re: Reason.com - What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

quote:

---

They established in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16) we would "RAISE" armies and we would "MAINTAIN" a navy. Instead we maintain a large standing Army against their vision for our Nation. What we have descended to (with the rise of centralized federalism) would be anathema to them.

---

Agreed

quote:

---

The Second amendment was written so that the government could not disarm citizens, leaving them unable to respond to a situation such as the rise of a dictator.

---

After years of howling about how there was an elaborate plot to overthrow the government, and install Trump as a dictator, why the hell would you want to disarm the people? Leftists have no rational logic.

If you believe in Jan 6th and the “continued threat to democracy” you cannot possibly think disarming the citizenry is a good idea.

quote:

---

Before you remove a fence, understand why it was put up in the first place.

---

The problem is that even in 1789 there was no consensus as to the reason for the fence. Some thought it was there to mark a property boundary. Others thought it was intended to keep neighbors out. Still others thought it was there to keep livestock on the property.

It certainly served all those roles, but the overriding REASON for building it was to keep people OFF the property.

quote:

---

...i reckon, we still are responsible for our own defense and policing.

---

You are correct good sir.

quote:

---

vl100butch

---

Thank you for this.

It's more than that. They meant that a standing army would not be the only people with firearms. It's so simple AND everyone at the time understood exactly what they meant and why they stated it the way they did.

quote:

---

Hopefully you understand what the difference is between organized versus unorganized militia is.

The federal statute applies to all able bodied males between the ages of 17-45 who are citizens or intend to become citizens. Writ large, they (less those who are members of the National Guard) are the unorganized militia.

---

Oh, I understand. The statute clearly spells it out.

The gray area is where guys like myself (56 later this week, a veteran and a gun owner) fall.

But aside from that, it's a regulatory piece of legislation. Which defines militias.

quote:

---

Still, many activists and legal scholars, along with at least two of the Supreme Court justices who dissented in Heller, believe the Second Amendment, properly construed, never guaranteed an individual right at all, or at least not one related to personal self-defense in the home.

---

In order to achieve this epiphany one has to ignore that no one challenged the 2nd Amendment on their belief that it mandates militia membership as a pre-requisite for owning firearms prior to the 20th Century. If militia membership were a pre-requisite, why then was that never mentioned, much less enforced?

To understand the 2nd Amendment we have to understand the context of when and why it was written (which is something anti-2A people are loathe to do, they would rather view it from their perspective only).

The US had just defeated that day's most powerful military and they had done with because their populace was armed. The Founding Fathers, fearing another eventual attack by England, knew that the best way to make sure the populace remained so potent a defense against an aggressor nation was to allow that populace to remain armed. Also, firearms were commonly used to provide food (from hunting) as well as protection (from animals and other people). Making militia membership a pre-requisite just to own something you use to feed your family would make no sense.

As such, firearm ownership was never dependent on the pre-existence of -nor membership in- a militia, rather the existence of their envisioned militia was dependent on the right of people to already own firearms.

my employees and my children are well regulated by me. My church is well regulated. John Dillinger's gang, BLM and Antifa are not well regulated