HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » I keep hearing "well...

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 12:56 PM

I keep hearing "well-regulated militia" as a precondition to gun ownership.

At the time of the authoring of the 2nd Amendment what were the federal regulations governing the militias?

30 replies, 2823 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply I keep hearing "well-regulated militia" as a precondition to gun ownership. (Original post)
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 OP
Doubledee Oct 2015 #1
Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #15
Doubledee Oct 2015 #22
Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #27
Doubledee Oct 2015 #28
Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #30
immoderate Oct 2015 #2
LonePirate Oct 2015 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #6
LonePirate Oct 2015 #9
DonP Oct 2015 #10
LonePirate Oct 2015 #12
Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #13
Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #16
LonePirate Oct 2015 #17
DonP Oct 2015 #18
jimmy the one Oct 2015 #24
Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #19
jimmy the one Oct 2015 #25
Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #26
sarisataka Oct 2015 #11
Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #14
beardown Oct 2015 #20
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #23
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #29
krispos42 Oct 2015 #21
beevul Oct 2015 #4
jeepers Oct 2015 #5
Jester Messiah Oct 2015 #7
Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #8
jmg257 Oct 2015 #31

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:10 PM

1. Search engines are available to all

The fears of the founders regarding monarchies are well known. All monarchies disarm the public as a way to rule without fear of revolution. The second amendment was written to avoid such an occurrence.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doubledee (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:23 PM

15. And for clarity's sake, 2A recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 21, 2015, 08:49 AM

22. the devil in the details

It was the phrase," A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." that causes the confusion you see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doubledee (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 21, 2015, 02:26 PM

27. I am not confused. That was the language of the day. What is clear:

 

The rights recognized occur to individuals, and not some other entity, as per all the rights recognized in the Constitution. No communities, no agencies, no militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 21, 2015, 06:26 PM

28. Lets agree

to disagree.I never said YOU were confused at all. You and I are speaking at cross purposes and ending this seems the best course of action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doubledee (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:00 PM

30. That's fine. That kind of language re: 2A is found in some state constitutions,

 


Especially linking freedom of speech with another freedom, the press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:10 PM

2. That they should be able to load and fire guns.

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:16 PM

3. Perhaps we should enlist members of this militia to fight ISIS.

Might as well put that militia to good use as they merely spread fear, destruction and death to their fellow Americans right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:20 PM

6. Any comments concerning the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:49 PM

9. Make militia membership mandatory for gun ownership then send militia members overseas to fight ISIS

Make those gundamentalists earn their ownership. The 2A emphasizes the militia angle so I say we make it a linch pin for gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:55 PM

10. Good, you keep saying that and let us know when anything changes

 

No wonder gun control, even with billionaires backing them, hasn't accomplished anything in over 20 years with ideas like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:16 PM

12. The more that gundamentalists hate an idea, the more it needs to be inplemented.

The gundamentalists have terrorized this country long enough. It's time for sane Americans to reclaim their right to live without the fear of gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #12)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:19 PM

13. Gee, Pirate, are you "terrorized?"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #12)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 04:02 PM

16. Only people who suck at math are "terrorized."

 

Probability analysis: it's not for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 04:30 PM

17. The same could be said for gundamentalists who own based on fears of crimes that will never happen.

The math cuts both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 04:55 PM

18. Let's see, gun crime and murders are about half what they were in 1994

 

50% reduction in 20 years with concealed carry now in all 50 states? Still not good enough?

What do you propose to make it even better ... that will both pass constitutional legal scrutiny and get past a GOP House and Senate?

Regale and impress us with tales of what are you personally doing to support gun control in the real world?

Petitions to repeal concealed carry in your state? Petitions to repeal the 2nd amendment? Going to town halls to speak out about local gun ranges? Swatting concealed carriers? Writing several checks to Brady or Bloomberg's multiple groups? Putting a gun control bumper sticker on someone else car?

Or just pretty much being snarky online?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:50 AM

24. chest puffing about the GOP congress

donP: Let's see, gun crime and murders are about half what they were in 1994 .... 50% reduction in 20 years with concealed carry now in all 50 states? Still not good enough?

You left out one important factoid, gun ownership rates declining since 1994 by about 35%, concomittantly with the decline in violent crime rates. Personal gun ownership rates declined from about 35% in 1994 to ~25% now (GSS and Pew, 2 reputable polls).
Gee, imagine that, not noting that the violent crime rate decrease is correlated with a gun ownership rate decrease, leaving readers to think that GUNS somehow contributed to the violent crime rate decrease.

donP: What do you propose to make it even better ... that will both pass constitutional legal scrutiny and get past a GOP House and Senate?

