every other unscrupulous troll who utters the word 'MILITIA' with unconcealed venom and hatred are trying to conflate the legitimate unorganized militia with a private militia. Private militias which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia.

These private militia groups have no official status and are not linked with State or Federal Government organizations or military forces, nor are any of them known to be registered with the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

They are political associations and are critical of the political actions of many State governments, but primarily the Federal government, in what they consider to be unconstitutional federal legislation, policies, and actions of federal agencies. You apparently feel all gun owners are somehow secret members of these groups. You certainly ascribe their motives to everyone who does not bow to your superior wisdom.

They are not the unorganized militia referred to in the US Code, and you KNOW it! If you didn't before you do now. And if you don't squat to piss, you are likely a member whether you like it or not. The current President is your Commander in Chief, if he chooses through Selective Service or other lawful means to compel your service, if you're good enough to make the cut.

[JDPriestly]

54. One-eyed fat man, see the Constitution Article I, Section 8

which gives Congress the authority to enact the laws you cite.

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Glassunion]

95. No it does not give them that right.

#8

[provis99]

134. does that mean only men can have guns?

Because that's certainly what the reading implies

[PavePusher]

143. Only if you ignore all subsequent E.O. legislation. n/t

[X_Digger]

14. flamebait

The 1990's called. They want their talking points back.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx

[slackmaster]

16. Most of today's militia is unorganized, but state governors are the commanders in chief

This information really isn't very hard to find, if only you would bother looking.

Here's an example from California law, just to get you started.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[Remmah2]

18. I am a milita of one.

And my wife will testify as to the fact that I am unorganized.

As to the question of who's in charge, my wife is in charge. I dare anyone to argue the point with her. She has never been armed, is not armed and anyone challenging her will have a slow and painful day. :) That's why she's my best friend.

[slackmaster]

19. The ability of people to organize themselves to fit the situation is the beauty of an unorganized...

...militia.

Authoritarians don't understand this simple fact. Nothing is real for them unless it follows some kind of rigid set of rules that's written down somewhere, and has a concrete command and control infrastructure in which every individual has an easily identifiable boss.

[Remmah2]

20. There are elected officials.

And there are natural leaders.

The later scares the former.

[DainBramaged]

21. Dancing on top of a moving train...

The point is there IS no one in charge of any well-regulated militia because there IS NONE, and all of the distractions in this thread are simply that, distractions. It is an excuse by those who can't leave the house without a gun to make sure they can carry them and let us all know they are on the lookout for the criminals, or to be perfectly honest, protect themselves from nobody but the boogie man, and we all know who that boogie man is(LOL).

You can all go back to counting your ammunition again, I made my point.

[X_Digger]

22. Your point being that you're hopelessly out of touch? Yup, you made it.

The fact that you're spewing talking points from 1994 is readily apparent.

Decades of relaxation of gun laws, the rise of 'shall issue' concealed carry, the sunsetting of the federal 'assault weapons' ban, slight increases in the rate of household ownership of firearms, public opinion favoring leaving gun laws alone or relaxing them, and finally, a string of cases culminating in both Heller and McDonald, and a concomitant drop in all violent crime, guns or not- those are the things that you will never admit. You'd actually have to catch up to this century.

[rrneck]

23. Give it time.

There are any number of regulations related to the ownership and use of firearms. The spread of CCW laws in the United States regulates the carriage of firearms in public places and establishes rules of engagement for those carrying them. There are stiff penalties for violating those rules.

The people who are in charge are the people, exercising their authority through a democratically elected government. It's messy, confusing and inefficient but it works.

Petty tyrants and short sighted authoritarians don't much like it though. They want to know exactly who's in charge, preferably one man, preferably them.

So, the answer to your question is you. You are in charge of whether or not you are properly regulated and how much. It appears that you are not taking your responsibilities seriously. I suggest you acquire a concealed carry permit and acquaint yourself with the firearms laws that apply at your locality. You can, of course, do that without having to own a gun.

Get to work.

[JDPriestly]

57. rrneck, pertaining only to who is in charge of the militia, not other gun issues.

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's from the Constitution of the United States. Congress is in charge of the militia.

[Glassunion]

96. This does not give congress the power to enact gun control legislation. It has been explained.

#9... but who is counting?

[rrneck]

105. Sure, but at the risk of being pedantic

the people are ostensibly in charge of congress. We have used our congress to fashion laws that allow us to arm ourselves. If our congress decides to activate any sort of militia then there will be a bunch of people who will know which end of a gun to walk up to. They will have a working knowledge not only of firearms safety but of the rules of engagement. They will have that knowledge because of those laws.

