History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

My proposal will guarantee the right to own, at a minimum, enough single shot rifles and non semi auto handguns to protect the home and hunt for food.

Your argument is an utter failure. The constitution provides for amendments, and that would include an amendment that overrides the constitution and other amendments written at a time where the premise in modernity is moot. Given that history reveals the second amendment was all about the militia,. which, as it existed in 1787, no longer exists, therefore, as an amendment it is, in point of fact, moot. If any amendment needs an update, it is that one. Any amendment that needs Heller, which was ruled on thus updating the second amendment some 221 years later merely along party lines, is an amendment that needs to be repealed and replaced.

My proposal, in repealing the second amendment, is to replace it with one that works for the needs of modernity. That new amendment, which would be the 28th amendment, it cannot be passed until, .... well,

To be more precise here is the process for it's ratification:

The process for a constitutional amendment in the United States is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Here are the key steps:

1. Proposal:
   • An amendment can be proposed either by Congress or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
   • Congressional Proposal: A proposed amendment must pass a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
   • Constitutional Convention: None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
2. Ratification:
   • Three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendment for it to become a permanent part of the Constitution.
   • When a state ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends an original or certified copy of the state action to the Archivist of the United States.
   • The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) examines ratification documents for legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature.
   • If the documents are in good order, the OFR acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them until an amendment is adopted or fails. The records are then transferred to the National Archives for preservation

The contents of that amendment would have to be debated and agreed on by both parties. My recommendation is the opening bid, it won't be the final result. WTFU.

My suggestion, therefore, can hardly be equated with 'promiscuous' or 'willy nilly'

Pay closer attention.

 

not going to happen-pay attention. and your nonsense about wanting to create a second amendment that only recognizes obsolete firearms (for self defense) is beyond moronic.

everything you push for is designed to harass lawful gun ownership while empowering violent felons

the stuff I bolded is spam-we already know this

 

You guys slander the left all day long, get over it, grow some skin.

Public safety is supported by data, not emotion.

 

nothing you propose concerning firearms is designed to increase public safety and the gun owners aren't trying to limit the rights of the fearful left

 

Harass lawful gun ownership?

Why don't you preach your philosophy to the relatives of loved ones killed in America by gun related homicides? If a few gun worshippers are inconvenienced in order to bring America down to the level of other countries, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it and the relatives of loved ones who were killed will tell you folks to eat humble pie.

 

that's both a silly argument and a bullshit appeal to irrational emotion.
you don't care about the victims of violent crime-your posts continually demonstrate that what you really hate is the political viewpoints of lawful gun owners. Your entire goal is to inconvenience gun owners and then pretend you have done something useful

 

Does Australia punish and harass? Are their actions 'malum per se'? We have 20 times their homicide rate, we have several times the homicide rate of all the western developed countries. I'm sorry, your argument just doesn't work for me. Seems to me America's actions are the very personification of 'malum per se', since we are tossing latin around, now.

Most libertarians, given that I was one once, once upon a time, having voted for Ed Clark in 1980 (but for the new Libertarian Party, I would have voted for Reagan), most libertarians I know accept some gun regulation within reason -- I said 'some' regulation, I understand they oppose most regulation. But you accept none, and the only people I know that believe as you do are anarchists, hence my allegation, which, given this fact, I don't think is unreasonable.

Unless you are willing to post your credentials here on this forum, we are all mere mortals, and equal. I don't flaunt my education, nor military experience because I prefer anonymity. There's a good reason for it, because what that means is that the argument has to stand on it's own merits which is the beauty of anonymous debate forums.

In my opinion, the very fact that you feel the need to flaunt your education diminishes the very education you profess to possess. But what of education, anyway, when we have such Ivy league morons as Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley?

I'm not impressed.

But, you have to admit, the degree to which libertarians, if they had the power to effect change (thank providence they don't) they would clip the wings of governance to such a degree, well, they are a hop and a skip from anarchists, anyway, so I'm not real keen on your distinction.

As for your use of the term 'edify', it's a term rarely used in the context of announcing one's credentials. In fact, your use of it is a borderline malapropism. You should ask for a refund for yourself or give it to whoever or whatever funded your schooling.

 

yeah Australia harasses gun owners by banning all sorts of firearms we can freely own in the USA. the malum per se comment was to actual crimes-such as murder vs malum prohibitum offenses such as banning semi auto rifles or handguns

just as I can claim you are a hard core communist authoritarianism since your desire to destroy freedom is very close to what communist dictators have done

 

Data is not emotion.

