A well regulated militia

There's a lot of talk here about the militia clause in the second amendment and how it means that arms must be only in the hands of the militia and that the militia must be strictly regulated.

Usually there's counter argument that in this context "well regulated" means well trained and of course the antis ignore it. Anyway, I read The Federalist 29 today and I found this use of the term "well regulated" by Alexander Hamilton used (obviously) at about the same time the Constitution was written

"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,"

here's a link to the entire essay http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

I also found this paragraph that clearly states the founder's intent that the people be armed.

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


I would think this lays to rest the "militia clause " argument

"it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

So, if we are to be armed, we should also assemble on the village green (I assume for training of some sort) once or twice per year as stated (which in itself would be some sort of "regulation") . I don't think one goes without the other, the words interconnect in your example just as they do in the 2nd Amendment, but that seems to get lost in translations along the way.

I have no problem with gun ownership rights, but I do believe they should be "regulated" as I believe the 2nd Amendment call for them to be.

I believe the entire amendment should be taken into account, not just the cherry picked words.

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

"...but I do believe they should be "regulated" as I believe the 2nd Amendment call for them to be."

When you say things like this you ignore that the word meant something different when it was written.

It would be like getting your panties in a bunch when you read the word "fagot" in the old context, refusing to admit the reality that it just didn't mean that when it was written.

How is focusing on the operative language, and disregarding a prefatory clause "cherry picking?" Especially in this case, where people were apparently expected to already be proficient in the use of weapons, should military force ever be necessary. If anything, saying people should be allowed to have and use and practice with military grade weapons, as an individual right is embracing the spirit of the amendment as a whole.

are able to use this forum as a venue for respectful debate. 41 years ago, I "practiced" using military grade weapons at Camp LeJeune in N.C. during the active duty segment of a USMCR stint. Today, I hear my city police officer nephew talk about the high-powered weaponry loose in very troubled neighborhoods.

I don't know too many folks who are prepared to deal with heat-packing, desperate people who have given up on the rule of law and imagine they are in a modern-day, real-life version of the "Mad Max" movies.

Can we find the road back to civilized discourse and problem-solving without arming our increasingly frustrated population? I certainly hope so. Yes, there are many Americans who have been and will continue to act responsibly with a firearm. Building better community in our daily lives is the route I choose, before we have to resort to a fear-based life. Thanks for weighing in.
Thanks to Sherman A1, too.

Hamilton states that a federally regulated militia will be more uniform, and will benefit from the uniformity. He argues that an excessively regulated militia can harm a nation's work force, and that a smaller, but still well-regulated militia is the answer.


Props to Wikipedia for proving that Wingnut sites aren't the answer on DU.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

What Hamilton argues is that the federal governments should set the standards and doctrines to which the militias of the several states should be trained, so that those various militias, when required to operate in unison for the national defense, will be able to co-operate efficiently. So everybody needs to be working from the same book of close-order drill, carry similar equipment, have the same system of ranks and what would today be called the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE), etc. But it is still incumbent upon the several states to implement the regulations set by the federal government for how the militia should be trained; the federal government does not have direct control over the states' militias.

I'll tell you what; if you manage to get the law changed so that I, as a 39 year-old male U.S. citizen and thus a member of the "unorganized militia" under the Dick Act, can privately own a full set of U.S. Army-standard battle rattle including an M4 selective-fire carbine (optionally with M203 grenade launcher) and/or an M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, all available to me at the same price paid by the U.S. Government and exempt from all taxes, I'll be happy to submit to whatever training regime the federal government tells the state of Washington it needs to put me through (hell, I was trained to some NATO standard seventeen years ago and I've retained most of that apart from the physical fitness, so I should be able to adapt). Oh, and grenades. Gotta have grenades. And maybe a short-barreled shotgun as well.

And once you trust me with all that, well who cares if I choose to privately own some firearms that are "not suited to any militia purpose" (to quote Miller) besides?

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



I guess all of the gun owners should mount up and head to Iraq and Afghanistan, because that's where you are needed to fight the wars of demineralization.

However the right doesn't require a connection to a militia.

From Heller:

they be called up. Seriously you need to read Heller - it is well footnoted.

When they serve in a militia.

But I'm so glad you brought it up yourself. You'll note that the constitution reserves "to the States <...> the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Thus, the citizens of the several states, as prospective members of the militia, are not directly subject to federal regulation. The states are subject to federal authority, and the members of the militia are subject to the state's authority.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving aside the fact that mobilizing the militia to fight outside U.S. territory is legally dubious, I repeat: you wangle the law that lets me buy a full set of U.S. Army-standard battle rattle at cost, including automatic weapon(s) and "destructive devices," and then we'll talk deployment.

