What is the definitive argument against the left’s saying the 2nd amendment is only for the “militia”?
What is the definitive argument against the left’s saying the 2nd amendment is only for the “militia”?
militia
mə-lĭsh′ə
noun
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
engage them, defend your point. The more you do it the clearer your thoughts become. They want to stop the discussion; they don’t want us to think.
There are many other words in the second to point to. It is a part of something bigger, the Bill of Rights. We are going to have to educate ourselves, and study history.
There is no magic pat answer for you.
Because it used the term ‘the people’, just like all the other individual rights in the ‘protected from the government’ list called the BOR.
You type SLOWLY, explaining that we are ALL “militia,” then ask them to read this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
It’s US Code of law defining militia.
If they don’t get it, don’t even try.
Your rights exist independently of the Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights. The passing reference to militia is only an aside regarding why government should not, as a practical matter, interfere with your pre-existing and inalienable right to bear arms.
The militia act of 1792, 1862 and 1903 applies to free able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 (54 from the 1862 act). There are historical precedence for persons older than 45/54 serving in the militia.
The 1903 act establishes a formal militia but maintains an informal militia consisting of all able bodied men.
Their interpretation is that the gov’t has the right to guns and not you.
1) They completely ignore that the constitution states the right of the people shall not be infringed rather than gov’t.
2) They will change the meaning of the word “people” to that of “gov’t”.
3) They completely ignore the fact that it is the 2nd amendment in what is referred to as the bill of rights for the people (you and I).
4) They completely ignore the fact that gov’t does not need a bill giving them the right to own weapons as it is already enumerated in Article I Section 8 Clause 12 (power to raise and support an army).
5) They will change the subject when you bring all this up and in a week/month/year will make their same irrational/illogical arguments again totally forgetting that you proved them wrong already.
A militia is of the people, not a government military. In order to be able to form a militia and respond to an emergency the people must have immediate access to arms and this shall not be infringed.
When have we not had the right to own arms? My understanding is that it’s been a right from the beginning - so it is what the founders intended.
That said, other than the people having the right to own arms, what is even more stark - the 2A openly declares the right of the people to form armed militia’s. To people in Europe this is nuts!
The other mistake they make is when they read “well regulated militia”, thinking “government controlled”. At the time of writing “well regulated” language was used to describe “correctly functioning”. So we’re able to own arms, form organized militia, and engage in activities to ensure they’re effective (training operations). This is considered radical in many places - but necessary to be a check against tyrannical government, which the rest of western society thinks is laughable for some unknown reason.
I came here from the UK as a teenager. Some of these concepts were completely foreign to me. It took a while for me to understand the ‘why’.
“What is the definitive argument against the left’s saying the 2nd amendment is only for the “militia”?
I think the definitive might be the feds own laws. The first law being first amendment rights. And a federal politician has even more rights on that since they made a law that gives them the right to make promises that most likely can’t be kept affording them the opportunity to literally lie. But the second law is even more interesting.
Let’s define militia:
10 USC Ch. 12
§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.
In other words, anybody can even be a militia of one as long as they are able-bodied men 17 to 45 of age who are not part of the organized militia and apparently not women or have any restrictions attached to their membership of their unit like a federal conviction. (No guns so what good are they? All they can do is say stop, or I’ll say stop again)
Wy69
the definitive argument is that the 2nd amendment is an individual right - as SCOTUS has confirmed several times.
“What is the definitive argument against the left’s saying the 2nd amendment is only for the “militia”?
Penn and Teller explain it pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
Language warning (one word).
The Bill of Rights is about individual rights. The commies make the second one collective. So the state has a right to have an army. Absolute stupidity.