And also the founders. Some of them loved the idea of a militia instead of a standing army. There was even an attempt at a militia navy. Which is insane. “Got my musket and rowboat. Off to defend the homeland!” rows towards French 90-gun ship.
The whole idea behind a militia was barely practical back then, and isn’t at all with industrialized warfare. If that’s the argument for the 2nd A, then it might as well be tossed on the same pile as the 3rd A of “anachronistic stuff that made sense to somebody at the time”.
Some of the founders. And they were referring to town and state militias, not one big unorganized one. The idea that “the people” comprise “the militia” in a one to one manner tracks to a World War 2 era Supreme Court decision.
Go back to Article I, Section 8, and perform that same substitution. Replacing “Militia” with “People” does not change the meaning of Article I in the slightest.
The term “militia” was used in the second amendment specifically to reference the militia clauses in Article I. If Article I had referred to “Yeomanry” or “Snorglubben”, the Second Amendment would have used those terms instead.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia People, 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 People according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Can’t say I agree with your conclusion there, that’s a pretty significant change of meaning. The Militia is explicitly described as something that is organized, armed, disciplined, and trained by Officers.
Does Congress not have the authority to organize you, arm you, govern you, employ you? Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?
Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?
You certainly can make some distinctions between “person” and “militiaman”. A 4-year-old child is a person and not a militiaman. The courts would certainly rule against the idea that Congress can organize a Children’s Brigade under the militia clauses. They would rule on constitutional grounds against paraplegics, or the mentally disabled being drafted. But we aren’t talking about these exceptional cases. We are talking about the general case, and the general case is that it is your status as a person that makes you a member of the militia.
Indeed, I think that Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others. They have that authority under the Militia clauses; I think they should exercise it.
Squares and rectangles, you can’t generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.
Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others.
You won’t hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency, although this was written when Militias were the primary national defense in lieu of the standing Army we now maintain.
But the rest of your interpretation reads more like you’re working backwards from the conclusion you want to prove.
Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?
Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?
Broadly speaking, no I would not say that’s the case .
The founders did not make a habit of codifying lazy verbage, if they meant People in general they would have written People in general. They chose the words they did to convey specific and distinct meanings. Militia refers particularly to that portion of a community trained for “martial exercise”. If you’re not trained, I’d argue specifically trained by the state, you’re not part of the Militia. A candidate for it perhaps, but not a member until you’ve been trained by the state for the purpose.
You won’t hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency
As you used it in that statement, the term “adults” is synonymous with “well regulated militia” as used in the constitution, and “people” as I have used the term.
It is because we are militia/people/adults that we can be compelled to attend the training you describe, or be otherwise drafted into service.
Squares and rectangles, you can’t generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.
This is true, there is not a complete overlap, but I accounted for the non-squares in my last comment. My point is not that militia contains absolutely all members of “we the people”. My point is made when “equilateral rectangles” are the general rule, and “non square” is an exceptional case.
When you see a random person on the street and have no special information about them, It is unreasonable to presume they are not a member of the militia.
No I heard what you said, I don’t agree with that interpretation. No training, no Militia. A raw egg isn’t an omelet . Again, you started with your conclusion and are interpreting the words to justify it.
Alright, how about this: fail to register with selective service, and young men cannot get or renew a driver’s license or financial aid for college. They can even be charged with a crime, all for failing to follow one of the very few regulations imposed upon the militia.
How can they be punished for not fulfilling their militia duty if they are not militia?
I started by asking “who is the militia?”, nothing more. The legislature told me who they thought was the militia (every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45) and I asked why women weren’t included. Then I realized the definition the legislature used was not the definition used in the Constitution, and I allowed it to expand to as broad a concept as Congress would have access to: everyone.
Your interpretation of “no training, no militia” is not unreasonable as a practical matter, but we are talking about constitutional law, constitutional rights. If there are any rights attached to the concept of “militia”, liberty demands we assume the broadest reasonable interpretation; if there are any infringements attached to the militia, the narrowest definition possible.
“Well regulated militia” is not the “gotcha” that hoplophobes think it is.
Too many people don’t understand that “militia” and “people” are synonymous as used in 2A.
