“Well regulated” translated from 1700’s speak just means “in good working order”, not meaning regulated by a bureaucracy issuing permits.
The intention was for state governors not having to rely solely on National Guardsman or Federal government, and can simply pluck a militia ran by civilians who developed a military-like hierarchy in their organization to answer to said governor of the state in order to address issues withinthe states with threats of violence.
Dozens of people much smarter than me have written books about it.
Look into the dissenting opinions (and analysis of them) of DC v. Heller. Scalia claimed to be a “traditionalist,” and then completely ignored how the original text had been interpreted since the nation’s inception. He took a lot of heat for it at the time.
A militia in 1700’s speak is simply a group of able-bodied males who own and are trained to use their own personally procured firearms, and serve their local government (village, city, or state). That way the local government doesnt need to pay money out of local city/state funds to arm them and train them and eventually mobilise them to arms.
I don’t know any lawyers personally, so I can’t ask them. It sounds as though you might have some sources you could provide, though, if you’re parroting them? I’d love to read more if you have any links handy. I tried searching the web for the phrase but was unsuccessful.
I do find it interesting how one can change the constitution by making official changes to the meanings of language, without a constitutional amendment. That seems concerning.
Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.
Sounds like they did not redefine a word as you say, and invented two new ones instead.
Sounds like they were scared individual states and state militias would gain too much power and wanted a militia the Feds could control with Federal money, with thegoal to have some kind of power over the states and not piss off governors of said states and deter them from FAFO.
Thank you for the links and interesting reads… So it sounds like the Militia Act of 1903 is the source of all these issues, and likely can be argued is unconstitutional from the start since they wanted to redefine a word from the Constitution
I didn’t intend to suggest that they redefined the word, I didn’t say that as such, but I agree that they may have made official changes to the word (splitting it, as you say) in some fashion.
It does read a bit like a federal power play meant to consolidate power, though the re-framing of the word “Militia” was not subsequently used as a way to undermine the 2nd amendment, as one might suspect if that were the case. One must wonder if the NRA (established in 1871), or another interested party, had any hand in influencing Charles Dick’s advancement of this legislation.
To me it reads more as a way to protect the 2nd amendment’s “militia” verbiage from scrutiny.
“Well regulated” translated from 1700’s speak just means “in good working order”, not meaning regulated by a bureaucracy issuing permits.
The intention was for state governors not having to rely solely on National Guardsman or Federal government, and can simply pluck a militia ran by civilians who developed a military-like hierarchy in their organization to answer to said governor of the state in order to address issues withinthe states with threats of violence.
Oh shit, well case closed!
Just like Justice Scalia, you are able to hand-wave away ~200 years of precedent because it suits your pre-held ideology.
I anal, so hopefully you can provide me shit to read about this precedence and help me change my mind.
Dozens of people much smarter than me have written books about it.
Look into the dissenting opinions (and analysis of them) of DC v. Heller. Scalia claimed to be a “traditionalist,” and then completely ignored how the original text had been interpreted since the nation’s inception. He took a lot of heat for it at the time.
Oh wow, I bet he got his act together after that one and has had a spotless record since.
Assuming that to be true, what does “militia” mean when translated from 1700’s speak?
A militia in 1700’s speak is simply a group of able-bodied males who own and are trained to use their own personally procured firearms, and serve their local government (village, city, or state). That way the local government doesnt need to pay money out of local city/state funds to arm them and train them and eventually mobilise them to arms.
So, a militia, in your interpretation is:
“A group of able bodied males who posses firearms and who are organized, in good working order, by their local government.”
Or do I have it wrong? I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, only to understand.
Yes? Do I sound like a lawyer to you? Ask one of them? I’m just parroting what they say. I guess, the answer is yes in your reciprocation.
I don’t know any lawyers personally, so I can’t ask them. It sounds as though you might have some sources you could provide, though, if you’re parroting them? I’d love to read more if you have any links handy. I tried searching the web for the phrase but was unsuccessful.
I did find the Wikipedia article on the word “militia” and it suggests that the accepted “official” definition may have been changed by the “Militia Act of 1903”.
I do find it interesting how one can change the constitution by making official changes to the meanings of language, without a constitutional amendment. That seems concerning.
Sounds like they did not redefine a word as you say, and invented two new ones instead.
Sounds like they were scared individual states and state militias would gain too much power and wanted a militia the Feds could control with Federal money, with thegoal to have some kind of power over the states and not piss off governors of said states and deter them from FAFO.
Thank you for the links and interesting reads… So it sounds like the Militia Act of 1903 is the source of all these issues, and likely can be argued is unconstitutional from the start since they wanted to redefine a word from the Constitution
I didn’t intend to suggest that they redefined the word, I didn’t say that as such, but I agree that they may have made official changes to the word (splitting it, as you say) in some fashion.
It does read a bit like a federal power play meant to consolidate power, though the re-framing of the word “Militia” was not subsequently used as a way to undermine the 2nd amendment, as one might suspect if that were the case. One must wonder if the NRA (established in 1871), or another interested party, had any hand in influencing Charles Dick’s advancement of this legislation.
To me it reads more as a way to protect the 2nd amendment’s “militia” verbiage from scrutiny.
What exactly do you think that militia was for? Because I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t to fight against a tyrannical government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment
Everything that NPR article mentioned is, without sarcasm, absolutely and factually correct, and legitimately not possible to refute.
Why do I have a feeling that the “without sarcasm” part of your post wasn’t true? But then you didn’t bother refuting any of it…