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.
Off topic, but still related to the power of a fully armed citizenry to resist government might.
This is a quote from World War II Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of Japan.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
That’s interesting. More than once, my mind has drifted to a Red Dawn-like fantasy thing when I’m out hiking some woods. I never realized that it was actually taken into account by a wartime adversary.
As always, I think the nuances are best teased out by the writings of the founders, where the underlying thought processes behind the Bill of Rights, among other things, can be found. Igor did a nice job posting the kinds of things I rely on as a 2A interpretation.
I am curious, though: it’s written in a very quirky manner. Was that a product of funky language use at the time, or deliberate? That’s always been my biggest question.
Standard language at the time.
Because literacy was not universal, schools demanded a very high standard for literacy from their students. This very formal, almost flowery manner of speaking and writing at the time were simlpy the result of the very high bar set for politicians, orators and journalists of the day. Failure to do so probably made you look inferior or less intelligent to most people, and probably would result in your losing election to someone with superior speaking and writing style.
Because literacy was not universal, schools demanded a very high standard for literacy from their students. This very formal, almost flowery manner of speaking and writing at the time were simlpy the result of the very high bar set for politicians, orators and journalists of the day. Failure to do so probably made you look inferior or less intelligent to most people, and probably would result in your losing election to someone with superior speaking and writing style.
Makes sense. I read some of the journals of Lewis and Clarke, and it was rough going. But I’m not too sure how education worked then or how that translates to the founders. But much hay has been made over it, probably worth knowing much more than I do about it.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court already knocked down the "militia clause" requirement in their Heller decision. They also made it clear guns are not just for hunting. So, go back to the drawing board OP, and read up on the Heller decision. Then you will understand.
Heller codified an "individual right" to keep and bear arms, not a right confined to membership in a specific group such as a state militia.
Most peole misinterpret what "militia" means anyway. They misinterpret it to mean the National Guard at best or some local fringe group at worst. Long, long ago the Founders Understood "militia" to mean the following.
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason,
"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…." Richard Henry Lee
Ah yes, the Heller Case. I had heard about it but have never read up on it until now. After reading its summary however, all it does is affirm one of my points that I had made in my original post, that the Second Amendment still permits individuals to keep and use firearms to protect their homes and businesses but there may be laws on other limitations:
"All of this could be avoided if only police and military get to openly carry arms while on duty and ordinary citizens including off-duty police can only use concealed firearms to protect their homes or businesses but not discharge them on public streets"
I've studied constitutional law in college and I hesitate to take a court decision like this as the last word however, especially because it was only a 5-4 ruling. Somewhere down the road, the SCOTUS might re-interpret the law differently and decide differently.
But as to the interpretations of what our Founding Fathers interpret as militia as the website you shared suggests, well they are all up for interpretation. I remember reading somewhere years ago that Benjamin Franklin helped form armed militias (i.e. bands of armed citizens for the purpose of self-defense) from ordinary citizens in Philadelphia because law enforcement was so lax at one time. That type of militia of course can be interpreted differently than merely "all citizens capable of military service" as Justice Scalia interpreted the Fathers to mean at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted. I mean that is an instance of a regulated militia rather than a free for all policy. We can debate about what constitutes a militia some other time though because that can be a whole other discussion outside of the Second Amendment debate.
That’s interesting. More than once, my mind has drifted to a Red Dawn-like fantasy thing when I’m out hiking some woods. I never realized that it was actually taken into account by a wartime adversary.
It no longer applies, as we (the militia) have given up our balance of power to the government, which now has standing armies with high-power weapons we can't match.
The founders were dead set against standing armies because they are always eventually used against the people to tyranize them. So while the nation is still awash in firearms, 99.9% of which are semi-automatic guns, our collective firepower is nothing compared to America' armies. A Dictator could make short work of us if they wanted to, and if the soldiers cooperated with them rather than swing over to our side.
Still and all, the Founders were terrified of standing armies, but eventually raised them since it was just not realistic to defend America with irregular militia troops. It is obvious that every sovereign nation needs formal, well trained, and well equipped military forces for national defense.
Those later patriotic government officials did try to take the edge off our having to tolerate standing armies with the Posse Comitatus act of 1878, which legally prohibits the government from using those standing armies against the people of America.
Posse Comitatus is why President Trump can't unilaterally send National Guard troops into the 50 sovereign states without being specifically invited by the state governors. He may imply state request, but as happened in Portland, once the State told him to bug out, he had to remove the National Guard from Oregon. That is Posse Comitatus.
