Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:11 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you are concerned that the militia as it currently stands isn't securing the freedom of the state, by all means raise your concerns with your elected officials. Keep in mind that, according to the Constitution, you cannot address whatever problems you see with the militia by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
I'm asking you, and any other supporter of the 2nd Amendment, why no concerted effort has been made to ensure the execution of this important charge of civic duty - i.e. a well-regulated militia - in the manner stipulated by the Constitution. Or do you believe that private gun ownership is the only requirement necessary for a well-regulated militia? Furthermore, do you believe those who are otherwise able but do not own guns are failing in their civic duty to protect the State?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Get back to us when you have a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, or two-thirds of the state legislatures, and the approval of 38 states.

Regards,
Shodan
I suspect it'll be all over the news.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #152  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:18 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I should have said the Second Amendment doesn't say.
And that completely invalidates whatever point you thought you were making. You should have said that, too.

Quote:
But still, if you are concerned that the militia will not be available for the purposes you mention, then you ought to raise those concerns with the government.
I'm not, because it became moot when we set up a standing army and a professional police force (the original concept of a militia included both).

Quote:
Also consider if "we need to restrict gun ownership so they are better equipped" sounds like it makes sense, if you are hoping to use that argument.
I'm not, since it makes no sense, like any of your other strawmen.

Quote:
Did one didn't you understand?
That one.
  #153  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:25 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Robbers, home invasions, murderers, etc. Criminals.
Elvis1Lives was kind enough to provide the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Do please read the whole thing sometime, will you? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
See? They fucking said what it's for.
Would you be kind enough to cite where the Constitution talks about: "Robbers, murderers, etc."
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #154  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:27 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Or the part where it says the militia is there to be an insurrection, not to suppress it.
  #155  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:32 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
...


Would you be kind enough to cite where the Constitution talks about: "Robbers, murderers, etc."
A recent SCOTUS decision. The Constitution doesnt talk about your right to Privacy or a womans right to a abortion, either.
  #156  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:33 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm asking you, and any other supporter of the 2nd Amendment, why no concerted effort has been made to ensure the execution of this important charge of civic duty - i.e. a well-regulated militia - in the manner stipulated by the Constitution.
What evidence do you have that the militia isn't working as it should? I'm open to being convinced.

Regards,
Shodan
  #157  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:35 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A recent SCOTUS decision.
5-4 on the predictable partisan lines, with an opinion creating it out of whole cloth written by a Justice who purported to deplore doing just that, and contrary to all existing jurisprudence on the subject. But not in the Constitution.

Quote:
The Constitution doesnt talk about your right to Privacy or a womans right to a abortion, either.
Due process clause.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 09-03-2019 at 04:37 PM.
  #158  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:37 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
5-4 on the predictable partisan lines, with an opinion creating it out of whole cloth written by a Justice who purported to deplore doing just that. But not the Constitution.

Due process clause.


"life, liberty, or property, " which is privacy and abortions- how?


And of course having your home invaded and you tortured, robbed and maybe killed does deprive you of all three.
  #159  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:38 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I'm not, because it became moot when we set up a standing army and a professional police force (the original concept of a militia included both).
Well, if you are OK with how the militia is currently set up, then there isn't a problem. Perhaps you could reassure Quicksilver.

Regards,
Shodan
  #160  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:53 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
What evidence do you have that the militia isn't working as it should? I'm open to being convinced.

Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Well, if you are OK with how the militia is currently set up, then there isn't a problem. Perhaps you could reassure Quicksilver.

Regards,
Shodan
I admit, I'm a bit hung up on the "well-regulated" bit, and how it can possibly be interpreted to mean, 'anybody with a gun'. And if that is the only requirement, of what use would such a "militia" be if called upon to protect the State in this day and age? I think back to recent World Wars, and even those drafted were provided training and guns before being sent to fight. I don't recall, "must own gun", on any recruiting poster.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 09-03-2019 at 04:55 PM.
  #161  
Old 09-03-2019, 05:15 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
True. There are 300,000,000 guns in the uSA. About 10000 are used form murder.

So you'd ban that 299,990,000 to solve that 10000.
I would? I was unaware that I wanted to ban all guns. You'd think I would have read my previous posts on this issue in which I've said I wouldn't support banning all guns - or even the majority of guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Gun control has never worked in the USA.
We won't know that until we try it.

