The jury has reached a verdict in Jennifer Crumbley's manslaughter trial over the 2021 Oxford High School shooting carried out by her son Ethan Crumbley.
The “Constitutional” right to have weapons on you 24/7 and use them the second you are afeared is brand new. The actual text has a whole other half making clear that it’s for a well regulated militia. I had my room and weapon inspected in the military. So can you if you want that gun. If you have a problem with order and discipline then you don’t get a gun.
Your idea of gun rights are one SCOTUS decision away from going back to the way they were in the late 1700’s. Kept at home and regularly inspected by the local militia. They’ve even set the historical standard as precedent. Now it’s just a game of judges willing to actually use that standard instead of making shit up to create a new right from whole cloth.
It could go the other way though, most people don’t know the court isn’t capped at a certain number. But everyone knows you can repeal an amendment. And the rubber band effect is coming. How many kids will it take before people demand the entire amendment be scrapped? I don’t know, but the idea grows every year. With every high profile shooting. You can compromise now or have all guns banned down the road. That’s the outlook.
A well regulated militia made up of people who were supposed to bring their own guns and ammunition that they were proficient in using. The Militia Acts make this pretty clear, along with the Federalist Papers. The intent was that an armed population could be called on by the States to resist an invading army, be that army foreign or the standing Federal army. It also was an evolution of English law enshrining rights to self defense.
If we change the sentence slightly and say “The free flow of goods and services being essential to the safety and functionality of the economy, the right is the people to keep money and travel freely shall not be infringed”, would not imply that you are only free to leave your house and have cash if you are engaged in business.
People in good standing, registered with their town/county/state militia, and subject to the regulations thereof.
The idea that every farmer was a minutemen and that was our defense plan is a Hollywood level simplification of history. The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers make this very clear. Furthermore the founding fathers wanted a standing Army eventually. They knew a militia would not work forever. The idea was always for a standing Army to take over in the future, with the State militias to balance out any shenanigans by the federal army.
And again the state militias were not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They were regulated affairs much closer to a national guard unit than a shooting club.
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was part of the militia, and still are today. Title 10 outlines that all able bodies men not enlisted in the military or national guard is part of the unorganized militia. The founders feared a standing army, while knowing it was inevitable and useful, and the militia was one of the balances of power between State and Federal power.
Hamilton layed out clearly that intention in Federalist 29. “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” … “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”…“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”
The intent of the 2nd amendment was to preserve the existence of an armed populace that would protect themselves and their neighbors from any threats.
Right and when’s the last time you reported for drill?
It was 2013 for me.
You looked right past the part where he talks about an actual militia, not just every citizen. Maybe critically read that instead of just using bits to confirm your bias.
Yeah, I made sure to capture the entire sentence so I wouldn’t be cherry picking/quote mining to skew it to my “side” of the debate. In 1776, planning a yearly exercise/drill for a town or city was something that would happen when everyone got together for traveling judges, organizing fire brigades, and all kinds of civic tasks.
If you want to start planning a yearly get together for people to have a training day with the national guard or reserves like CERT does for disaster drills, it would probably be a huge hit with the tacticool dads and gravy seals. Would probably get better turnout than the CERT drills that serve critical importance to first responders and make the civilians better at how to respond to disasters too.
You are glossing over that the Federal Government to this day considers every (male) citizen to be the militia. Your saying the equivalent of “Nader’s talking about specifically the Pinto, not cars in general when he says our roads are unsafe.” I’ll even conceed that your right that Title 10 does need to be adjusted to include women, because they already serve in the military and are fully capable to fighting in wars. You are also glossing over Hamilton saying that requiring everyone to be a well-regulated militia was unreasonable, so they would just need to rely on “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens” being armed and equipped. That right there is the definition of “every Tom, Dick, and Harry”. He wanted to make sure that they didn’t neglect to be armed and equipped by checking every year or so. I would like to direct the request for critically reading Federalist 29 instead of just using bits to confirm your bias" right back your way.
If “expecting them to be trained as a military is unreasonable, but we can still rely on them to bring their guns and fight with the professionals with just a little training once a year” doesn’t rely on the right of all classes of citizens having a right to be armed, I don’t know what else it means. The Militia Acts say the same thing; every able bodied citizen is considered part of the militia, and as such can be conscripted at any time of need. When conscripted, the “every able bodied citizen” needed to show up with a gun, initial ammunition, bayonet, and field equipment.