You are chest puffing about the GOP senate & house of unrepresentatives? shouldn't you be posting on republican underground?

donP: Petitions to repeal concealed carry in your state? Petitions to repeal the 2nd amendment? Going to town halls to speak out about local gun ranges? Swatting concealed carriers? Writing several checks to Brady or Bloomberg's multiple groups? Putting a gun control bumper sticker on someone else car?

Supporting gun control efforts in general. Your above suggestions are a combination of unrealistic provocations on your part, snarky remarks, or silly nonsense.
Better than you creating another thread based on your own intense hatred of gun control, premised by a blatant lie, eh? which you never did rebut, since you couldn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 04:59 PM

19. I don't disagree, actually.

 

If one's sole reason for having a firearm (that is, one doesn't really care for shooting as a hobby, doesn't hunt, etc.) is as an anti-crime measure, then I agree: that's not a rationale that's supported by probability for anyone not in an extraordinary circumstance.

In my case, I'm a competition rifle shooter (long range target stuff) and lifelong recreational shooter, so I have the gun security infrastructure in place: gun safe, etc. Adding a couple of self-defense handguns isn't much of an addition...and as a single female who lives alone, my probability of being a victim of crime is a fair bit higher than average. Even then, I'd probably not elect to have a firearm if I weren't already a shooter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 21, 2015, 10:59 AM

25. pb bullets for sale, cheap

poppet: In my case, I'm a competition rifle shooter (long range target stuff) and lifelong recreational shooter,...

Have you checked your LLC - lead level concentration lately?

Individuals who use firearms for work or recreation may be at risk for toxic lead exposure, say Yale clinical investigators. Utilizing Connecticut Dept of Public Health data, they report a rise in elevated blood-lead levels associated with the use and maintenance of firearms in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
The authors— became concerned when they started to see an increasing number of patients with high lead levels related to firearm use.
The other cases evaluated by the researchers involved a firearms instructor, salesman, shop owner, and two U.S. veterans. All had elevated levels of lead not attributed to any other source of lead. “Every one of them practiced target shooting, or were around others who shot guns, most commonly in indoor firing ranges”

The case studies mirror data collected by the state’s Dept of Public Health as part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s state-based Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) program.
Young children are particularly vulnerable to contact with even low levels of lead, which is associated with increased risk for neurologic, cardiovascular, renal, and reproductive health problems
http://news.yale.edu/2015/10/19/research-news-rise-lead-exposure-linked-firearms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:18 AM

26. I'll have to check.

 

I've actually had blood work done recently, but I have no idea if there was an LLC...I'll have to ask my doctor. Thanks for the heads-up!

I shoot only jacketed rounds, myself, but I do use an indoor range frequently for practicing with my self-defense handguns. There are definitely shooters using non-jacketed lead bullets, and despite the good ventilation, there may well be a high lead particulate count in there. My competition practice is outdoors (1000-yard indoor ranges being a bit thin on the ground!), and no one uses unjacketed bullets for that sort of thing, so I suspect the lead levels from exposure to that sort of shooting are not a concern. The indoor range is quite possibly another story, so again, thanks.

I suspect a lot of the target shooters that are seeing elevated lead levels are shooting various forms of rimfire competition. The .22lr or .22 short ammunition used for that almost always has all-lead bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:59 PM

11. BTDT /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:21 PM

14. Actually, if the militia were called up for that, you would be on the list.

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 05:38 PM

20. Constitutional rights were earned from 1775 to 1783.

The KKK called. They want their 'earn' the right to vote idea back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 21, 2015, 09:51 AM

23. The militia is for securing a free state. Expeditionary campaigns are for the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 08:34 AM

29. That has nothing to do with the OP. What, if any, regulations were placed on the militia when the

Second Amendment was authored?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:54 PM

21. So your position is to put boots on the ground in the Middle East. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:18 PM

4. Its a popular but incorrect notion, among some folks.

 

They actually think that an amendment that restricts only governmental exercise of power, and the language it contains, actually 'authorize' something, and/or places conditions on the rights of individuals.


Fortunately 75+ percent of Americans don't buy into that lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:35 PM

5. That phrase actually

comes out of Americas first constitution, The Articles of Confederation where in each of the colonies were considered sovereign as in they were nation states. There was no federal authority and it was recognized that each sovereign state would need its own well regulated militia to defend its borders, enforce its laws and customs etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:32 PM

7. I think it's more of a rationale than it is a precondition. [nt]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 03:48 PM

31. A little tricky due to the timing, but not hard to figure out...

Articles Of Confederation: 1781 - 1789

"..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"

Constitution: Ratified 1788/89
"The Congress shall have Power...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"


What would become the 2nd amendment was authored June-Sept 1789, ratified in 1791.
So it seems the Constitution lists the federal regulations concerning the Militia at that time; at least until the Militia Acts of 1792, when exactly how the Militias would be "well-regulated", i.e. what "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the Militias would actually entail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread