Please teach a foreigner about the United States' Militias!

[Curious George]

Then why are you unable to support this with Constitutional backing?
And keep in mind, it doesn't work by playing hypotheticals of what can happen. The law as it exists now is what we have and operate under, not what-ifs and things that not codified into law.

Because it wouldn't be appreciated.

I can't explain a constitutional argument if you don't understand (nor want to understand) what the constitution is and how it is interpreted.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because it wouldn't be appreciated.

I can't explain a constitutional argument if you don't understand (nor want to understand) what the constitution is and how it is interpreted.

So, in other words, you can't. I know you can't, because what you try to pass off as "all able bodied male citizens becoming all able bodied citizens" is not Constitutional law, but federal law, the National Defense Act of 1916 which did nationalize the militia and instate the draft for able bodied males of a certain age.
I think it is you who do not understand what the Constitution is, it's interpretations, and how federal laws are not Constitutional laws.

 

[Curious George]

So, in other words, you can't. I know you can't, because what you try to pass off as "all able bodied male citizens becoming all able bodied citizens" is not Constitutional law, but federal law, the National Defense Act of 1916 which did nationalize the militia and instate the draft for able bodied males of a certain age.
I think it is you who do not understand what the Constitution is, it's interpretations, and how federal laws are not Constitutional laws.

I am okay with you thinking this. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am okay with you thinking this.

My only question is why you feel this way. You keep saying I am wrong, but I'm not. The Constitution barely addresses the issue of militias, other than to say a well regulated and armed one is necessary for the preservation of the state. Federal law, however does go into further detail. But it does not require all able bodied citizens to answer a conscription call. That is not American law, and an ongoing controversy as to whether or not women should be required to register so it will be equal, or just abolish it as the equalizer.

 

[McBell]

This article refers to the National Guard, an official branch of the military. When most people speak of militia organizations today they're referring to private paramilitary groups:
The Second Wave: Return of the Militias

The first link is a rather short list of some of the more known "militia" (ones fitting your above description);
The second link is PART of the regulations regarding the governmental control of militia. (National Guard)

One of the big problems this thread suffers from is the multiple meanings of the word "militia".

 

[Curious George]

My only question is why you feel this way. You keep saying I am wrong, but I'm not. The Constitution barely addresses the issue of militias, other than to say a well regulated and armed one is necessary for the preservation of the state. Federal law, however does go into further detail. But it does not require all able bodied citizens to answer a conscription call. That is not American law, and an ongoing controversy as to whether or not women should be required to register so it will be equal, or just abolish it as the equalizer.

You are mixing federal legislation with constitutional law. That the federal government can enact laws regarding the draft at all is indicative of the fact that it is within the government authority to call upon the militia.

They can change the laws for selective services to include only 25 and 1/2 year olds....it will not change who the militia is or whether the government has the authority to call upon anyone in the militia.
It is well established in constitutional law that the government does not have the authority to discriminate between individuals on the basis of sex when they cannot meet a standard of heightened scrutiny. This is now how the due process clause of the fifth Ammendment is read.

There is no argument to be had regarding this. You bring up that legal sexual discrimination still exists. This is true. However, this is in part how the constitution is interpreted. No right is unfettered. Not your right to speech, not your right to bear arms, and not your right to due process.

The government can for an important government interest discriminate based on sex or gender when they do so by means that substantially furthers that interest.

Not calling forth women in a draft is arguably just that. (Don't ask me to defend this, i won't; just accept that an argument can be made). Not viewing women as part of the militia is not the same as not calling forth women from the militia. Any reason given to disregard women as part of the militia is arbitrary and therefore outside of the government's authority to do so.

There are two other militia clauses you are neglecting beyond the 2nd amendment. These are in the legislative powers. The legislature delegated the authority to call forth the militia to the president.

Also not that there is no authority to create or abolish the militia. That is because doing so can't even make sense. You cannot create or abolish all able bodied citizens. The militia is a specific group of people. This group is very large. It is all able bodied citizens of the U.S. just as you can be asked to carry out jury duties, so too can you, if you are part of this group, be asked to carry out militia duties. If we created a special group of citizens for jury duty, that does not mean the government can never call on you for jury duties again.

 

[Valjean]

You are mistaken if you understand the militia in the constitution to be anything but all able bodied males, certainly now all able bodied citizens.

Read the minutes from the constitutional convention. Read the Federalist Papers -- especially for the discussions of state vs Federal governments, standing armies and state vs federally controlled militias.

Heck -- did you even read my links?