[Remmah2]

24. That distraction part is 100% correct.

I was distracted from my coffee cup while reading the previous post.

[spin]

26. George Mason would disagree with you ...

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)



George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) was an American patriot, statesman, and delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention. Along with James Madison, he is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights."<1><2><3><4> For these reasons he is considered one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States.<5><6>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason



I contend that the founding fathers would support RKBA and carrying weapons.



Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

source: http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

[JDPriestly]

58. I think I have already brought this to your attention:

The Constitution has the last word on this:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[spin]

83. Ah, but as I have pointed out to you ...

the Constitution has evolved over time.

For example, slavery is no longer legal.

[Glassunion]

97. Yes you have... 10 times so far. However you ignore the replies. They don't serve your point.

#10

[AtheistCrusader]

31. *gets destroyed* *declares victory* *retreats*

I have seen this pattern before.

[cleanhippie]

63. He is like shampoo instructions...

rinse, lather, repeat.

[Straw Man]

32. "You can all go back to counting your ammunition again, I made my point."

No. You didn't.

If I say that seventeen times, does it mean that I win?

[PavePusher]

33. "...and we all know who that boogie man is(LOL)."

No, we don't. Do tell....

[PavePusher]

34. "...because there IS NONE..."

And every time some enterprising people form one, people with your mind-set scream themselves blue in fear and bigotry.

Cake... or militia? I'll have both, thanks.

[SteveM]

38. Well, don't fall between the cars...

You have not made a point; you have merely expressed your culture-war punk-out (which, of course, requires -- even insists -- on no facts at all). Got that now?

[JDPriestly]

59. People need to read the Constitution -- all of it, not just the parts

that serve their argument.

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Now go back and read the bits at the STATE level, and in reference to the CIC.

I'll wait.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

74. "People need to read the Constitution . . . "

And one must also understand the implications of limited, enumerated powers.

Exactly where does the Constitution empower the federal government to have even a superficial interest in the personal arms of the private citizen?

The fact that zero authority is granted to government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen, let alone impact them legislatively, is the true explanation and definition of the citizen's right to arms.

The most fundamental principle of our Constitution is ALL NOT SURRENDERED IS RETAINED . . . Since we the people have never granted government any power to impact our arms, NONE EXISTS! Do you willfully ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments too?

[SteveM]

126. You-u-u've got it...

"Exactly where does the Constitution empower the federal government to have even a superficial interest in the personal arms of the private citizen?"

It doesn't. It only requires that members of the citizen militia, when called into service of the United States, report with a firearm suitable for service (the well-regulated part). If they do not have such arm, then they will be required to obtain one. Said another way, the "interest" of the federal government in what manner of arms citizens might have comes into play only when Congress calls upon the militia to be in service of the United States.

[Glassunion]

100. Baker's dozen...

#13... sweet.

[SteveM]

124. I think we have been through this numerous times...

"Congress may provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..."

No where in this does Congress provide for arming the "People." In fact, the people are bound to answer the call for militia bearing arms suitable for duty; if they have none, THEN Congress may "arm... the Militia." No where does Congress have this authority when the militia is NOT "...employed in the Service of the United States..."

Long-dead horse, this.

[Caliman73]

46. What point did you make?

That you can construct an irrelevant argument based on irrelevant issues and claim you proved something? We have the right to own and carry (with restrictions) firearms irrespective of militia status or service. Being a citizen or resident of the country gives us the right, not belonging to any organized or disorganized group. whoever is in charge is irrelevant. The right is NOT connected to service. It is connected to "the people".

[JDPriestly]

56. See the Constitution. Congress has the authority to form a militia even though we don't really have

one.

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Again, you ignore state and federal executive powers, and the delta between organized and unorganize

d militia.

And yes, I assume you are ignoring these things intentionally.

[Glassunion]

98. Woo hoo! We are into the double digits. Keep saying it. That makes it fact.

#11 for those keeping score at home.

[jmg257]

138. How can you be wrong so many times in one thread???

The Militia of the Several States were ALREADY FORMED! Congress was simply granted the power to decide how they were to be organized, armed and trained, and 'called forth'.

The Constitutional Militia were re-formed in 1903, they were federalized, so no longer can they fill the role as recognized and stated in the Constitution, where they were State entities.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief...and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

[cleanhippie]

62. You THINK you made a point.

But what you really accomplished is POINTing out you own ignorance.

