Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Definition of Militia from the turn of the 19th Century.
-----------------------------
REG'ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
MILI'TIA, noun [Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, Latin molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language.
I suspect it did not change in the few decades prior
The dictionary definition of "militia" is a lot less important than what it functionally was in the USA at the time. At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, the militia in the United States functioned in the same manner as a bucket brigade: All able bodied men were expected to come and they were expected to bring their own weapons. It harkens back to the concept of the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord. Regular citizens that were expected to respond in a minute's notice. And while there were areas of the USA where a more organized military existed, due to the frontier nature of the United States the idea of calling up the militia continues on for more than a hundred years from then. Look at the early days of the West. What do you think calling up a posse and deputizing them equates to? It's pretty much calling up a militia with the expectation that they bring their own weapons.
Quote:
You might want to read up on the Militia act of 1792.
Irrelevant. The Bill of Rights already existed three years earlier. Any context you might draw from an act in 1792 did not exist in 1789. And as I said, the "every able bodied man, bring your own weapons" continued to function in frontier regions for the next 100 years.
There is one very big positive to having a well armed citizenry. Anyone crazy enough to invade the USA is going to get sniped and shot at around every corner. It's a really bad idea to invade the USA. Remember, Germany and Japan never bothered trying and really didn't want to in WW2. You can split hairs all you like about the wording of the 2nd Amendment. The founding fathers were extremely clear about why they felt it was so important. So if you want to know what they really meant, there isn't much mystery on the matter. Truth is, we're probably more restrictive than the founding fathers intended. They were just fine with the private ownership of artillery and primitive automatic weapons and they referenced the 2nd Amendment as blanket permission for owning such things.
I'm okay with heavily restricting full-autos, missile launchers, tanks, fighter aircraft, artillery, etc. Still, a truly honest understanding of the 2nd Amendment and the context given for it by the founding fathers would require all laws against owning such things to be struck down as unconstitutional. So the governments and courts of today are fudging it a bit.
B. That horrid Monte Carlo stock has no place on the greatest battle implement ever devised.
Again, I apologize for the Garand. I love it too. I was trying to find a picture of one without a strap and preferably without even the clips for the strap. If somebody doesn't know guns worth a damn, they'd think it was just some hunting rifle.
I'm okay with heavily restricting full-autos, missile launchers, tanks, fighter aircraft, artillery, etc. Still, a truly honest understanding of the 2nd Amendment and the context given for it by the founding fathers would require all laws against owning such things to be struck down as unconstitutional. So the governments and courts of today are fudging it a bit.
What then was the point of giving Congress authority to grant letters of marque?
Gun control isn't (or shouldn't be) about banning guns. It should be about qualification, safety, storage and management.
If you want to own a gun, fine. Go prove that you are a responsible person who knows how to safely manage and handle your weapons. License and insure the things, and store them safely where a 3 year-old can't get his hands on one and shoot baby sister, or Mom.
This sounds reasonable.
Good luck with that.
It's funny, really - the odd kind, not the "ha ha ha" kind, that the more I read about this, the more I think the problem is more about people and less about guns themselves.
I used to be opposed to any and all guns. My politics haven't really shifted since then, except for this one issue. I have no problem with gun ownership now, provided that it's responsible ownership, with proper attention given to training and safety...and the ability to keep some people from having these weapons, if their past actions have demonstrated they are incapable of using them responsibly.
I am going to make a comparison, and I know it will draw a lot of criticism from people who say that driving is not a right enshrined in the Constitution, but really...let's look at this in the same way we look at driving.
A car can be deadly. If you misuse your car, you can lose the right to drive it. Before you are allowed to drive, you must prove that you can do so competently.
A car is probably more of a necessity for most people than a gun, yet you can lose your driver's license if you are reckless with your car. It doesn't matter if the car is an ageing Ford Escort or a Ferrari - if you misuse it, you lose it.
Yeah definitely much love for the Garand. A 30-6 slug on full auto with a 8 round clip. I can certainly understand wanting to hang onto the gun with the bigger boom when the military is trying to hand you a glorified .22 rifle. The AR-15 is alright, but the hype around it is completely over the top.
The way a lot of Dems go on about the thing, you'd think the AR-15 could kill God.
The Garland isn’t full auto.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