What's your opinion on the delegates' meaning? What's your take on "well Regulated"? How about District of Columbia v Heller?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One of the big problems this thread suffers from is the multiple meanings of the word "militia".

I think that's more a problem that we have the Army National Guard, and from there a bunch of armed groups calling themselves a militia, and to make things worse the Constitution doesn't really address militias, and apart from the National Defense Act there really isn't much.

 

[Curious George]

Read the minutes from the constitutional convention. Read the Federalist Papers -- especially for the discussions of state vs Federal governments, standing armies and state vs federally controlled militias.

Heck -- did you even read my links?

What's your opinion on the delegates' meaning? What's your take on "well Regulated"? How about District of Columbia v Heller?

No, hadn't bothered to read your opinion piece (I have now). Yes i have read the federalist papers, yes i have read the heller decision and the miller decision. Do you want to discuss the second amendment or do you want to discuss the militia? It seems as though you want to discuss the Second Ammendment, is that your intent?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no argument to be had regarding this.

You've provided no evidence. You have cited no sources. I did cite the federal law, and even that you deny and argue against.

 

[Valjean]

The first link is a rather short list of some of the more known "militia" (ones fitting your above description);
The second link is PART of the regulations regarding the governmental control of militia. (National Guard)

One of the big problems this thread suffers from is the multiple meanings of the word "militia".

True that.

No, hadn't bothered to read your opinion piece (I have now). Yes i have read the federalist papers, yes i have read the heller decision and the miller decision. Do you want to discuss the second amendment or do you want to discuss the militia? It seems as though you want to discuss the Second Ammendment, is that your intent?

I'll discuss either.

The thread is wandering all over the place. I'm just rolling with the flow and responding to the various points brought up.

 

[Curious George]

You've provided no evidence. You have cited no sources. I did cite the federal law, and even that you deny and argue against.

Nope, what is more? I don't intend to do so. I am not writing this for a law journal, nor do I anticipate if i did provide sources that you would change your mind. You are welcome to think i am just some madman ranting in the wind who is completely clueless.

Whether you think my text is akin to assertions of sovereign citizens asserting federaltax is illegal, doesn't matter. I have corrected your errors and am content with that. I am happy to answer your questions but do not expect to find any "see, ids and infras," supra.

 

[Curious George]

True that.

I'll discuss either.

The thread is wandering all over the place. I'm just rolling with the flow and responding to the various points brought up.

Well i have a hunch the OP wants to get at the second amendment (from past conversations).

But i would say that the intention of the second amendment was to not federally deprive the the people of the right to bear arms. Prior to the 14th amendment (and the inevitable incorporation of the 2nd amendment) the states could restrict the right to keep and bear arms all they wished. So, there was obviously not an issue with taking away guns, rather it was an issue of who could take away guns.

That said with the expansion in the reading of the 14th amendment, one cannot help but prohibit the states too from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I would argue that regardless of your reading of the second amendment, the right of self defense exists. And any attack on reasonable and efficient tools of self defense is an infringement on your right to defend yourself. You cannot say that the police and military need guns for defense and then say that citizens should be denied access to that without creating some serious internal inconsistency.

Now if the government is going to be saddled with the duty to defend individuals, then such claim may make sense. But, the courts have consistently held that no such duty exists. Rather your defense rests solely on you. Given this it would be wrong of me, both ethically and legally, to handicap your ability to reasonably ensure your own defense.

Further, we are talking about restricting ownership of a readily accessible item. One can illegally obtain, manufacture or even 3d print a working gun. In the face of this, restrictions on ownership excessively broad. That is to say are needlessly punitive toward people who own and use guns for a variety of legal reasons including hunting, marksmanship, collecting, recreational purposes.

Now all of that doesn't even touch on the fact that the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a guarantee that infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms is outside the authority of the government when the government lacks a compelling government interest and has narrowly tailored the proposed infringement to suit that compelling government purpose.

Ultimately i do not see the militia as germane to the discussion. This is true whether we stick strictly to the text and recognize that an introductory clause need not be exclusive, whether we believe that the constitution is meant to be interpreted as commonly perceived by the citizenry, whether we hold to the original intent which was to ensure the federal government would not disarm the people of the several states, or whether we believe that the constitution is a living document.

I am not for lightly relinquishing any right or limit on government authority. I think if people feel strongly regarding the want for governmental authority to regulate firearms, then they should seek an amendment to the constitution.

