bdickens
Member
It's not opinion.
It's fact.
Do some reading. You might learn something.
It's fact.
Do some reading. You might learn something.
I disagree, but I appreciate the polite response to a simple question (unlike the response from another poster). Every other amendment is specifically about protecting the rights of the people from government intrusion. Why would the founders add a solitary amendment protecting the "right" of the people to be involved in a government sanctioned and run organization? That would be pointless.On the history of the militia since before we were a nation. On the militia act of 1791 and the subsequent laws up to the Dick Act. Then there is the 1886 Supreme Court Decision in Presser v Illinois.
Presser v. Illinois (1886)
In Presser v. Illinois (1886), The Supreme Court reiterated the stance found in United States v. Cruikshank, by applying it to state regulation, stating the following: “The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’ is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states.” In this case, the Supreme Court also clarified notions involving a well-regulated militia by disposing of the argument that individuals have the right to assemble as a militia independent of state or federal authorization by issuing the following statement: “It shall not be lawful for any body of men whatever other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state and the troops of the United States to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state without the license of the Governor thereof.”
You can read about that case here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/
The reason the Heller case was so groundbreaking is that for the first time it acknowledged the right to keep and bear arms independent of membership in the militia.
The "2nd Amendment militia," at this point in time, is really a theoretical construct. It's basically everybody. It's not the National Guard, it's not the State Guard, and it's certainly not self-organized groups of individuals calling themselves "militias." Paradoxically, the minute you try to organize a "militia" made up of a segment of the population, you lose its constitutional status under the 2nd Amendment.I have heard 2nd Amendment scholars explain that the term "militia" in the 2nd amendment refers to all able bodied citizens able to be called upon to defend the Constitution. An organized militia is already armed by the government, so I don't think the National Guard really benefits from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment, I have heard argued, is about allowing arms for the disorganized militia, ie, the people.
Basis?I disagree,
Since we all know the nearby neighbors and their cars very well, any strange cars/people are approached and inquired whether they are lost or casing the street to steal later (which has happened and there is the element of homeless crowd we keep an eye open for).
Why would the founders add a solitary amendment protecting the "right" of the people to be involved in a government sanctioned and run organization? That would be pointless.
Yes. Many neighbors are retired and at home all day/night. And we rarely get a "strange" car down our private road with several houses.You're doing this now?
What happens when you approach someone and ask their business and they tell you it's none of yours?
Maybe I should have elaborated more on what I was asking. I asked,@bearcreek :
You can disagree all you want, but what it all boils down to is that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, not what you think it means.
I apologize if I was rude. I should have phrased what I said more diplomatically.
. I did not ask, "what kind of militia do you think power hungry politicians want the 2A to be talking about"? Why would the founders bother to write something that "protected" the "right" of the people to be part of a government controlled organization? That would have been totally pointless.What kind of militia do you think the second amendment is talking about?
I explained the basis, in a nutshell, in the rest of the post that you quoted. See above.Basis?
This is where the Heller case went wrong. Justice Scalia should have given due weight to the Militia Clause (what he called the "prefatory clause") instead of negating it. All individuals are part of the universal "2nd Amendment militia" and are entitled to own all the ordinary weapons used by the standing military. But Scalia and his colleagues were unwilling to go that far.
The National Guard and Reserves are in no way the militia and it is doubtful that any legal scholar writing on the Second Amendment - pro or anti - makes that argument.
How about legitimate visitors? Are only the "known" cars okay with you?Since we all know the nearby neighbors and their cars very well, any strange cars/people....
Sounds like a great way to get shot. I'm not sure I have heard of anything as reckless.any strange cars/people are approached and inquired whether....
There is a huge difference between a bunch of citizens grabbing their guns and engaging a gang of criminals who are shooting up the town and forming a vigilance committee or private army to deal with the possibility of something happening. It's not the 1880s anymore. A private citizen who took up arms in those incidents you describe was unlikely to be charged criminally or sued in civil court for his actions that day. Those are real possibilities in 2019.It would appear at first blush the town-folks acted in much the same manner some of us are criticizing the concepts of self defense. In both fights, law enforcement was out gunned and as it is today, professional law enforcement was some time away..... arguably survival was/is based on preparation and skill capabilities.
So in your world society has already collapsed and the only solution is to form vigilance committees and militias? I don't think we are at that point yet. There are plenty of examples of what a society like that looks like; Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, parts of major metropolitan areas here in the US. I personally don't want to live in a world where you have to pass through multiple checkpoints manned by armed men with unknown motives to go about my daily business. How are vigilance committees and militias beneficial to the community?You can take the stance of doing nothing if crime doesn’t impact you personally, or on the other hand implement strategies beneficial to you and the community.
NO!I hear what your saying. Don’t do anything that might get you sued, just let the villains run wild and cringe in your hope of not being victimized.
Did you read through the thread? The OP (who deleted his opening post when the discussion didn't go the way he hoped) asked about training with his neighbors in case of a riot.That’s quite a stretch, Jeff. Societal collapse and war in the Mideast, really. Your outrageous comparison mitigates credibility of your argument.
Are you saying that a group arming themselves and training to repel boarders is the same as moving to a gated community protected by licensed security guards. There is a huge difference between the two situations. Security officers are licensed by the state and empowered to legally detain people and make an arrest. The private group doesn't have those powers. They would be forced to operate under the laws pertaining to citizens arrest. Some states don't make a provision for that and those that do limit a citizens power to make an arrest to a felony that they observe as it happens. They have no legal authority to detain anyone or set up a road block or a checkpoint. The gated community is private property. Your group of citizens would be blocking public roads.Why do citizens now live in gated communities, hire security guards(who often are off duty LEO’s) and employ armed guards to protect them and their personal property?
How is it you can argue against the same preparation when it involves the community at large?
That's exactly how certain areas in our big cities became dysfunctional. But our society has not reached the state where vigilance committees or militias are necessary to maintain order.I can tell you societal dysfunction exists due in large part to corrupt governments
Then you know exactly what I mean when I say that it's not a good environment when there are different rules that are enforced by different people with different motivations in every neighborhood. And that's exactly where your idea of armed community action will take us.As a caveat, I made two tours to the Mideast as a contractor with the DoD.
That kind of action has always been a good way to get into a confrontation that could turn out very badly, without any lawful justification at all.Where formerly community members would "check" those members of the community who violated our courtesies (i.e., disruptive public behavior, foul language around women and children, public lewdness and drunkenness in family settings, fights using weapons instead of the old schoolyard fistfights, blaring loud music in neighborhoods in the wee hours of the morning, automobiles speeding through neighborhood streets at high rates of speed) --
The legislatures and the courts have done that--not law enforcement.And to expect law enforcement to be the only regulators of what should be our social norms is just a ridiculous concept.