Well Regulated meaning in working order and properly armed.
Militias don't exist anymore, accept as a term for a cosplaying gun club.
Remember, when this was written people thought a permanent military would be used against the citizens, so they thought it better to not have one.
There were supporters of a standing army at the time notably George Washington President of the national when the Bill of Rights was enacted.
Yes. True. Everything had at least half a dozen reasons for and against, that were all debated exhaustively.
But this specific right, is the only one that actually describes a reason for its existence. And that reason no longer exists. That's the important part.
6A) ...to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I would argue that the militia still exists it's just the government isn't doing it's duty to regulate the body of the people to be capable of common defense well. And to assume a right protected by the constitution could be outmoded by government inaction is self defeating logic.
Of course they are. It's the whole military. More specificaly The National Guard. We have permanent professional soldiers who replaced the militia long ago.
The military and national guard aren't militia, they are armies. A select militia is no militia at all. And professional soldiers can't replace a militia as it is them who on rare occasion they are tasked with opposing.
At the siege of Boston the Connecticut militia along with the Green Mountain Boys, and the men of Massachusetts showed up to oppose the British regulars. The regulars were professional soldiers. The rest the militia.
Our professional army maybe our ally in liberty today but history has shown that may not always be the case.
The National Guard are the modern militia. Deployable by the Governor, not the President.
A select militia is no militia at all. It defeats to core purpose of a militia. And it isn't deployable by the President. But it is by Congress (then under Exec leadership). Read the Federalist Papers/Antifederalists Papers. Throw Blackstone and Story in there too.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; -Article 1 Sec 8
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; - Article 2 Sec 2
10 U.S. Code § 246 - 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.
So then only 17-45 year olds can legally own guns?
No, When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn't be able to put down without a local militia. That needs to be remembered every time this argument comes up. The Second Amendment exists because because they were afraid of slave rebellions. Patrick Henry in particular in this case.
Can you provide any reputable evidence or citations to back this up?
The idea that militias were solely for suppressing slave rebellions is patently wrong. If that was the case why would Vermont (a state that never allowed slavery) have had a militia.
The Federalist Papers clearly painted their purpose.
When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn’t be able to put down without a local militia
You're thinking of cops. And yes, cops are not well regulated.
Where do you think cops came from? They largely grew out of slave catcher Patrols. State organized groups of armed men, ie exactly what Patrick Henry wanted.
That doesn't even really matter to the point I was making.
The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to explicitly state the reason for it. And organized state militias don't exist anymore. So it really doesn't need to either.
And damn were they almost right a few times, and 100% were right if you count cops under that term.
That includes rules. You guys want to ignore an entire part of the definition of the word.
Like the background checks and waiting periods already put onto gun purchases. No point in age restricting them to 21 as well until the government declares it to be the new adulthood age.
Oh so now rules are okay under the 2nd amendment, you just don't like them?
They aren’t, I was making a point that the well regulated in your context is being met, but shall not be infringed means not denying it to legal adults due to age.
So why can't the militia put an age floor in? What's different about that rule as opposed to background checks?
As currently interpreted under law. A militia can be anyone legally able to aquire a firearm under federal law. Therefore, this person can start a one man militia and aquire a firearm.
That's not how US law works. The Supreme Court wants us to believe we're all the militia, so that means we can all flounce around with our boom toys and if ten people get shot then it's just an unavoidable tragedy.
Trying to spin the rulings to something that would be more rational isn't an honest conversation.
That’s the current ruling, like it or not, if this ruling were to change, it would be easily circumvented and possibly incite major demonstrations and possible congressional action. Like it or not, there are guns in America.
That's not true. This spate of rulings is extremely recent. In the last decade or so. We went 200 years without them and no major demonstrations, except at the NRA convention when it was captured by the gun lobby and began pushing this rhetoric. Nobody's marched on D.C. for their gun rights, like they have for civil rights. In fact these rulings are deeply unpopular in polling. And as we've seen recently, "SCOTUS said" isn't a source of authority anymore. Especially not since they straight up lied about colonial era gun laws to make their Bruen ruling or used 14th Century English Church Law to overturn Roe v Wade.
It may be "the current ruling" but that doesn't make it right.
Most gun rights demonstrations happen at the state level since states have more control over guns permits and limits. Virginia has an entire day every devoted to it I believe. To you it is not the correct ruling, but to gun owners it is. Besides, banning a one person militia or small militias would break the shall not be infringed part of the second amendment, any way you put it, guns are here for Americans.
I'm a gun owner.
And I disagree with you.
If it was a big deal there would be a million man march in D.C. especially since these are federal rulings.
Show guns or you’re just larping, and it’s not a big deal because shall not be infringed stops it from being a discussion. No need to march on this issue federally, especially since the courts currently are attempting to restore rights to the people.