I thought the Federalist Papers was a good place to look for context and, since the topic of the founder's intent comes up frequently, a good place to find an amplification of that intent. You know, that whole "historical research" thing guess that's not a progressive value

prepared to face serious prison time and civil fines if you're stupid enough to accidentally shoot a bystander because you can bet that's where I'd drag you kicking and screaming.

Two bad guys approach me with a weapon and demand my money (armed robbery). I have a weapon and choose to defend myself. I draw, shooting one but missing the second. The bullet I missed with hits an innocent bystander accidentally killing them. Guess who gets the murder charge.

Not me.

The living bad guy gets it.

You can drag me into court all you want, that won't change the fact the living bad guy is charged with murder.

You kill one of my friends, I'm bringing charges against you.

*scratches head*

Why on earth would you think that I feel the need to kill one of your friends?

that all of your friends are upstanding citizens and would never assault anybody...

The DA brings charges and can only do so when a crime has been committed.

In many states (state law does vary considerably) the only person charged would be the felon and he/she would be charged with felony murder. In some state he/she could be charged with 2 counts if the other felon died (some states exempt co-conspirator deaths).

than hoping he doesn't kill me.

Many anti-RKBA folks here don't know that self-defense involves much more than just packing a gun. It begins with situational awareness. Criminals don't walk around with their guns drawn. They conceal their guns until the last moment when they start their crime. First they attempt to get close enough to confront you. They can't try to rob you from 15 yeards away, they want to get within 3 yards.

And they want to get you alone. They will not attempt to rob you in a crowded mall, as it isn't safe for them to do so.

So if I spot a stranger who is trying to get me alone, I go to a heightened alert. I put my hand in my pocket and grasp the gun, finger alongside the trigger, not on the trigger. And I turn to face the stranger and make eye contact. I do NOT say anything threatening to him. If he is innocent, he sees only an old guy who has his hand in his pocket. To him I will not appear threatening. If he is a street criminal he will read me differently. He will see me as a possible armed citizen, as dangerous to attack, and will probably abort his attempt.

Street criminals have to learn street smarts if they are going to be successful street criminals. They have to learn how to spot an armed person.

If the criminal doesn't recognize that I am armed, or if he wants to attempt it anyway, he still will need to approach close. If I feel that he is a danger, I can say, "I don't know you. Please stay back." If he approaches and goes for his gun, since I already have mine in hand, I can draw and fire in 1/2 second. The shoot-out will be at very close range. Most defensive gunfights are within 10 feet of each other. The criminal's mindset will be that he is drawing his gun to threaten, not to actually shoot. He will be delaying the decision to shoot until he thinks he needs too. I will have already made that decision and will be drawing to fire. I will have taken the iniative away from him and he will have to react to me. Even at close range criminals are lousy shots. By moving to the side at the same time that I draw and fire I greatly increase the chance that the criminal will miss. I am responsible for where my bullets go, but I am NOT responsible for where the criminal's bullets go.

I practice at a range, and my pistol has laser sights. I will hit what I shoot at. Your innocent bystander will be safe from me.

You 'defended yourself' by taking an innocent life. How fucked up is that?

But they don't have the imagination to work out what the actual consequences of such actions, which is having 30,000 Americas killed each year.

We're liberals. We're the ones who are supposed to care about those people.

Partisan bullshit. Human beings are supposed to care about all other human beings. Do you have any concern for people who are assaulted? Do you have a solution for someone who is assaulted by another notusing a gun, but rather a knife, club, fists or feet? Let's see how concerned you are.

Guns' right advocate love to spin tales where they can be the HERO who SHOOTS THE BAD GUYS DEAD.

It's not a tale. People with firearms can and do defend themselves, sometimes shooting the bad guys dead.

Below are two 911 calls with a woman faced with a home invasion. In both calls, the invader assaults the woman while the police listen on the phone, before officers can respond.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags&feature=related

Having a firearm does not guarantee safety. But people have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to have the option of self-defense or not.

But they don't have the imagination to work out what the actual consequences of such actions, which is having 30,000 Americas killed each year.

We're liberals. We're the ones who are supposed to care about those people.

We do care. But I am not going to give up my Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms because of the actions of a few criminals.