According to the court 175 years later.
And also the founders. Some of them loved the idea of a militia instead of a standing army. There was even an attempt at a militia navy. Which is insane. “Got my musket and rowboat. Off to defend the homeland!” rows towards French 90-gun ship.
The whole idea behind a militia was barely practical back then, and isn’t at all with industrialized warfare. If that’s the argument for the 2nd A, then it might as well be tossed on the same pile as the 3rd A of “anachronistic stuff that made sense to somebody at the time”.
Some of the founders. And they were referring to town and state militias, not one big unorganized one. The idea that “the people” comprise “the militia” in a one to one manner tracks to a World War 2 era Supreme Court decision.
Then why does the amendment refer to a Well Regulated Militia? If “People” were synonymous, the amendment doesn’t make sense. “Well regulated people”?
Go back to Article I, Section 8, and perform that same substitution. Replacing “Militia” with “People” does not change the meaning of Article I in the slightest.
The term “militia” was used in the second amendment specifically to reference the militia clauses in Article I. If Article I had referred to “Yeomanry” or “Snorglubben”, the Second Amendment would have used those terms instead.
Can’t say I agree with your conclusion there, that’s a pretty significant change of meaning. The Militia is explicitly described as something that is organized, armed, disciplined, and trained by Officers.
Are you not a person?
Does Congress not have the authority to organize you, arm you, govern you, employ you? Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?
Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?
You certainly can make some distinctions between “person” and “militiaman”. A 4-year-old child is a person and not a militiaman. The courts would certainly rule against the idea that Congress can organize a Children’s Brigade under the militia clauses. They would rule on constitutional grounds against paraplegics, or the mentally disabled being drafted. But we aren’t talking about these exceptional cases. We are talking about the general case, and the general case is that it is your status as a person that makes you a member of the militia.
Indeed, I think that Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others. They have that authority under the Militia clauses; I think they should exercise it.
Squares and rectangles, you can’t generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.
You won’t hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency, although this was written when Militias were the primary national defense in lieu of the standing Army we now maintain.
But the rest of your interpretation reads more like you’re working backwards from the conclusion you want to prove.
Broadly speaking, no I would not say that’s the case .
The founders did not make a habit of codifying lazy verbage, if they meant People in general they would have written People in general. They chose the words they did to convey specific and distinct meanings. Militia refers particularly to that portion of a community trained for “martial exercise”. If you’re not trained, I’d argue specifically trained by the state, you’re not part of the Militia. A candidate for it perhaps, but not a member until you’ve been trained by the state for the purpose.
As you used it in that statement, the term “adults” is synonymous with “well regulated militia” as used in the constitution, and “people” as I have used the term.
It is because we are militia/people/adults that we can be compelled to attend the training you describe, or be otherwise drafted into service.
This is true, there is not a complete overlap, but I accounted for the non-squares in my last comment. My point is not that militia contains absolutely all members of “we the people”. My point is made when “equilateral rectangles” are the general rule, and “non square” is an exceptional case.
When you see a random person on the street and have no special information about them, It is unreasonable to presume they are not a member of the militia.
No I heard what you said, I don’t agree with that interpretation. No training, no Militia. A raw egg isn’t an omelet . Again, you started with your conclusion and are interpreting the words to justify it.
Alright, how about this: fail to register with selective service, and young men cannot get or renew a driver’s license or financial aid for college. They can even be charged with a crime, all for failing to follow one of the very few regulations imposed upon the militia.
How can they be punished for not fulfilling their militia duty if they are not militia?
I started by asking “who is the militia?”, nothing more. The legislature told me who they thought was the militia (every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45) and I asked why women weren’t included. Then I realized the definition the legislature used was not the definition used in the Constitution, and I allowed it to expand to as broad a concept as Congress would have access to: everyone.
Your interpretation of “no training, no militia” is not unreasonable as a practical matter, but we are talking about constitutional law, constitutional rights. If there are any rights attached to the concept of “militia”, liberty demands we assume the broadest reasonable interpretation; if there are any infringements attached to the militia, the narrowest definition possible.
“Well regulated militia” is not the “gotcha” that hoplophobes think it is.