Trying to play with words to make the second amendment mean something that 1) allows infringing on a fundamental right; 2) Is contrary to the a large portion of the citizenry's understanding; 3) grants the federal government more authority; and 4) Is contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation--is excessive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope, what is more? I don't intend to do so. I am not writing this for a law journal, nor do I anticipate if i did provide sources that you would change your mind. You are welcome to think i am just some madman ranting in the wind who is completely clueless.

Whether you think my text is akin to assertions of sovereign citizens asserting federaltax is illegal, doesn't matter. I have corrected your errors and am content with that. I am happy to answer your questions but do not expect to find any "see, ids and infras," supra.

You make the claim, you provide the evidence. I stated the law I drew my statements from. You have not done the same.
So, perhaps go educate yourself before accusing us of not knowing and not being able to understand your own ignorance.
You even seem to assume American attitudes towards guns have always been like they are now. They haven't. This too I can support with not only law, but even magazines and travel advisories about guns and how it strongly discouraged and often banned to carry them with you in the city. That was the "Wild West" days. You had your gun for out there, where you needed it. You was a senseless idiot looking for trouble if you brought it into town with you, and people did view you as a trouble maker (the local sheriff would likely make it apparent he is keeping his eye on you). What can you bring to the argument?

 

[Valjean]

Well i have a hunch the OP wants to get at the second amendment (from past conversations).

But i would say that the intention of the second amendment was to not federally deprive the the people of the right to bear arms. Prior to the 14th amendment (and the inevitable incorporation of the 2nd amendment) the states could restrict the right to keep and bear arms all they wished. So, there was obviously not an issue with taking away guns, rather it was an issue of who could take away guns.

So why not simply word it: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Why preface it with a justifying clause, and why specify "well regulated?"

I would argue that regardless of your reading of the second amendment, the right of self defense exists. And any attack on reasonable and efficient tools of self defense is an infringement on your right to defend yourself. You cannot say that the police and military need guns for defense and then say that citizens should be denied access to that without creating some serious internal inconsistency.

Fair enough, but what constitutes reasonable and efficient tools? And do you really think peace and order could be maintained with no restrictions on who, where or when guns were permitted?
Knowing the passions and nature of our species, is a society even possible without some restraints on impulsively lethal tools? How is it that their need seems to increase with their availability?

Now if the government is going to be saddled with the duty to defend individuals, then such claim may make sense. But, the courts have consistently held that no such duty exists. Rather your defense rests solely on you. Given this it would be wrong of me, both ethically and legally, to handicap your ability to reasonably ensure your own defense.

Which is why We The People take it on ourselves to create police departments. These peacekeepers are supposed to be the peoples defense force.

Further, we are talking about restricting ownership of a readily accessible item. One can illegally obtain, manufacture or even 3d print a working gun. In the face of this, restrictions on ownership excessively broad. That is to say are needlessly punitive toward people who own and use guns for a variety of legal reasons including hunting, marksmanship, collecting, recreational purposes.

Restrictions do work elsewhere in the world. Should we just throw up our hands and put no restriction on theft or assault because the capability is universal?

Ultimately i do not see the militia as germane to the discussion. This is true whether we stick strictly to the text and recognize that an introductory clause need not be exclusive, whether we believe that the constitution is meant to be interpreted as commonly perceived by the citizenry, whether we hold to the original intent which was to ensure the federal government would not disarm the people of the several states, or whether we believe that the constitution is a living document.

Apparently, though, the founding fathers found the military germane to the debate, hence the clause.

I am not for lightly relinquishing any right or limit on government authority. I think if people feel strongly regarding the want for governmental authority to regulate firearms, then they should seek an amendment to the constitution.

Or just re-interpret it. Interpretations have had sweeping effects in the past, and problematic reinterpretations have been later changed.

Trying to play with words to make the second amendment mean something that 1) allows infringing on a fundamental right; 2) Is contrary to the a large portion of the citizenry's understanding; 3) grants the federal government more authority; and 4) Is contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation--is excessive.

But it's this permissive interpretation that's the new thing, and, as I understand it, the majority of the public favors tighter restrictions. The permissive reinterpretation was largely a product of special interests.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which is why We The People take it on ourselves to create police departments. These peacekeepers are supposed to be the peoples defense force.

I'll just assume everyone knows what this comes from:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So why not simply word it: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Why preface it with a justifying clause, and why specify "well regulated?"