The NRA and its supporters have made sure that any efforts at gun control are kept as minimal and ineffective as possible. So it's no surprise these token efforts produce minimal and ineffective results.
  #162  
Old 09-03-2019, 05:19 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
What evidence do you have that the militia isn't working as it should? I'm open to being convinced.
What militia are you talking about? The National Guard? Because I don't see any connection between the National Guard and the Second Amendment. National Guardsmen use weapons that are issued to them by the government, not their own personal weapons. The same is true about various law enforcement agencies.

What organization exists that requires its members to provide their own firearms and functions as a militia?
  #163  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:04 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I would? I was unaware that I wanted to ban all guns. You'd think I would have read my previous posts on this issue in which I've said I wouldn't support banning all guns - or even the majority of guns.



We won't know that until we try it.

The NRA and its supporters have made sure that any efforts at gun control are kept as minimal and ineffective as possible. So it's no surprise these token efforts produce minimal and ineffective results.
Some areas banned all handguns and effectively banned any gun for home defense. No results.

Several states, including CA have banned assault weapons. No reults.

So, then tell, me, since banning all handguns, and banning assault weapons didnt work, what would you do? and dont tell me to look back at others posts. Lay it out here, now.
  #164  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:07 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
What militia are you talking about? The National Guard? Because I don't see any connection between the National Guard and the Second Amendment. National Guardsmen use weapons that are issued to them by the government, not their own personal weapons. The same is true about various law enforcement agencies.

What organization exists that requires its members to provide their own firearms and functions as a militia?
And the National gd is now part of the US army, it's no longer even a pretense of a militia.
  #165  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:28 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Well, if you are OK with how the militia is currently set up, then there isn't a problem.
It's been called the National Guard for over a century. Why would I, or you, have a problem with that?

Maybe you'd have better luck actually addressing actual arguments made by actual posters here.
  #166  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:29 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
"life, liberty, or property, " which is privacy and abortions- how?
Read the link.

Quote:
And of course having your home invaded and you tortured, robbed and maybe killed does deprive you of all three.
By somebody with a gun?
  #167  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:51 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I don't see any connection between the National Guard and the Second Amendment. National Guardsmen use weapons that are issued to them by the government
And the government is the people, this being a democracy and the Constitution starting with an explanation of it and all that. That's whose right it is and how it's implemented - we as a nation need to have a ready military, it needs arms and regulation, therefore we have a right to have an armed and regulated military. It's nothing new either, the Articles of Confederation* spelled it out even more clearly, and so did the colonial governments. Go visit the Magazine next time you're in Williamsburg for an example.

What's so hard about that? Nothing, unless you want a different conclusion and are contortedly trying to backfill your way to one.

*Footnote: The Articles, the constitution that was actually in effect for the Framers and that therefore likely guided their views, say:
Quote:
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Could that be any more clear?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 09-03-2019 at 06:53 PM.
  #168  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:55 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Read the link.

By somebody with a gun?
Indeed I did, and everyone agrees it was a stretch by SCOTUS.


Or with a knife, if no one else has guns.
  #169  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:17 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Or with a knife, if no one else has guns.
Whoa.... well that de-escalated quickly.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #170  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:19 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It would also force the pro-gun arguments to stand on their own merit. Also a good purpose.
I've put up some in this thread, feel free to choose one or more to rebut.
  #171  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:45 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm asking you, and any other supporter of the 2nd Amendment, why no concerted effort has been made to ensure the execution of this important charge of civic duty - i.e. a well-regulated militia - in the manner stipulated by the Constitution.
Congress chose to override the militia laws that set-out that process and relieve all citizen impressment of militia duty. By all means lobby to have an effective militia law written and enacted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Or do you believe that private gun ownership is the only requirement necessary for a well-regulated militia?
Even when there was a militia law that laid out the requirements of ENROLLED citizens, their duty was to provide themselves with a firearm in good working order, a supply of ammo and accessories to make the gun functional and a knapsack and appear with these items when called to muster or exercise. The state and federal government were responsible for establishing the organizational hierarchy and regimen of training.