[JDPriestly]

47. Aha! The Constitution is a marvelous thing.

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[X_Digger]

55. Pasting the same thing 9- times in 9 posts, as though it proves what you assert is silly. n/t

eta: you pasted the same thing twice more while I composed.

eta2: and once more!

eta3: seven!

eta4: eight!

eta5: nine! Go for it.. make it an even ten!

[JDPriestly]

66. I think that people should read the Constitution in its entirety.

I hope that if I post an excerpt form it nine times, people will read it.

The ignorance of the Constitution in this thread is absolutely embarrassing.

[shadowrider]

69. What's embarrassing is YOU with YOUR interpretation insisting everyone else is wrong

Why, exactly, if you aren't willing to listen to answers to a question YOU posed, are you here?

[JDPriestly]

111. Because, I think that a lot of people who are responding to my

comments have preconceptions about what the Constitution says. They don't want to really think for themselves about what it says. Yes, people have the right to have guns so that they can be called to join a militia should such a call be necessary. But the right to have guns can be regulated. That is the type of gun you can have, the kind of registration you need to do to possess the gun, can be regulated.

Even the right to free speech can be limited by time, place and manner.

That is why you have to have a permit if you want to hold a demonstration with a crowd that exceeds just a handful of people. That is also why people can be arrested if they try to invade a military base with a crowd of protestors. Even speech rights are limited by regulations -- time, place and manner.

Further, in a Scalia decision (I think it was called Smith), the Supreme Court ruled that even the exercise of religion is limited if those exercising their religion are violating laws. I believe that was a case in which some religious group, not sure but I think it was an American Indian religion, wanted to use drugs as part of a religious rite and lost on appeal to he Supreme Court. You cannot avoid drug laws by claiming that using the illegal drug is a religious observance.

Sorry. But I that is the law. I believe that the recent Supreme Court decision also stated that you cannot ban the possession of guns outright and totally, but that you can regulate them.

Remember, the question in the OP was not about the right to bear guns but rather as to who is in charge of the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. As I point out, people have the right to have guns within limits, but authority of the militia, setting the rules for it (or not setting rules) is up to Congress. So Congress is in charge of creating the militia that is referred to in the Second Amendment and in the writings of Americans at the time of the Revolution. That is the design set forth in the Constitution.

[shadowrider]

112. WE think for ourselves. YOU want us to accept YOUR interpretation n/t

[Francis Marion]

132. Establish evidence for your position from 18th century

You claim:

"...But the right to have guns can be regulated. That is the type of gun you can have, the kind of registration you need to do to possess the gun, can be regulated..."

Can you back that up with period examples to support your modern definition of 'well-regulated'.

Your usage of the term 'well-regulated' does not correspond with the meaning of that same term in the Constitution, in its time of origin; a document in which you purport to have an interest.

[jmg257]

136. NOT SO! Congress DID NOT have the charge of 'creating the militia'. THEY ALREADY EXISTED!!!

The Militia of the Several States were one of only a few existing bodies the Constitution recognizes as 'pre-existing'...they pre-date the Constitution (by decades), and especially since the creation of the several States via their constitutions during the revolution, and specifically as noted under the Articles Of Confederation.

The Congress was indeed given the power to state HOW they would be regulated, but NOT to create them out of broadcloth...(or to re-create them).

The EXISTING Miltia, as referred to in the original Constitution, AND who were declared to be mandatory in the 2nd amendment, were given very specific, very vital roles in the Constitution. It was up to Congress only to decide how they should be organized, armed, and trained, and utilized ("called forth") when in federal service...which congress 1st did in the Miltia Act of 1792.

[X_Digger]

78. It doesn't prove what you wish it does.

Yes, congress has the power to raise, train, arm, and discipline a militia.

And????

[Caliman73]

85. Just like the OP

Your information though informative is irrelevant. Yes the Congress has power to raise a militia or army. That is one of their enumerated powers. My response related to the right to own and bear arms is...So What?

The private citizen's right to bear arms is not connected to service in any militia. It belongs to the people. The amendment says nothing about IF you are actively in the militia you can have arms. It says nothing about the right being linked to the Congress raising a militia.

[JDPriestly]

110. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to insure that it may be

possible for the government to form a militia if Congress so wishes.

The 2nd Amendment combined with Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, most definitely gives Congress the power to regulate the ownership of weapons.

Today, the ownership of rifles or even hand guns would only be useful to defend against local insurrection. The ownership of personal weapons would, as I stated in another post, not be useful in a conflict involving, say nuclear weapons or even drones.

A militia would mostly be useful in case of an insurrection -- and if there were an insurrection, the use of personal weapons would certainly be permitted only in defense of the legitimate government.

[X_Digger]

113. You haven't actually connected those dots, you know.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to insure that it may be possible for the government to form a militia if Congress so wishes.