Fair enough, but what constitutes reasonable and efficient tools? And do you really think peace and order could be maintained with no restrictions on who, where or when guns were permitted?
Knowing the passions and nature of our species, is a society even possible without some restraints on impulsively lethal tools? How is it that their need seems to increase with their availability?
Which is why We The People take it on ourselves to create police departments. These peacekeepers are supposed to be the peoples defense force.
Restrictions do work elsewhere in the world. Should we just throw up our hands and put no restriction on theft or assault because the capability is universal?

Apparently, though, the founding fathers found the military germane to the debate, hence the clause.
Or just re-interpret it. Interpretations have had sweeping effects in the past, and problematic reinterpretations have been later changed.
But it's this permissive interpretation that's the new thing, and, as I understand it, the majority of the public favors tighter restrictions. The permissive reinterpretation was largely a product of special interests.

I applaud you optimism and patience in hoping for a reasoned, rational and logically consistent response.

 

[Curious George]

You make the claim, you provide the evidence. I stated the law I drew my statements from. You have not done the same.
So, perhaps go educate yourself before accusing us of not knowing and not being able to understand your own ignorance.
You even seem to assume American attitudes towards guns have always been like they are now. They haven't. This too I can support with not only law, but even magazines and travel advisories about guns and how it strongly discouraged and often banned to carry them with you in the city. That was the "Wild West" days. You had your gun for out there, where you needed it. You was a senseless idiot looking for trouble if you brought it into town with you, and people did view you as a trouble maker (the local sheriff would likely make it apparent he is keeping his eye on you). What can you bring to the argument?

None of thos has to do with what the militia is. It seems you too now want to discuss the second amendment.


Again of you have any questions i would be happy to address them.

 

[Curious George]

So why not simply word it: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Why preface it with a justifying clause, and why specify "well regulated?"

Because the militia was important. A wording that both affirms the militia and protects the people's rights to keep and bear arms was believed to be of superior construction than one that just protected the people's right to keep and bear arms or one that just protected the militia. The more important question is why use people in the main clause if the intent was only to protect the militia or secure the right to arms for the militia when people is a larger group?

Fair enough, but what constitutes reasonable and efficient tools? And do you really think peace and order could be maintained with no restrictions on who, where or when guns were permitted?

I think myriad factor go into assessing whether a tool is reasonable or not. Are you suggesting that guns are unreasonable tools of defense? If you are, we can pursue that discussion. If you are not, then what is the point?


This second question seems mighty close to straw-manning. What makes you think i have suggested that there can be no restrictions on who, when or where?

Knowing the passions and nature of our species, is a society even possible without some restraints on impulsively lethal tools?

again what precisely do you think i have said which would entail no restraint?

How is it that their need seems to increase with their availability?

I am not so sure i see a diminished "need" regardless of their availability.

Which is why We The People take it on ourselves to create police departments. These peacekeepers are supposed to be the peoples defense force.

Who has no duty to protect the individual. This has been decided already, so no, that cannotbe why.

Restrictions do work elsewhere in the world. Should we just throw up our hands and put no restriction on theft or assault because the capability is universal?

Theft and assault are crimes. Owning a firearm is not. Self defense is not. And who is throwing up there arms?

Apparently, though, the founding fathers found the military germane to the debate, hence the clause.

Or they sought to protect both the people's right to keep and bear arms and preserve the importance of a well organized militia which relates to the people's right to keep and bear arms but is not the exclusive reason for such a right.

Or just re-interpret it. Interpretations have had sweeping effects in the past, and problematic reinterpretations have been later changed.

Again, i am not in favor of diminishing rights through "reinterpretation." As I wouldn't favor the courts reinterpreting the right to privacy, so too would i disfavor reinterpreting the people's right to keep and bear arms. There are other avenues for this.

But it's this permissive interpretation that's the new thing, and, as I understand it, the majority of the public favors tighter restrictions. The permissive reinterpretation was largely a product of special interests.

If the majority that favors such is really that large, then one would think that there should be no issue in passing an additional amendment. Or is it thecase that doing so would be unlikely because many citizens would oppose it?

If the latter is the case, then you are seeking the Court to do in law what cannot be done with legislation. In cases like Roe v. Wade the courts were used to protect a constitutional right. Asking for a redo because you want to change how the constitution is interpreted, seems excessive. You can blame special interest groups all you want, it will not change the legal arguments.

On a side-note that a large number of Americans or even a majority of Americans favor tighter gun restrictions does not entail that much if not the majority of the citizenry has always believed the second amendment proscribed the federal government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether the militia was relevant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

None of thos has to do with what the militia is. It seems you too now want to discuss the second amendment.

The 2nd clearly is relevant as clearly it mentions militias.