So yes, in the general sense, assuming the state and federal governments were derelict in their duties, a citizen's militia duty could have been fulfilled simply by signing up and acquiring a gun and ammo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Furthermore, do you believe those who are otherwise able but do not own guns are failing in their civic duty to protect the State?
Given that the militia law mandated every able-bodied white male citizen*, 18 to 45 years old was to enroll and when notified, provide himself with the required equipment, yes, if a citizen met the criteria, he was in violation for failing to fulfil his civic duty . . .


*there were exceptions, elected officials, judges, postal workers, ferrymen, etc .


Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Get back to us when you have a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, or two-thirds of the state legislatures, and the approval of 38 states.
I suspect it'll be all over the news.
I suspect aliens landing in Times Square will be reported first.
  #172  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:46 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And the government is the people, this being a democracy and the Constitution starting with an explanation of it and all that. That's whose right it is and how it's implemented - we as a nation need to have a ready military, it needs arms and regulation, therefore we have a right to have an armed and regulated military. It's nothing new either, the Articles of Confederation* spelled it out even more clearly, and so did the colonial governments. Go visit the Magazine next time you're in Williamsburg for an example.

What's so hard about that? Nothing, unless you want a different conclusion and are contortedly trying to backfill your way to one.

*Footnote: The Articles, the constitution that was actually in effect for the Framers and that therefore likely guided their views, say:Could that be any more clear?
If I'm following you correctly, I disagree. Which should be clear; I've said in this thread that I believe the Second Amendment gives an individual right to own and carry firearms which is effectively unrelated to the existence of any militia or membership therein.
  #173  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:55 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,204
As long as we're throwing ideas out here, I once read a book (sorry, it was a long time ago and I don't remember the author or title) where the author presented an interesting interpretation of the Second Amendment. He said it guaranteed people the right to serve in the military. His argument was that there's a close connection between groups which have reduced political and legal rights and groups which are restricted from military service.
  #174  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:30 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I believe the Second Amendment gives an individual right to own and carry firearms which is effectively unrelated to the existence of any militia or membership therein.
You can believe whatever you like. But the thread topic is about what the convention delegates meant - and they were pretty clear about it.
  #175  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:18 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
Congress chose to override the militia laws that set-out that process and relieve all citizen impressment of militia duty. By all means lobby to have an effective militia law written and enacted.
I'd rather not, if it's all the same to you. But you are at least the second person in this thread, who is clearly a gun rights advocate, who has impressed the duty of lobbying for a 'functional citizen militia' on someone who is clearly opposed to the idea of immutable gun rights. So I put the question back to you and yours: Why have you not lobbied the congress to re-instate a well-regulated militia in line with the letter and spirit of the 2nd A of the Constitution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
I suspect aliens landing in Times Square will be reported first.
As well it should! But since neither thoughts nor prayers are likely to have any effect on bringing about such a fantastic occurrence, that frees us up to continue to lobby for socio-political change with respect to gun laws.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 09-04-2019 at 08:19 AM.
  #176  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:43 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
So I put the question back to you and yours: Why have you not lobbied the congress to re-instate a well-regulated militia in line with the letter and spirit of the 2nd A of the Constitution?
Again, what makes you think that we don't have a currently well-regulated militia in accord with the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment?

Regards,
Shodan
  #177  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:50 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You can believe whatever you like. But the thread topic is about what the convention delegates meant - and they were pretty clear about it.
He is correct. The original wording of the 2nd was simply to protect the rights to bear arms. However, the anti-standing army group insisted on adding the militia clause.

The militia clause isnt there to limit the rights of individuals to bears arms it's to limit the Federal governments right to a standing army by allowing the states to have militias.