We have the same system now, except it’s called Selective Service instead of reporting to your town hall when you move, except you do that too by establishing residency for local voting and tax purposes.
As SCOTUS has so ably noticed, the 1900’s aren’t early enough to tell us the intentions behind an agreement from the late 1700’s. So a law passed in 1916 to help with drafting soldiers has shit all to do with the 2nd amendment. Especially since it’s so easily revocable.
And training did not take place once a year. It took place at least once a month, more often in some places. Finally, trying to use a term of art like “the great yeomanry” as evidence it was every man is just gilding the lilly. He even uses the exact phrase “A well regulated Militia” in opposition to your great yeomanry. Which would seem to suggest that only those who practiced often enough had a right to bear arms as the founders understood their contemporary language.
Jumping on subjective terms and ignoring what’s actually said might work in your gun forum circle jerks but it doesn’t pass muster in the light of day.
That passage on the makeup of the militia is from the 1792 Militia Acts, and is fully contemporaneous with the 2nd amendment being a mere 16 years after the Declaration and 9 years after the end of the war. There is clear continuity from before the founding to today that the militia is the citizenry.
Let’s throw out the “flowery language” since you dislike it, it doesn’t change anything. In plain English he wrote that the discussion was about and included all classes of citizens. I don’t know if you are speed skimming or just that biased in your comprehension of the work. His use of “a well regulated militia” was to say that it was an unreasonable expectation and counter productive, and the only expectation was that the people be armed. He is literally saying “give up on the whole well regulated militia for everyone thing and be happy that at least everyone, the people at large, will be armed”.
I don’t know if you are trolling at this point, just not reading the paper, or so biased that you actually think that “the experiment [the project of disciplining the entire militia of the United States], if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” is actually advocating in favor of only arming the disciplined [well regulated] militia.
The “Constitutional” right to have weapons on you 24/7 and use them the second you are afeared is brand new. The actual text has a whole other half making clear that it’s for a well regulated militia. I had my room and weapon inspected in the military. So can you if you want that gun. If you have a problem with order and discipline then you don’t get a gun.
Nope, that’s all bullshit and you’re lame for spouting it.
Fortunately, what I said is fact and there’s never going to be a goddamn thing you can ever do about it. Our gun rights are extremely well protected.
Your idea of gun rights are one SCOTUS decision away from going back to the way they were in the late 1700’s. Kept at home and regularly inspected by the local militia. They’ve even set the historical standard as precedent. Now it’s just a game of judges willing to actually use that standard instead of making shit up to create a new right from whole cloth.
It could go the other way though, most people don’t know the court isn’t capped at a certain number. But everyone knows you can repeal an amendment. And the rubber band effect is coming. How many kids will it take before people demand the entire amendment be scrapped? I don’t know, but the idea grows every year. With every high profile shooting. You can compromise now or have all guns banned down the road. That’s the outlook.
Yeah sure. I’ll believe it if I see it, and not before.
I will not be giving up any rights, period.
It’s all a sham. You never had a real right to hurt other people.
That’s a strawman argument, because nobody said that we do.
Nobody has the right to hurt me or you, but we do have the right to defend ourselves from those who try.
Tell that to the kids dying because you won’t accept the slightest amount of compromise.
A well regulated militia made up of people who were supposed to bring their own guns and ammunition that they were proficient in using. The Militia Acts make this pretty clear, along with the Federalist Papers. The intent was that an armed population could be called on by the States to resist an invading army, be that army foreign or the standing Federal army. It also was an evolution of English law enshrining rights to self defense.
If we change the sentence slightly and say “The free flow of goods and services being essential to the safety and functionality of the economy, the right is the people to keep money and travel freely shall not be infringed”, would not imply that you are only free to leave your house and have cash if you are engaged in business.
People in good standing, registered with their town/county/state militia, and subject to the regulations thereof.
The idea that every farmer was a minutemen and that was our defense plan is a Hollywood level simplification of history. The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers make this very clear. Furthermore the founding fathers wanted a standing Army eventually. They knew a militia would not work forever. The idea was always for a standing Army to take over in the future, with the State militias to balance out any shenanigans by the federal army.
And again the state militias were not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They were regulated affairs much closer to a national guard unit than a shooting club.
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was part of the militia, and still are today. Title 10 outlines that all able bodies men not enlisted in the military or national guard is part of the unorganized militia. The founders feared a standing army, while knowing it was inevitable and useful, and the militia was one of the balances of power between State and Federal power.