As has been posted here many, many times, the vast majority of firearm owners - over 96%, are not involved in firearm crime each year. How do we know? Because even if every single violent crime - firearm or otherwise - were committed by a firearm owner, that would still mean that about 96% of them were not involved - there simply aren't enough violent crimes in the US to go around the 40-80 million firearm owners.

I care about the Constitutional rights of those 38-77 million people who lawfully own and use firearms each year. I'm not going to ride roughshod over their rights because of the actions of criminals.

ESPECIALLY when we know that the vast majority of firearm crimes are committed by people unable to lawfully own firearms in the first place. The vast majority of firearm homicides - well over 90% - are committed by people with extensive criminal histories, including, on average, 4 felonies:

http://site297.mysite4now.com/clrwebsite/Joomla1.5/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

These are people who cannot legally possess firearms.

Since most firearm crime is committed by criminals, why do you want to penalize the law-abiding?

perhaps you can cite some examples

I did not opine on the frequency of the scenario, I responded directly to the scenario as laid out by the poster. Perhaps you might want to stay on topic in your response as well?

Ironic, no?

I never responded to your post but I will now. I don't know how well I could live W/it if I killed an innocent person. For that matter, I'd regret killing a criminal but I'd rather live W/ that regret than die. Also, because I do understand that I am responsible for every round i shot I do spend quite a bit of time perfecting my shooting skill.

Since we're here I will ask you this "If chp holders taking out innocent by standers is so common, why don't we hear it on the news?"

out innocent bystanders is so common, how is it that the number of states allowing for (shall issue) concealed carry has been on the steady increase rather than decrease?"

http://www.freep.com/article/20100604/NEWS01/6040313/Charges-in-stray-bullet-death

CCW holder.

It does happen and it is in the news.

Assuming they survived that is.

...dragging an obviously armed person to whatever you presume justice to be even though you apparently lack both authority...

...AND...

...a gun?

:shrug:

The fault will be the bad guys who picked the wrong momma bear to pull a gun on.

:shrug:

But thank you for having the perseverance to continue an attempt at education I have pretty much given up on.

That helps understanding the context of having an armed, and trained citizenry. It makes perfect sense when you may have the need to defend the country or a portion of it.
This doesn't mean that I am against gun ownership as I have a CCW and own a fair amount myself.
Just sayin.
Edit..Do I think that they would want the citizens to be restricted from owning firearms?..absolutely not.

Obviously disarming the people would have made it impossible to maintain a militia at all, much less a well-regulated one.

The webmaster is also a member of the International Policy Network, the Advisory Council of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Bureaucrash, whose sole purpose is to maintain 'free markets and freedom".

http://www.whittenfamily.com/members/chris/

Without addressing any of the arguments presented at the linked article, or Travis' interpretation of the content presented, DainBramaged merely impugned the source.

I suppose you are prepared to prove it?

Otherwise, there is no point to your comment.

I don't care if the web site is run by Adolf Hitler. It is a repository of historical documents, and is the #1 Google hit when you search for "The Federalist Papers".

If you don't like reading them on the FoundingFathers web site, you can read it at the Library of Congress instead:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

it provided an accurate copy of Federalist 29 that's all I wanted

n/t

And one of these days the folks that populate this forum will realize it, or maybe others will.
:mad:

But I don't back down from what I stated. The FF's were libertarians. If alive in 2008, they wouldn't vote for McCain or Obama.

n/t

Comparatively few "liberals" took up research on 2A and gun-control in general, preferring to cite (over & over) the paltry research done by gun-controllers. (It is generally recognized by academics of ALL persuasions that over the last 40 years research on 2A was as thin as tissue paper.) That more conservative, corporatist, libertarian, etc., researchers took up the slack is the fault of liberal academics who grew complacent with the writings of Laurence Tribe -- popularizer of the "militia clause" -- and others and failed to hit the library. The sad case of Michael Bellesiles' "Arming America" is the most glaring example: after publishing this contrived history of the American "gun culture," his work was torn apart by researchers, largely but not all conservative, and he was canned from Emory University, and his Bancroft Prize for historical writing was revoked.

It is not a shining moment in the history of liberal research that the better work has come from more "conservative" sources. But you can't fault those sources when much of what they say is on the mark.