Now of course since every man was in the militia, the assumption was that they'd use those guns also in the militia.
  #178  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:51 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again, what makes you think that we don't have a currently well-regulated militia in accord with the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment?
In a few states we do, but the National Guard is part of the standing army, it has been Federalized. It is not, in any way shape or form a "militia" as the Founding Fathers thought of one. In fact they'd be horrified.
  #179  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In a few states we do, but the National Guard is part of the standing army, it has been Federalized. It is not, in any way shape or form a "militia" as the Founding Fathers thought of one. In fact they'd be horrified.
As long as we're reading the minds of the Founders, they'd be horrified at the destructive capacity of modern small arms, and horrified as to the prevalence and body count of mass shootings in America. And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress.
  #180  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:58 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You can believe whatever you like. But the thread topic is about what the convention delegates meant - and they were pretty clear about it.
That's the problem with originalist arguments. You can say you know what the founding fathers meant but how does anyone really know what somebody else was thinking? All we can know is what they wrote down. And the text of the Second Amendment does not have a single clear meaning.
  #181  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:02 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As long as we're reading the minds of the Founders, they'd be horrified at the destructive capacity of modern small arms, and horrified as to the prevalence and body count of mass shootings in America. And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress.
Imagine trying to explain the role of the FCC to James Madison and asking him if it's in accord with the First Amendment.
  #182  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:18 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress.
I bet they’d be horrified by murderers who were clearly guilty sitting on death row for 20-30 years before being properly executed. And of allowing mentally ill people to roam freely, bugging people for change and using the world as a vomitorium and toilet. And of people not using the bathroom that correlates to the genitalia nature’s god graced them with.

Last edited by pkbites; 09-04-2019 at 01:21 PM.
  #183  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:26 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again, what makes you think that we don't have a currently well-regulated militia in accord with the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment?

Regards,
Shodan
This....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis
Congress chose to override the militia laws that set-out that process and relieve all citizen impressment of militia duty.

...

The state and federal government were responsible for establishing the organizational hierarchy and regimen of training.
Private citizens avail themselves of guns and ammo. But guns and ammo do not a militia make. Unless you can cite otherwise.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #184  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:00 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,211
I thought that had already been cited.
Quote:
Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8]

Organized militia consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
Unorganized militia composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]
Regards,
Shodan
  #185  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:12 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,204
I think the unorganized militia you're citing is unorganized to the point of not existing. How can you call something an organization when many of the people who supposedly belong to it aren't aware they're members or even that the organization exists? What is the supposed function of this unorganized militia? Who are its leaders? What are the responsibilities that arise from being a member? Who can activate it? And, most germane to the thread topic, how can anyone define this militia as well-regulated?

Last edited by Little Nemo; 09-04-2019 at 02:14 PM.
  #186  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:03 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As long as we're reading the minds of the Founders, they'd be horrified at the destructive capacity of modern small arms, and horrified as to the prevalence and body count of mass shootings in America. And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress.
Make that the way just about everybody dresses.
  #187  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:24 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I thought that had already been cited.
Yes, but however, as I have said, the National gd is now federalized and no longer a Militia.
  #188  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:41 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I thought that had already been cited.
Regards,
Shodan
Are you seriously endorsing the argument that people who own guns are part of the "Unorganized militia"? I gotta be honest, I sure hope you are.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #189  
Old 09-05-2019, 08:19 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The militia clause isnt there to limit the rights of individuals to bears arms it's to limit the Federal governments right to a standing army by allowing the states to have militias.
And yet we somehow do have both a standing army and the Guard. How can that be, except that you're wrong?

Quote:
Now of course since every man was in the militia
Cite? And not that "unorganized" (and certainly not well-regulated, even if existent) militia nonsense.
Quote:
the assumption was that they'd use those guns also in the militia.
To the extent that's true (and I agree), only militia use is covered by the Second, other uses simply not being addressed and left to statute. That's how it was seen, without serious argument, until the individual-right misinterpretation was manufactured just a few decades ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In fact they'd be horrified.
They themselves reversed their decision on having a standing army very shortly after ratification. They'd be horrified at some things, sure, but hardly that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
how does anyone really know what somebody else was thinking?
By reading what they actually wrote, all of it and in context, and not by denial or handwaving if we don't like what it says or doesn't say.
Quote:
And the text of the Second Amendment does not have a single clear meaning.
It was accepted as clear for most of our history. What changed, and why?
  #190  
Old 09-05-2019, 10:20 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In a few states we do, but the National Guard is part of the standing army, it has been Federalized. It is not, in any way shape or form a "militia" as the Founding Fathers thought of one. In fact they'd be horrified.
It is endlessly fascinating to me that so many Republicans are hard core for the people having guns to defend themselves from the government, but at the same time are huge boosters of the United States having a gigantic standing army and controlling the state militias. If you brought the Founding Fathers to today and they saw that, they would think they'd failed; they thought a massive standing army a huge threat to liberty. They would rush back to 1789 and alter the Constitution to prevent that.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #191  
Old 09-05-2019, 10:45 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
they thought a massive standing army a huge threat to liberty.
That was a close decision, one that they themselves reversed very quickly. The debate is, for better or worse, best remembered for Gerry's quip “A standing army is like a standing member. It’s an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure.”
Quote:
They would rush back to 1789 and alter the Constitution to prevent that.
The US established the standing Regular Army in 1791. There were no major objections raised, and no need seen to amend or drop the Second.

