• Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Militias don’t exist anymore, accept as a term for a cosplaying gun club.

      Remember, when this was written people thought a permanent military would be used against the citizens, so they thought it better to not have one.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        No, When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn’t be able to put down without a local militia. That needs to be remembered every time this argument comes up. The Second Amendment exists because because they were afraid of slave rebellions. Patrick Henry in particular in this case.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn’t be able to put down without a local militia

          You’re thinking of cops. And yes, cops are not well regulated.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          That doesn’t even really matter to the point I was making.

          The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to explicitly state the reason for it. And organized state militias don’t exist anymore. So it really doesn’t need to either.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

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

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes. True. Everything had at least half a dozen reasons for and against, that were all debated exhaustively.

          But this specific right, is the only one that actually describes a reason for its existence. And that reason no longer exists. That’s the important part.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Of course they are. It’s the whole military. More specificaly The National Guard. We have permanent professional soldiers who replaced the militia long ago.

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                • Steve@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The National Guard are the modern militia. Deployable by the Governor, not the President.

                  • FireTower@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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

      • Narauko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:

        (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.

      • yeather@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        And damn were they almost right a few times, and 100% were right if you count cops under that term.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      That includes rules. You guys want to ignore an entire part of the definition of the word.

      • yeather@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Like the background checks and waiting periods already put onto gun purchases. No point in age restricting them to 21 as well until the government declares it to be the new adulthood age.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Oh so now rules are okay under the 2nd amendment, you just don’t like them?

          • yeather@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            They aren’t, I was making a point that the well regulated in your context is being met, but shall not be infringed means not denying it to legal adults due to age.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              So why can’t the militia put an age floor in? What’s different about that rule as opposed to background checks?

              • yeather@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                As currently interpreted under law. A militia can be anyone legally able to aquire a firearm under federal law. Therefore, this person can start a one man militia and aquire a firearm.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  That’s not how US law works. The Supreme Court wants us to believe we’re all the militia, so that means we can all flounce around with our boom toys and if ten people get shot then it’s just an unavoidable tragedy.

                  Trying to spin the rulings to something that would be more rational isn’t an honest conversation.

                  • yeather@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    That’s the current ruling, like it or not, if this ruling were to change, it would be easily circumvented and possibly incite major demonstrations and possible congressional action. Like it or not, there are guns in America.