Yes, that's why the right was protected. It in no way limits the right to a certain purpose.

The 2nd Amendment combined with Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, most definitely gives Congress the power to regulate the ownership of weapons.

Just because you put them in the same sentence doesn't make it so.

How you jumped to the conclusion that someone's arguing that congress has no power to regulate arms at all is a mystery. That's neither here nor there- a straw man of your own making.

What's under discussion is whether or not the right protected by the second amendment is somehow limited to militia service.

You've been presented with contrary evidence and presented none of your own.

[JDPriestly]

114. In my view, the right to bear arms is not limited to militia service.

But, people who have arms in their homes could be called to serve in case of an insurrection. And they could, therefore, be called to use their arms in the service of a militia that could potentially be formed were there an insurrection.

The right to bear arms does not permit people to use those arms to form a militia that attempts to start an insurrection because Congress can form a militia any way it wants -- including forming one that requires those with arms to participate and support the Union or the federal or state governments depending on the level at which the militia is formed.

I don't think we are likely to have an insurrection at this time in history. But it has happened in the past -- in the Civil War.

[Glassunion]

115. So... The owning of firearms is separate from militia service.

It is a byproduct of owning arms. And if I do not own arms, it is the responsibility of congress to supply me with arms if the militia is called up by congress.

But my right to bear arms in defense of myself and if needed the State shall not be questioned. That is a view I can agree with 100%.

[X_Digger]

116. You started out in the right direction then took a wrong turn..

I'm glad we agree that the right is not limited to militia service.

No right protects one to engage in illegal behavior- the first amendment doesn't protect libel or inciting a riot. Nobody has asserted that the second amendment protects illegal behavior.

[PavePusher]

117. Actually, Citizens can hold any insurrection they want to.

Legitimacy depends on whether they win... or lose. Don't forget that this nation was founded on insurrection.

[rrneck]

118. And history is written by the winners. nt

[Glassunion]

121. I thought that was Fox News' job?

Hmm... Go figure?

[AtheistCrusader]

122. We've been trying to point this out for some time.

Something the republicans talking about 'second amendment solutions' don't realize is, all Christine Gregoire has to do is sign on the dotted line of a legal order to call up the militia, and I will be there, bright and chipper. For whatever. Put down an insurrection.. Sandbag flooding. Search and rescue. Fire fighting. You name it.

[SteveM]

128. Once you get beyond your mass-repitition, you can't make the case...

"The 2nd Amendment combined with Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, most definitely gives Congress the power to regulate the ownership of weapons."

No, it does not. Congress has powers to call up a militia, and to regulate the MILITIA, not the people. It does NOT have the "...power to regulate the ownership of weapons" beyond the strictures of calling up a militia.

Really, this is so point-blank, I can only conclude that you want the Constitution to say something it does NOT say. As for:

"The ownership of personal weapons would, as I stated in another post, not be useful in a conflict involving, say nuclear weapons or even drones."

Please be informed that in the modern era alone (the collapse of formal imperialism since WW II), we have seen many conflicts (the Cuban Revolution, the Viet Nam War, Algeria, Afghanistan I and Afghanistan II, Iraq, etc.) where the "ownership of rifles or even hand guns" have been effectively used to overthrow better-equipped ruling authority. I realize you injected the caveat "nuclear weapons" (used only once in war), but you should get the point. In any case, this is not particularly germane to the discussion at hand.

[Francis Marion]

133. Help, please.

Help me understand your claim:
"The 2nd Amendment combined with Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, most definitely gives Congress the power to regulate the ownership of weapons"

of which your named source material states,
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Reconcile your claim with the grammar of the Second Amendment; I don't see it.

And while you're at it, to establish your reading comprehension baseline, consider the following statements:

1) Congress shall make law respecting an establishment of religion and shall surely restrict the free exercise thereof. True or false? Why?

2) Any soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, likewise in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. True or false? Why?

3) The right of the people to be insecure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and Warrants shall issue, without probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, or whim, and perhaps describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. True or false? Why?

In light of this exercise, wouldn't you agree that it's as bad to misinterpret the Bill of Rights as it is to misrepresent the Bill of Rights?

[jmg257]

137. The Militia were ALREADY formed! And the Constitution gave those STATE MILITIA vital roles to fill

as THE 1st defense to protect the People's liberty...(liberty just as recognized in the Pre-amble: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence" = "the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions").

And NOTHING in the Constitution gives Congress a power over the right of the people to own/keep arms. They do have some power to regulate how the people will be armed (by themselves) for Militia duty - only....which they 1st did in the Militia Act of 1792.