That said, can we drop the "Founding Fathers" term? It implies that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were holy prophets of some kind rather than just men who meant well and did their human best, and were guided by God rather than their own experienced understanding of human nature. The document is not Scripture; they intended that it be amended as deficiencies were discovered through use, and could be tossed and replaced entirely if it got unwieldy - they even added the procedures for doing so. Jefferson famously observed that there ought to be a new one every 20 years or so. Several mentions have been made in this thread of how astonished, even horrified, they'd be to see it today - but the thing that might astonish them the most would be that we're still using it.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 09-05-2019 at 10:46 AM.
  #192  
Old 09-05-2019, 11:34 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That was a close decision, one that they themselves reversed very quickly. The debate is, for better or worse, best remembered for Gerry's quip A standing army is like a standing member. Its an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure. The US established the standing Regular Army in 1791. There were no major objections raised, and no need seen to amend or drop the Second.
There is a difference in degree, though, between the army that was created in 1791 and what exists today. It was apparent in 1791 that the USA needed some kind of standing army to ensure there existed some kind of continuous line of professionalism, especially after St. Clair's Defeat. That assumption had already been made about the navy, which for both technical and logistical reasons is a way more difficult thing to raise, and it's why the U.S. Constitution treats the navy differently.

Even after 1791, though, there remained in American politics a profound aversion to maintaining a large standing army. The USA was not professionally prepared for the War of 1812 and even as late as the Mexican-American war the army was very small. The regular army in 1846 could muster a force of maybe one to two thousand men. The vast, vast majority of soldiers who served in it were militia and hastily summoned volunteers. Going into the Civil War, as I am sure you know, the army remained quite small and was heavily focused on engineering projects and pacifying the West. The hundreds of thousands who joined for the war were almost a different organization, which is why when discussing men's ranks there's a confusing range of distinctions between a guy's regular rank and his "brevet" rank and his permanent rank.

I am sure Thomas Jefferson would have agreed that some sort of professional army was needed, but for much of American history, the idea was that the standing army existed to provide a base of leadership and skill, and that in times of crisis, the bulk of an army would be filled with volunteers and militia. What the USA become in the 20th century where there was ALWAYS an enormous armed forces was absolutely not what they wanted, and was in fact what they feared.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #193  
Old 09-05-2019, 12:21 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I am sure Thomas Jefferson would have agreed that some sort of professional army was needed, but for much of American history, the idea was that the standing army existed to provide a base of leadership and skill, and that in times of crisis, the bulk of an army would be filled with volunteers and militia.
We don't disagree about that. Yes, Article 1, reinforced by the 2nd, was to ensure that we could put a capable military into action when needed, and the government quickly came to understand a standing core military was needed which could organize and lead and "well-regulate" it. That's been a common arrangement throughout history. But there's nothing in that committee-compromise document, begging for amendation, about an individual right not related to those uses.

Quote:
What the USA become in the 20th century where there was ALWAYS an enormous armed forces was absolutely not what they wanted, and was in fact what they feared.
The USA became the dominant power in the world then, both economically and militarily (they're intertwined), while strengthening its democracy both at home and abroad at the same time. I have never seen a reason to believe they would have feared that, although they would have worried about the cost and deplored the many cases in which we have acted from lower impulses.
  #194  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:25 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,863
Well, I don't think the international order of the 20th century would have been all that comprehensible at all. The results of winning the Second World War would surely have pleased the Framers. I am one hundred percent certain they still would have found the existence of a massive standing army very frightening. They wouldn't have really understood the modern American attitude towards armies at all, really. Americans in the late 18th century did not, generally speaking, see soldiers as heroes, or armies as forces of good.