Fail.

 

I've been hearing your very tired 'the left are commies' crap since the 60s.

Even William Buckley hated the Birchers, and you sound a helluva lot like them.

Give me a break.

You argue for freedom, how about freedom from being killed? Your logic wanes.

Data isn't emotion. America is a haven for gun killers and gun worshippers that spawn them. Now that's emotion, but it's rooted in DATA.

 

Getting America's gun homicide rate on par with the rest of the western developed nation is doing something useful. You should join us, but, you want your guns unregulated more than the lives of people. That is shameful.

 

and you pretend that merely banning guns will do that. You pretend your desire to ban guns will do something useful when we all know your real goal is banning guns to harass people who own them

 

we get the fact you hate freedom/ you sound a helluva lot like the fascist statists. Even real liberals hate leftist authoritarians. Freedom to own a gun has nothing to do with killing. That you constantly pretend my freedom to own a gun is responsible for illegal killings is really lame. and why not just stop with the facades: your posts continually prove that what you hate about gun owners is our politics. The public safety angle is just a pretext

 

interpreting it inaccurately due to emotion is the problem

 

Pass...

 

Nothing we say about anti-gunners is untrue.

 

You're talking about infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Simply put: NO.
Don't like it? You lack the votes for Art V. Count states with constitutional or permitless carry. Count how many states you need to pass a convention. Do the math.

 

it's sheer bullshit to think there will be an amendment that specifies only 22 single shot rifles and revolvers will be legal to own. The more you read that nonsense, the more my points are obvious-he wants to disarm honest Americans and make the nation safer for violent felons and big government control freaks

 

does anyone even remotely think the crime control is the motivation behind those silly demands?

 

not quite true at all. in fact your claim is incorrect

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/1...dup-the-hawaii-supreme-court-overrules-bruen/


Wilson fails to analyze the actual precedents when it asserts: "Until Heller, the Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment afforded an individual right to keep and bear arms." Well, the Court assumed that the right is individual in Scott v. Sandford (1857), U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Robertson v. Baldwin(1897), U.S. v. Miller (1939), Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).

Wilson also claims that the framers in 1950 were aware of United States v. Miller (1939), in which the Supreme Court supposedly held that "the Second Amendment conferred a collective right to bear arms in service to the militia." Miller said no such thing, instead holding only that it could not take judicial notice of whether a short-barreled shotgun was ordinary military ordnance. The Court was not concerned with whether defendant Miller was a member of an organized militia, assuming that the Amendment protects all Americans. Relatedly, Wilson also endorsed Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller that the prefatory phrase "identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment's purpose." But as the Heller majority held, the Amendment's operative clause protects individual rights.

 

In Miller the standing issue was intentionally overlooked in order to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule on the issue of federal gun control. The Court held that the federal government can restrict non-military type guns and guns which are not being used in connection with a well-regulated militia. Thus, even if Miller and Layton had been members of a government organized militia they could be banned from owning a sawed-off shotgun or any gun that wasn't being used to fulfill their militia duties.

 

well that's an interesting take but that also means that stuff like the Thompson MI submachine gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle are clearly protected because those weapons were STOLEN from National Guard armories by the criminals who were the alleged excuse for passing the 1934 NFA

BTW you have twisted what miller said-you want to claim that miller limits second amendment protection to weapons BEING USED by active duty soldiers to fulfill military duties. that is blatantly incorrect. what the court actually held was that sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

this holding was rather specious because the court did not attempt to make any factual inquiry to this claim -the court should have remanded the case to the trial court to evaluate if sawn off shotguns are useful to the militia and would have found that they were.

 

By that logic, the ruling would have granted "Second Amendment protection to criminals bearing bazookas and flamethrowers".

Saul Cornell on U.S. v. Miller

 

why is it so hard to understand that rights protected by the bill of rights, can be lost through due process of law? Is it because Saul Cornell does not hold a law degree or is he just an inveterate liar and paid whore of the anti gun movement? I suspect the latter because he knows well that other well established constitutional rights have been removed by convictions. Prisoners lose the right of assembly and some felons released from prison are prevented from associating with other felons. Those convicted of child molestation are often required to register their residences and banned from going anywhere near schools or playgrounds. And since 1968 (though I believe it is unconstitutional at a federal level), those convicted of a felony lose the right to possess firearms and "destructive devices" such as bazookas (which Cornell also should know are not arms within the meaning of the second)

 

Doesn't matter.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd exists independently of the "well regulated militia" as no one has the right to join the militia, or the right to be part of the militia.