Well Regulated meaning in working order and properly armed.
Militias don't exist anymore, accept as a term for a cosplaying gun club.
Remember, when this was written people thought a permanent military would be used against the citizens, so they thought it better to not have one.
There were supporters of a standing army at the time notably George Washington President of the national when the Bill of Rights was enacted.
Yes. True. Everything had at least half a dozen reasons for and against, that were all debated exhaustively.
But this specific right, is the only one that actually describes a reason for its existence. And that reason no longer exists. That's the important part.
I would argue that the militia still exists it's just the government isn't doing it's duty to regulate the body of the people to be capable of common defense well. And to assume a right protected by the constitution could be outmoded by government inaction is self defeating logic.
Of course they are. It's the whole military. More specificaly The National Guard. We have permanent professional soldiers who replaced the militia long ago.
The military and national guard aren't militia, they are armies. A select militia is no militia at all. And professional soldiers can't replace a militia as it is them who on rare occasion they are tasked with opposing.
At the siege of Boston the Connecticut militia along with the Green Mountain Boys, and the men of Massachusetts showed up to oppose the British regulars. The regulars were professional soldiers. The rest the militia.
Our professional army maybe our ally in liberty today but history has shown that may not always be the case.
The National Guard are the modern militia. Deployable by the Governor, not the President.
A select militia is no militia at all. It defeats to core purpose of a militia. And it isn't deployable by the President. But it is by Congress (then under Exec leadership). Read the Federalist Papers/Antifederalists Papers. Throw Blackstone and Story in there too.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - 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.
So then only 17-45 year olds can legally own guns?
No, When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn't be able to put down without a local militia. That needs to be remembered every time this argument comes up. The Second Amendment exists because because they were afraid of slave rebellions. Patrick Henry in particular in this case.
Can you provide any reputable evidence or citations to back this up?
The idea that militias were solely for suppressing slave rebellions is patently wrong. If that was the case why would Vermont (a state that never allowed slavery) have had a militia.
The Federalist Papers clearly painted their purpose.
You're thinking of cops. And yes, cops are not well regulated.
Where do you think cops came from? They largely grew out of slave catcher Patrols. State organized groups of armed men, ie exactly what Patrick Henry wanted.
That doesn't even really matter to the point I was making.
The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to explicitly state the reason for it. And organized state militias don't exist anymore. So it really doesn't need to either.
And damn were they almost right a few times, and 100% were right if you count cops under that term.
That includes rules. You guys want to ignore an entire part of the definition of the word.
Like the background checks and waiting periods already put onto gun purchases. No point in age restricting them to 21 as well until the government declares it to be the new adulthood age.
Oh so now rules are okay under the 2nd amendment, you just don't like them?
They aren’t, I was making a point that the well regulated in your context is being met, but shall not be infringed means not denying it to legal adults due to age.
So why can't the militia put an age floor in? What's different about that rule as opposed to background checks?
As currently interpreted under law. A militia can be anyone legally able to aquire a firearm under federal law. Therefore, this person can start a one man militia and aquire a firearm.
That's not how US law works. The Supreme Court wants us to believe we're all the militia, so that means we can all flounce around with our boom toys and if ten people get shot then it's just an unavoidable tragedy.
Trying to spin the rulings to something that would be more rational isn't an honest conversation.
That’s the current ruling, like it or not, if this ruling were to change, it would be easily circumvented and possibly incite major demonstrations and possible congressional action. Like it or not, there are guns in America.
That's not true. This spate of rulings is extremely recent. In the last decade or so. We went 200 years without them and no major demonstrations, except at the NRA convention when it was captured by the gun lobby and began pushing this rhetoric. Nobody's marched on D.C. for their gun rights, like they have for civil rights. In fact these rulings are deeply unpopular in polling. And as we've seen recently, "SCOTUS said" isn't a source of authority anymore. Especially not since they straight up lied about colonial era gun laws to make their Bruen ruling or used 14th Century English Church Law to overturn Roe v Wade.
It may be "the current ruling" but that doesn't make it right.
Most gun rights demonstrations happen at the state level since states have more control over guns permits and limits. Virginia has an entire day every devoted to it I believe. To you it is not the correct ruling, but to gun owners it is. Besides, banning a one person militia or small militias would break the shall not be infringed part of the second amendment, any way you put it, guns are here for Americans.
I'm a gun owner.
And I disagree with you.
If it was a big deal there would be a million man march in D.C. especially since these are federal rulings.
Show guns or you’re just larping, and it’s not a big deal because shall not be infringed stops it from being a discussion. No need to march on this issue federally, especially since the courts currently are attempting to restore rights to the people.