Of course, a tyrannical govenment would simlpy ignore the law of Posse Comitatus, but it does protect us for as long as we have a government that tends to adhere to the Constitution.
It no longer applies, as we (the militia) have given up our balance of power to the government, which now has standing armies with high-power weapons we can't match.
The founders were dead set against standing armies because they are always eventually used against the people to tyranize them. So while the nation is still awash in firearms, 99.9% of which are semi-automatic guns, our collective firepower is nothing compared to America' armies. A Dictator could make short work of us if they wanted to, and if the soldiers cooperated with them rather than swing over to our side.
Still and all, the Founders were terrified of standing armies, but eventually raised them since it was just not realistic to defend America with irregular militia troops. It is obvious that every sovereign nation needs formal, well trained, and well equipped military forces for national defense.
Those later patriotic government officials did try to take the edge off our having to tolerate standing armies with the Posse Comitatus act of 1878, which legally prohibits the government from using those standing armies against the people of America.
Posse Comitatus is why President Trump can't unilaterally send National Guard troops into the 50 sovereign states without being specifically invited by the state governors. He may imply state request, but as happened in Portland, once the State told him to bug out, he had to remove the National Guard from Oregon. That is Posse Comitatus.
Of course, a tyrannical govenment would simlpy ignore the law of Posse Comitatus, but it does protect us for as long as we have a government that tends to adhere to the Constitution.
You doth take it too seriously. It would be interesting to see how a country awash in guns and combat experience would fare against a formal military takeover, though. Someone please design an algorithm to explore that.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
I interpret 2A as meaning: in order to overthrow tyrannical governments the people must be allowed to have weapons. That made perfect sense in 1776 when the best national army was only slightly better than any tribal warriors. But by WW2 national armies had fighter planes and even nuclear bombs. For 2A to allow for any govt to be overthrown people would have to be allowed to own nukes.
Ah yes, the Heller Case. I had heard about it but have never read up on it until now. After reading its summary however, all it does is affirm one of my points that I had made in my original post, that the Second Amendment still permits individuals to keep and use firearms to protect their homes and businesses but there may be laws on other limitations:
"All of this could be avoided if only police and military get to openly carry arms while on duty and ordinary citizens including off-duty police can only use concealed firearms to protect their homes or businesses but not discharge them on public streets"
I've studied constitutional law in college and I hesitate to take a court decision like this as the last word however, especially because it was only a 5-4 ruling. Somewhere down the road, the SCOTUS might re-interpret the law differently and decide differently.
But as to the interpretations of what our Founding Fathers interpret as militia as the website you shared suggests, well they are all up for interpretation. I remember reading somewhere years ago that Benjamin Franklin helped form armed militias (i.e. bands of armed citizens for the purpose of self-defense) from ordinary citizens in Philadelphia because law enforcement was so lax at one time. That type of militia of course can be interpreted differently than merely "all citizens capable of military service" as Justice Scalia interpreted the Fathers to mean at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted. I mean that is an instance of a regulated militia rather than a free for all policy. We can debate about what constitutes a militia some other time though because that can be a whole other discussion outside of the Second Amendment debate.
I answered your question but you don't like my answer or accept it. Good grief. What is the point in trying?
Beyond that, once again, the militia cause is completely irrelevant. It is pointless for you to say that the definition of "militia" is up for interpretation, when the Heller dicision cites an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Group affilliation is completely irrelevant.
You could redefine the meaning of "militia" to the US Space Force and it would not change the meaning of the Second Amendment in any regard. The militia clause is superfluous.
If you cut out the militia clause entirely, the Heller decision makes it pointedly clear that the Second Amendment right of the people to both keep arms and then to bear those arms they keep, would be completey unaffected. It would be identical in either case, since those rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED either way. Either with or without a militia. It is an INDIVIDUAL right.
* Bolded capitals are for emphasis, not for the purpose of shouting at you. I am not trying to shout but simply underscore the extreme importance of both of these items. I'm not trying to be rude here.
Oh yeah, I forgot to add one more thing. If you take the entire text of the 2nd Amendment and break it up into a p and q argument form, you could also make out both A Well Regulated Militia and common individuals have the right to bear arms. Where such individuals can bear arms and exactly what type of arms is then open to debate and interpretation.
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.