Hamilton layed out clearly that intention in Federalist 29. “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” … “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”…“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”
The intent of the 2nd amendment was to preserve the existence of an armed populace that would protect themselves and their neighbors from any threats.
Right and when’s the last time you reported for drill?
It was 2013 for me.
You looked right past the part where he talks about an actual militia, not just every citizen. Maybe critically read that instead of just using bits to confirm your bias.
Yeah, I made sure to capture the entire sentence so I wouldn’t be cherry picking/quote mining to skew it to my “side” of the debate. In 1776, planning a yearly exercise/drill for a town or city was something that would happen when everyone got together for traveling judges, organizing fire brigades, and all kinds of civic tasks.
If you want to start planning a yearly get together for people to have a training day with the national guard or reserves like CERT does for disaster drills, it would probably be a huge hit with the tacticool dads and gravy seals. Would probably get better turnout than the CERT drills that serve critical importance to first responders and make the civilians better at how to respond to disasters too.
You are glossing over that the Federal Government to this day considers every (male) citizen to be the militia. Your saying the equivalent of “Nader’s talking about specifically the Pinto, not cars in general when he says our roads are unsafe.” I’ll even conceed that your right that Title 10 does need to be adjusted to include women, because they already serve in the military and are fully capable to fighting in wars. You are also glossing over Hamilton saying that requiring everyone to be a well-regulated militia was unreasonable, so they would just need to rely on “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens” being armed and equipped. That right there is the definition of “every Tom, Dick, and Harry”. He wanted to make sure that they didn’t neglect to be armed and equipped by checking every year or so. I would like to direct the request for critically reading Federalist 29 instead of just using bits to confirm your bias" right back your way.
If “expecting them to be trained as a military is unreasonable, but we can still rely on them to bring their guns and fight with the professionals with just a little training once a year” doesn’t rely on the right of all classes of citizens having a right to be armed, I don’t know what else it means. The Militia Acts say the same thing; every able bodied citizen is considered part of the militia, and as such can be conscripted at any time of need. When conscripted, the “every able bodied citizen” needed to show up with a gun, initial ammunition, bayonet, and field equipment.
We have the same system now, except it’s called Selective Service instead of reporting to your town hall when you move, except you do that too by establishing residency for local voting and tax purposes.
As SCOTUS has so ably noticed, the 1900’s aren’t early enough to tell us the intentions behind an agreement from the late 1700’s. So a law passed in 1916 to help with drafting soldiers has shit all to do with the 2nd amendment. Especially since it’s so easily revocable.
And training did not take place once a year. It took place at least once a month, more often in some places. Finally, trying to use a term of art like “the great yeomanry” as evidence it was every man is just gilding the lilly. He even uses the exact phrase “A well regulated Militia” in opposition to your great yeomanry. Which would seem to suggest that only those who practiced often enough had a right to bear arms as the founders understood their contemporary language.
Jumping on subjective terms and ignoring what’s actually said might work in your gun forum circle jerks but it doesn’t pass muster in the light of day.
That passage on the makeup of the militia is from the 1792 Militia Acts, and is fully contemporaneous with the 2nd amendment being a mere 16 years after the Declaration and 9 years after the end of the war. There is clear continuity from before the founding to today that the militia is the citizenry.
Let’s throw out the “flowery language” since you dislike it, it doesn’t change anything. In plain English he wrote that the discussion was about and included all classes of citizens. I don’t know if you are speed skimming or just that biased in your comprehension of the work. His use of “a well regulated militia” was to say that it was an unreasonable expectation and counter productive, and the only expectation was that the people be armed. He is literally saying “give up on the whole well regulated militia for everyone thing and be happy that at least everyone, the people at large, will be armed”.
I don’t know if you are trolling at this point, just not reading the paper, or so biased that you actually think that “the experiment [the project of disciplining the entire militia of the United States], if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” is actually advocating in favor of only arming the disciplined [well regulated] militia.
Oh no I’m reading it. I also read his other writings. He very explicitly argued for a standing military as soon as the country could afford it.
But this also lays out what they thought of Militias, that it wasn’t just every person with no training.
I’d love to see a source linking the 1916 law all the way back though too. Obviously I wasn’t able to track it further back.
The intent was to enable settlers to help genocide the Natives. The Revolutionary War was fought to allow settlers to expand West.