"Well regulated militia" in the American gun debate.

[EEO]

My conservative cousin and I met at our latest family event this weekend. He was talking about guns and the right to bear arms when I said his side conveniently forgets the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment. His response? Prolonged silence, followed by usual talking points like "there are too many illegal guns out there so we need to defend ourselves," and even that "good guy with a gun bullshit." I don't think he is part of that well regulated militia thing.

[NYC_SKP]

1. 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes:

I suggest that he and many others, liberal and conservative, belong to the second class of militia described below:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Probably needs to be made gender neutral.

[Scootaloo]

2. Of course, "unorganized' is an antonym of "well-regulated"

[NYC_SKP]

4. Well I think there are a great many regulations around gun design, ownership.

With room for more, I'll agree.

I'm not particularly fond of the patchwork of different regulations we find, but different regions have different community standards and needs.

[hack89]

7. Since the 2A protects an individual tight to keep and bear arms

At least according to the Democratic Party platform and president Obama, I don't understand why we keep having this particular argument. It is the weakest of the anti- gun arguments.

[Igel]

20. Words change their meanings.

What's written doesn't change its words.

"Control" used to mean "monitor."

"Starve" just used to mean "die." "He starved from cold" was fine.

"Meat" was "food."

Heck, even "book" is just beech used for writing. An ebook must then be some sort of Dark-Ages electrified tree?

"Well-regulated" meant "well equipped." What earthly connection has to be there between having rules for an organization and bearing arms? Do we really mean that if there are no firearms there can't be any regulations--rules and procedures--in place for the existence of a militia? To form a militia, you don't come up with a charter and regs, get a bunch of people together and enlist them, then train and them--first you must pile up arms, then you hand out all the arms, then you start to work on regulations and rules for the group? Because the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the existence of well regulated militia.

Which is odd, because that's the exact opposite of how militias worked back in the 1700s. And in the 1800s. And in the 1900s. So I guess the US Constitution and writers were just completely ignorant of everything, considering how much better we know what was going on then. We're smart and wiser, every one, than everybody else. (We're also the ultimate, bestest masters of humility that the universe has ever seen, so take that, suckers, and you too, Jesus.)

However, if "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped"--with the possible extension of "well-trained"--then the Constitution isn't incoherent drivel as many obviously want it to be. You can't be well equipped as a militia if you don't have firearms. And you can't train as a militia in how to fight, shoot, etc., without equipment.

Much of the rhetoric involving the "well-regulated" militia falls apart as incoherent (in the sense that we must assert that that single sentence ceases to have a clear topic and the necessary grammatical and semantic connections among its parts) once you stop applying the way legal thought works and apply standard thinking from almost any other discipline.

[kelly1mm]

3. Why is this posted in Poitics? Should it not be in one of the gun forums? nt

[Eleanors38]

5. A probe. The video group has been tried as well.

[michreject]

10. It's a good bet they know we're here nt

[hack89]

6. Good thing he is not familiar with the Democratic Party platform on the 2A

You would have ended up with egg on your face.

[EEO]

11. Luckily, I wasn't speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party.

So not an issue.

[JoePhilly]

8. Always ask him about the classes he's taken.

Ask a larger group of family members if they know ANYONE who they think is too unstable to safely own and maintain a firearm.

Ask why "responsible gun owners" would be against having every gun own be able to demonstrate their proficiency.

We all know people who aren't stable enough to own and maintain a weapon of any kind. Responsible gun owners will have taken classes because they want to know how to own and maintain them safely.

[packman]

9. One of the best articles I ever read

about the historical aspect of a "well regulated militia" . Here's just a small part:

"On13 December 13, 1636, the Massachusetts General Court in Salem, for the first time in the history of the North American continent, established that all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to join the militia. The North, South, and East Regiments were established with this order. The decree excluded ministers and judges. Simply stated, citizen-soldiers who mustered for military training could be and would be called upon to fight when needed. "

Later the article expands on the Militia Act of 1792 (REQUIRING an armed citizenship) to how it evolved into the National Guard:

"For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. Concern over the militia's new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York's example. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve. The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force. Between 1903 and the 1920's, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force. "

It goes on to develop the entire historical reasoning behind the Second Amendment and basically states that the modern gun loving ass has no logical reason for their stand. Quite a read.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/militia-organized.htm

[Eleanors38]

12. Since the Second, as well as court rulings supporting it,

affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms, the question arises: Why the "militia clause?" The answer is that the federal government was supporting an individual right -- as it supports All Other rights as individual -- to assure its capability of calling upon a militia as needed. In short, the clause supports the RKBA, it does not condition or enable the individual right. The framers were old-fashioned gun-loving "asses."

[packman]

13. Well, the article doesn't support your statement

"The framers were old-fashioned gun-loving "asses."

They had legitimate reasons rooted in real need. It is the "asses" that twisted that concern and need for a well-regulated militia as America evolved.

[hack89]

14. Except they considered the right to keep and bear arms a traditional English right

look at the British Bill of Rights of 1689 - it bears a striking resemblance to our Bill of Rights.

So the 2A was not created at the spur of the moment to address a pressing need. It was a recapitulation of a right they accepted as being part of their birthright as Englishmen - lets not forget they rebelled because they felt the crown was ignoring the rights of the colonists.

[Eleanors38]

16. Well, so much for humor. All rights are individual rights

The Second is not some peculiar exception. And the Founders were keen to protect that right should the government need to exercise its militia powers. But if the government should never again exercise militia powers it would not diminish the individual RKBA. This is the primary view of most constitutional experts.

An aside, the Dick Act not withstanding, the states as well as the feds still authorize, govern and (as needed) enable militia. That's 51 different political fora to argue the political primacy of the "militia clause."

[hack89]

15. So why does the president and the Democratic party platform

specifically state that the 2A protects an individual right. It is not as clear cut as you want us to believe.

[Recursion]

17. OTOH gun control proponents also forget the 9th Amendment

Personally, I don't think the 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to a handgun, just an AR-15 (kept, if so regulated locally, in a town armory). The 9th Amendment, however....

[Kablooie]

18. Why do they always interpret it as "unregulated militia"?

[KamaAina]

19. By the way, in 18th-century English,

"regulated" meant "trained".

[sendero]

21. Folks who think.....

.... that after 200+ years this "issue" has not been settled once and for all are complete deludinoids.

It's over Johnny, it's over.

[Xyzse]

22. My retort to that is that there are too many dumbasses with guns

I don't have much of a problem with gun ownership as long as it is responsible.
My problem is that they are not responsible whatsoever.

So he's right. There are too many bad guys with guns out there. Irresponsible gun owners are the very definition of bad guys.