Please note that there are some researchers -- most notably Kates and Kleck -- who are both liberal/progressive and pro-2A.

since you can't refute my argument on a factual basis, you're going to malign me for using a source you don't care for and attack my stance as a progressive to boot. Unless you're willing to demonstrate that the quotes I posted aren't the words Alexander Hamilton wrote and that this website altered them to push their "right wing" agenda, I'd say you're outta gas.


thanks for playing though

And I'm not refuting anything, sorry I'm not playing your game. My concern is and always will be when so-called members of this site find it necessary to quote Libertarian/Right Wing/Tea Party sites to try and strengthen their positions on guns for all instead of simply going to the source, the Constitution.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Goodbye. Polish them guns now ya hear.

a Libertarian/Right Wing/Tea Party site, I quoted Alexander Hamilton. How much closer to the source could I have got?

and not my favorite either. I'd like to hear what Jefferson and Franklin said. There was another side other than the federalist.

They can't get it through their heads that they are beating a dead horse. No matter how much they whip it, that horse will not get up and carry their freight.

Since the McDonald decision yesterday there have been a bunch of posters hollering about how the 2nd only protects the militia. As if by continued screaming they could somehow reverse the decision.

And nobody with any sense is buying it any more.

..........and as I mentioned on another thread, that would include Keith Olbermann.

And how outraged he was at the idea that people who are on the list can buy guns.

He just doesn't get it.

They just hate guns and are grasping at straws. I can appreciate a person hating guns and what they do, just don't use a stupid argument which you pulled out of your arse.
'

You don't want law abiding INDIVIDUALS to own guns. But you are okay with some right wing Montana MILITA having guns, because they are well trained, meet and practice regularly, and are properly armed and equipped?

In this context, "militia" means a body of citizens, subject to being called to arms by the state government in the event of an emergency, e.g. military invasion or a massive breakdown of public order. Some outfit of self-described "Freemen"/"Patriots"/Teabaggers/whatever might call themselves a "militia," but that doesn't make them a militia for the purposes of U.S. federal law (including the Constitution, the Militia Act of 1792 and the Dick Act of 1903).

The reason they'd call themselves a "militia" is a public relations move, obviously; they're trying to evoke an association with the militia units that fought in the Revolutionary War. The difference, of course, is that the militia at Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill were agents of a government, to wit that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It's much the same way that both the Nazis and the Communists referred to themselves as "socialists" to the outside world (neither actually were).

The claim is that they are all part of the unorganized militia and want to develop and keep sharp military skills.

They have been around for decades. I remember a 1969 comedy movie that mocked them. I wish I could remember the name of the movie. The premise of the movie was that a Mexican General takes a platoon of troops and captures the Alamo. I think his motive was to impress a certain Senorita. The U.S. government decides on a low-key response and sends a negotiator. A "militia" responds and goes to fight the Mexicans. The militia members can't do anything right, and bungle everything like the old Keystone Cops. The movie ends with the soldiers returning to Mexico and the General gets the girl. Since the soldiers left, the militia declares victory.

The point of that paragraph is that the militia guys would not have been funny except that there were such groups back then and they were in the news. In practice, they believed that the Russians would invade the U.S. and they would have to fight against them. The parody worked because there was such a group to be parodied.

I googled and found it. "Viva Max" 1969. Stars: Peter Ustinov, Harry Morgan, Jonathan Winters.

The movie was banned in Mexico.

It didn't take political sides but instead skewered everybody, Left, Right, North, South, nobody escapes.

(%##)@$, It isn't available from Netflix. VHS only, for $29.00 at Amazon. I don't want to rewatch it that much.

...the officers of such a militia would have to be appointed by the state.

So I don't know how a bunch of pot-bellied dudes ducking out on their wives on the weekend would fit the defintion.

I don't understand why the anti-RKBA posters here keep on dragging this "militia" nonsense around as if it's relevant anymore.

It's been two years now since it's become a point of settled law that the RKBA/2nd amendment applies to individuals (in all 50 states), unconnected with any "militia" service, yet... they continue to stick their fingers in their ears.

If I were them...I'd worry less about "militias" and "right wing courts" and worry more about what the future holds, because I can guaran-fucking-tee them, that somewhere, someone is already working on the plans to bring down as many of the current gun control that they hold so dearly to their hearts.

the second, it is a WHOLE amendment.

If the framers wanted it read any other way they would have written it differently.
They were pretty smart, so I really do think they wrote what they meant to write.

I certainly don't see where it gives any rights to individuals, they specifically said "Militia"


It cannot be seen any other way.
Unless you take away some of the words, or use parts of it.
Which people are doing.

for the purpose of ensuring that states would have effective (well regulated) militias.

The PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights grants no rights. It puts limits on the government for the protection of rights.

"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."
 |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|  |-------------------------------------------|  |--------------------|
                         Rational                                                      Right being protected                     Protection