FireTower @ FireTower @lemmy.world

Posts

41

Comments

1,262

Joined

2 yr. ago

No

The founding fathers were famously divided on federal power. The 2nd amendment is their compromise.

Factually wrong. See Federalist and Antifederalist Papers.

Read more write less.

That novel theory fails on so many merits. Such as why would they have felt a need to specify that aspects at the time? Under the proper interpretation it make perfect sense as some states had failed to maintain an effective militia. As another commentor pointed out, the original interpretation of the word survives today:

On matters of law that view had been invalidated before its inception. In the words of early justice Joseph Story:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Entymologist notable studiers of the field of law not lawyers. You do go to lawyers for historical case law because that is the exact thing they've studied for their doctorate.

And that isn't analogous to militia regulation but rather cargo transportation restrictions similar to fire safety laws. Again betraying, that legal knowledge is actually helpful in understanding law. Rather than say a bastardized perversion of etymology used to confirm preexisting notions.

I'm sure they're just talking about how freely you can transport explosives...

But for your sarcasm this would have been your most salient thought in the thread.

A select militia is no militia at all. It defeats to core purpose of a militia. And it isn't deployable by the President. But it is by Congress (then under Exec leadership). Read the Federalist Papers/Antifederalists Papers. Throw Blackstone and Story in there too.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; -Article 1 Sec 8

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; - Article 2 Sec 2

The judiciary can strike them down for Congress having delegated their power. Judicial review has long been appreciated to be the province of the judiciary. The blame for this lies squarely with the legislature, the most accountable form of government. Vote.

The military and national guard aren't militia, they are armies. A select militia is no militia at all. And professional soldiers can't replace a militia as it is them who on rare occasion they are tasked with opposing.

At the siege of Boston the Connecticut militia along with the Green Mountain Boys, and the men of Massachusetts showed up to oppose the British regulars. The regulars were professional soldiers. The rest the militia.

Our professional army maybe our ally in liberty today but history has shown that may not always be the case.

If you go to the hyperlink above you can search for how regulating militia was used across the states during the founding period. They universally share the same efficacious meaning.

6A) ...to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I would argue that the militia still exists it's just the government isn't doing it's duty to regulate the body of the people to be capable of common defense well. And to assume a right protected by the constitution could be outmoded by government inaction is self defeating logic.

They also could have written "limited" but they didn't. The people at the time widely understood it to refer to a militia attended to, to ensure it efficacious. The regulations they had at the time were there to ensure they were well trained and armed. See the militia acts of 1792 & 1795 or for example or any of the other many acts from the period like 1786 N.H. Laws 409-10, An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia within this State,. Which provided:

[E]very non-commissioned officer and soldier, both in the alarm list and training band, shall be provided, and have constantly in readiness, a good musket, and a bayonet fitted thereto, with a good scabbard and belt, a worm, priming-wire and brush, a cartridge-box that will hold at least twenty-four rounds, six flints, and a pound of powder, forty leaden balls fitted to his gun, a knap sack, a blanket, and a canteen that will hold one quart.

When they wanted their militias well regulated they meant this.

It is decidedly not the one used in that context given the history of America under the articles of confederation and the revolution.

I don't know who "us" is but I decidedly not threatening anyone. My point was that taking law to mean anything but what it meant is lunacy and will simply lead to people misreading it to achieve political goals defying the legislative process. Changes in law should be done via the legislature.

There were supporters of a standing army at the time notably George Washington President of the national when the Bill of Rights was enacted.

The idea that militias were solely for suppressing slave rebellions is patently wrong. If that was the case why would Vermont (a state that never allowed slavery) have had a militia.

The Federalist Papers clearly painted their purpose.

You don't want to play the game of "we can apply modern definitions" to the Constitution.

Hopefully this elucidates why that's a bad idea:

Art 4 sect 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

Maybe we hire a different chef who isn't an octogenarian. There's a lot of chefs out there. We don't have to accept the false dichotomy that there's only two chefs capable of running a kitchen.

The hiring process is meant to weed out bad chefs like those that are sleep or hold political beliefs anathema to most. Not to lock them in as the only possible cooks.

You misunderstood the situation. Imagine someone flew to Finland had a can of kalakukko then went off for the rest of their life that all of the EU has dog shit food and is a cultural hellhole.

Ignoring that one of their snipers saw him pull out a rangefinder though...

Well just seeing that probably shouldn't be enough to use lethal force. At that point he's effectively just a guy looking through binoculars or a monocular.

They probably just had a use of force policy that required approval from above to use deadly force before anyone had shot.

I didn't hear anything suggesting he used irons, that'd be a very odd choice. Most modern ARs don't come with irons or an optic and you can get red dots much better than just irons for under $200.

And irons would decidedly be harder but 100 yards still is very achievable by a novice who follows fundamentals.

I think you're underplaying the historical significance of wool and how agricultural lands for growing plants also played a massive role in destroying the habitat of those predators (toss in timber in there too).