The right to arms was already secured with regards to the Militia due to the Militia clauses and the existence and role of the Militias. The 2nd observed the necessity of those Militias (Militia of the Several States) and the importance of them being well-trained, and more specifically secured the right to arms for ALL legal purposes, EXACTLY to make sure those who would seek to misuse/abuse the militia powers granted would be thwarted. And note - it is AN AMENDMENT, which supercededes any other power listed in the body of the document.

[S_B_Jackson]

139. Wrong. The 2nd Amendment, passed AFTER, Article 1 Section 8

supercedes that article in areas where the two overlap. Congress is given the power and authority to arm (if they choose to do so, though the normal understanding of "militia" is that the citizenry is to report bringing their own personal arms) and to regulate the training and organization of FEDERALIZED state militias.

However, under the 2nd Amendment, Congress is specifically enjoined from infringing upon the right of the CITIZENRY to keep and bear arms. Their right to this ownership and bearing is NOT dependent upon militia service.

[jmg257]

140. Close...they were to legislate how State Militias would be organized before they were federalized.

That way the Militias were sure to be most effective when they finally were called into federal service (ensure consistency in weapons & training).

Besides, there is no overlap. The militia clauses secure the existing right to arms for militia service, the 2nd specifically makes it personal.

[one-eyed fat man]

106. Yes, you are.

.....and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,

The part of the militia that IS NOT in Federal service is not governed by Congress. Congress has quite conveniently defined that part of the militia that IS in Federal service under Title 32 of the United States Code.

The Army of the United States is the official name for the conscription force of the United States Army that may be raised at the discretion of the United States Congress in the event of the United States entering into a major armed conflict. The Army of the United States was utilized in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. You know them as "draftees", those members of the unorganized militia selectively called to service. The last use of the Army of the United States was during the Vietnam War, and it was disbanded after 1974.

The Army Reserve and National Guard of the United States have never been incorporated into the Army of the United States, and have always been separate components. The Army National Guard is known by the service abbreviation “ARNG,” while the Army Reserve is referred to as “USAR.”

[SteveM]

127. Follow your own advice.nt

[Surf Fishing Guru]

84. You read but do not comprehend...

How does Congress' power over the militia extend to private citizens when the Constitution explicitly states Congress's governing power only extends to "such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"?

The private citizen is twice removed from Congressional authority; 1) they are not enrolled in their state militia company, 2) their state militia has not been called to federal service.

Care to explain the implications and purpose of the militia clause in the 5th Amendment? Why the distinction if no distinction exists in the multiple layers of militia (1-unorganized, 2-enrolled but not active, 3-active state member, 4-state militia called into federal service)?

[Glassunion]

99. Eh?

#12... I must say, rather persistent. Like an itch.

[cleanhippie]

60. You are!

You ARE the well regulated militia.

I guess you need to talk to yourself?

[lawodevolution]

87. Here's an answer

The militias today are throwing out the extremists and are mainstreaming. I've even met a Jew who was in the militia recently. They offer to aid the government in a disaster or in anything the police or government need, but it is the government who rejects using them. Militia members would love for the government to give them a reasonable order, such as searching for a lost kid or maintaining stability during a disaster. The advantage to the militia is any given member can reject executing an order anytime without concern. I'm all for reducing the size of the military and federal law enforcement agencies and I'd like to see the local governments start working with the militias.

[DainBramaged]

108. Panties in a knot, you got 'em

:rofl:

[spin]

125. Whose panties? I don't wear panties so you can't be referring to me ...

I do like the graphic of the cat and the dog. Reminds me of my cat and the four Boston Terriers that live in this big old house that used to be a hotel.

[SteveM]

129. Uh, are you congratulating yourself? Sorry, but auto-replay don't work. nt

[jmg257]

135. Start with these guys...

Ultimately, normal circumstances I would say this guy:
Chief, National Guard Bureau General Craig R. McKinley
http://www.ng.mil/sitelinks/default.aspx

For organization & training regulations i.e."rules"...
National Guard Bureau - same guy
Also see the DoD, DA, etc.

In charge when In Federal Service, hard to beat the CiC:
President Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact


For NY's trained(regulated) Miltias:
In Charge:
David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
To Email The Governor:
Click here to email the Governor.

Organization & Regulations:
Adjutant General Major General Patrick A. Murphy
Division of Military and Naval Affairs


You are on your own for finding contact info for all the other states' Militias!

[Nodak]

141. If the words

"the right of the people" in the second amendment do not refer to an individual right then are you going to change the other amendments where those words appear??