The need for a civilian militia....

They neither protected them nor outlawed them....they never came up. But, rifles, shotguns and handguns common use in the population did and the founders protected our right to own and carry them.

 

It is not activism when the result is what the drafters intended...Can you quote the founders who supported your position?

 

That is BS...we have the Regime working 24/7 to loot the capable to fund the left. Folk are angry about being looted BY the Regime, not angry over the lack of support for it.

 

Sorry, my friend. The left doesn't support plutocracies. That's a strictly establishment 2 party system that's in support of that because those people voting for such laws that allow money to flee your wallet and go into the corporate bottom lines hand over fist get paid to let and even make it happen.

 

No.

If you show hard evidence that killing others is one of your interests, regardless of your tool of choice, you should be executed swiftly and surely.

 

Which puts you so far left that you think Marx was a dangerous capitalist pig....

 

So you're in favor of the monopoly of two branches of the same agenda? That's a monarchy. You're in favor of big money creating policy? That's plutocracy/cleptocracy. These are not American ideals. You should be quite upset.

 

Wow, amazing since we hear so many stories of late of people with guns claiming 'stand your ground' as the aggressor.

 

That is called a strawman....and as such is best ignored

 

To clarify...let's look at the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 10
"No state may keep troops… without the consent of Congress."

Article I, Section 10 provides that no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. .

The Second Amendment
"… a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State," and "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10.

This ensured that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, states, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In fact the legal basis of the Natioinal Guard is dependent upon the 2nd Amendment.
In other words, "Well regulated militia" is intended upon a State militia, one that the Federal government can't disarm as protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Now let's take a look at the The Militia Act of 1792
This clarifies the role of the militia; it required all able men to serve, be armed, and be equipped at their own expense; also, standardized unit structure.

The Militia Act of 1792 subsequently expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures.

Finally we have the The Total Force Policy, 1973.
This requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; thus reinforcing the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)

I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended to interpret "Well regulated milita" as a loosely banded group of armed citizens, with no formalized organizational structure, training or authority.

 

Do leftys realize the people who got gunned down by the cops in Ukraine, wanted second amendment rights?

 

And vice versa.

 

Exactly.

 

You'd have to believe that the founders intended half the 2A to be completely ignored and judicially wiped out of existence, and that the language "right to keep and bear arms"
somehow meant ton them "weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," whatever the Supremes decide that means in the next bout of conservative judicial activism.

 

But rifles, shotguns, and handguns were specifically protected

 

No, the right to bear arms because a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state was protected.

"Arms" of the day were generally single shot muskets I believe. I don't think rifles were typically used, nor handguns. But I could be wrong.

What the founders would have thought with semi-automatics in an era were we don't have a well regulated militia is speculation.

 

So of all the rights in the Bill of Rights (demanded to protect the people before the Constitution would be ratified), the 2nd's right to keep and bear arms was meant to be dependent upon conditions? Those conditions being that the security of a free state depends on a well regulated militia? So when the security of a free state no longer depends on a well regulated militia, or the well regulated militia doesn't exist, then the right no longer exists? This mindset, when put in context with what the founders were trying to do (prevent power from accumulating in 1 group or person and ensure the rights of the people were protected), makes absolutely no sense.

 

Nope.

That was the reason for the 2A, according to it own language.

Nope.

Agree.

 

So we are taking the position that prefatory clauses (a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state) are conditions that determine if the right exists or not? Was it illegal at the time to defend yourself with a firearm against a criminal? Well, we know that that use of firearms was legal at the time. We know that people were using them for hunting. Do these uses align with the concept of a militia being necessary to the security of a free state? No. There were many uses of firearms, and there were many reasons the people had a right to them. It is inconceivable that the founders would have included a prefatory clause in the 2nd A that included all of them.

 

And in fact, their own writings with regards to arms would seem to agree with you.

 

You could read it that way. It was certainly a statement as to the reason for the amendment. If they wanted an unfettered constitutional right that everyone could have "arms" they could have written it that way.

Depends. If you were black it probably was. But probably legal for most white male adults.

Nor do the necessarily align with a constitutional amendment.

The certainly included the one about a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

 

Not in the 2A. The 2A wasn't necessary to make gun ownership legal. As many pointed out, gun ownership was legal for most before the 2A.

 

That clearly means state-based standing professional armies. That is why the word "troops" was chosen as opposed to "militia" in that part of the Constitution.

No, it very plainly states in clearest English that the aim was to prevent the federal government from disarming the PEOPLE which in actuality is synonymous with "militia" ex post facto analysis of subsequent, more specific statutes are irrelevant. Had the framers intended to define militia more formally and other than the plain definition of the time, "armed populace," they would have done so.

No, it isn't... that's why it's called a NATIONAL GUARD and not the Arizona Army or even the Arizona Militia.

No, let's not. A well-settled foundational rule of legislattive history analysis is that trying to transfer definitions between statutes, subsequent statutes in particular, is error, unless both or all statutes defining a term -specifically- and formally incorporate by reference a common definition of terms by amendment or direct language of incorporation. As there is no such incorporation by reference of any subsequent more formal definition of "militia" into the Constitution, the plain meaning of militia, "able bodied populace" controls. Feel free to seek an amendment defining any terms as formally or informally as you like, but in the complex world of statutes, that's what it takes, it is never presumed or automatic.

The former may be true, the latter most definitely not. A militia is not an "active or reserve military organization." You are trying to sew up a bunch of unrelated statutes into some Frankenstein golem and that's exactly what the reasoning looks like.

Believe as you like, but your analysis grounding the belief is flagrantly erroneous.

 

You assume a lot of things. Please don't take the word of modern day Neo-Communist liberals on what the Founders said a "militia" was and what actual firearms they wanted for the militiamen. Look at what many of Founders wrote in the Militia Act of 1792:


That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Did you read that? The Founders even wanted rifles and pistols and cannons. Cannons are destrutive devices that are far more powerful than any .50 caliber rifle available today. Of course the Founders wanted the best, most state of the art weapons available. Machine guns and all semi-autos would have been welcomed.

Liberals today somehow imagine history like this:

Revolutionary soldier: "General Washington Sir, we have just developed a self-loading rifle that uses self contained cartridges and can fire over 10 rounds from a single magazine."

General Washington: "Take them away. We can't allow that much firepower in the hands of our stupid citizen soldiers."