Of course, the realities of modern war are different than they were in 1789. Modern wars are fast and have a degree of individual lethality that changes the relationship between economy and military. The weapons needed by even a smaller industrialized nation's armed forces are complex and expensive beyond the imagining of Washington, Napoleon, or Wellington. Having al all-militia army that bring a lot of the guns with them is just not a thing that will work for pitched battles in 2019; Cletus isn't showing up for reserve duty in his own Abrams or Raptor. So the vision of having little to no professional army at all is just not realistic now, even if you and I agree the US armed services doesn't need to be as bloated as it is.

But... the other side of that is to call the Second Amendment into question. Its purpose was primarily the defense of the USA against foreign aggression, and personal firearms are no longer in any way part of American preparation for war.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #195  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:37 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And yet we somehow do have both a standing army and the Guard. How can that be, except that you're wrong?

Cite? And not that "unorganized" (and certainly not well-regulated, even if existent) militia nonsense.
To the extent that's true (and I agree), only militia use is covered by the Second, other uses simply not being addressed and left to statute. That's how it was seen, without serious argument, until the individual-right misinterpretation was manufactured just a few decades ago.

They themselves reversed their decision on having a standing army very shortly after ratification. They'd be horrified at some things, sure, but hardly that.

By reading what they actually wrote, all of it and in context, and not by denial or handwaving if we don't like what it says or doesn't say.
It was accepted as clear for most of our history. What changed, and why?
The Guard is part of the standing army. for the nth time, the National gd is no longer part of the Militia.

What happened is that the USA decided to go overseas during WW1, and thus we needed a standing army to meddle in overseas affairs. This became very helpful in WW2, where we prevented the Axis from winning.

Yes, it's the unorganized militia, which was (and still is, kinda) the law and has been since the uSA was born. No "nonsense" there.

No, again, the 2nd started out as a bare bones right to bear arms but the "no standing army" faction insisted on the Militia clause.

They did, then dissolved it to a great extent. Actually the uSA standing army was tiny except during wartime up thru the WW2. Read about how tiny and unprepared our Army was at the start of WW1 and WW2.


However, altho a few states still have one, the Militia is now Obsolete. Scotus has ruled that we have a Right to protect ourselves and our homes, just like we have a right to privacy, etc.

So all this argle bargle over "militia" is pointless.
  #196  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:40 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That was a close decision, one that they themselves reversed very quickly. The debate is, for better or worse, best remembered for Gerry's quip A standing army is like a standing member. Its an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure. The US established the standing Regular Army in 1791. There were no major objections raised, and no need seen to amend or drop the Second. ...
Yes, but except in times of war the Standing army was small and feeble. The FF had no issue with that, as long as it was so small and feeble the various state militias outnumbered it decisively. The point was that the Militias were a counterpoint to the Standing army.

Now we have a huge powerful expensive standing army, and only a few feeble state militias. (the National gd is not a militia)
  #197  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:47 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Now we have a huge powerful expensive standing army, and only a few feeble state militias. (the National gd is not a militia)
You've said this several times now. Is anyone here asserting that it is?
  #198  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:52 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You've said this several times now. Is anyone here asserting that it is?
Many people, read the thread.
  #199  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:52 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
The Dick Act, the Militia Act of 1903, asserted it. That's also where this "unorganized militia" nonsense started, as a sop to the states'-rights people (there were still plenty of Confederate veterans around).

You can claim it's unconstitutional if you want, but it's getting pretty late.
  #200  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:23 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think the unorganized militia you're citing is unorganized to the point of not existing. How can you call something an organization when many of the people who supposedly belong to it aren't aware they're members or even that the organization exists? What is the supposed function of this unorganized militia? Who are its leaders? What are the responsibilities that arise from being a member? Who can activate it? And, most germane to the thread topic, how can anyone define this militia as well-regulated?
As stated by George Mason, the militia is everyone who doesn't work for the government. A militia is a group of people that organizes militarily for a short period and then disbands when the threat is over. A militia can be organized by a city, state, or a private citizen.
The function is to fight battles for the country when the need arises.
The founding fathers were skeptical of standing armies and saw the need for an armed populace to serve as a militia in case the government ever became tyrannical and used an army to oppress the citizenry.
As to whether the militia is currently well regulated, probably about one third of Americans own guns and even fewer know how to use them but over 100 million armed citizens is a formidable force. If people saw the government actually becoming tyrannical more people would get guns and learn how to use them. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow that to happen.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017