Militia

There are a few ways to argue against the "only for the Militia" claim with the 2nd amendment.

#1 - Change the quote up and replace words like below:

A well educated citizenry [regulated Militia], being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books [bear Arms], shall not be infringed.

You would never argue that only "educated citizenry" are allowed to keep and read books... it is obvious that all people have the right to keep and read books SO THAT we can have an educated citizenry. In the same way, we have the right to keep and bear arms SO THAT we will have a well regulated Militia. (Regulated didn't mean then, what it means now. It basically meant "in good working order."  https://web.archive.org/web/20180201191936/http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm)

Or again... "A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

You would never say that the right to keep and eat food is based on eating a well balanced breakfast or that it is the well balanced breakfast that has a right to keep and eat food. It is clear that in order to be able to have a well balanced breakfast, the people need to be able to keep and eat food.

In the same way, the "right of the people" is not dependent upon the "well regulated militia."  A well regulated militia is only possible when the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Here you can see what an English expert has to say about it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170720100107/http://www.constitution.org:80/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Here is a good image showing the breakdown of the sentence:
http://www.libertygunrights.com/2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif

----------------

#2 - Read the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were written by writers and supporters of the Constitution, to explain to the people why they should ratify the Constitution.

They essentially define the term militia as the founders understood it.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

According to census in 1790, there were 807,094 free white males 16+, of which 1/25th is 32,283.

According to census in 1790, there were 3,893,635 total population, of which 1/100th is 38,936.

Both are right around "an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men."  He then says "To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens"  which is really close to "all males 16+" amount (807,094).

These numbers aren't perfect, because the first census was taken in 1790, but not released until 1791. This federalist paper was written January 29, 1788.

----------------

#3 - Recent Judicial Rulings state the 2nd amendment is an individual right, just like all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

----------------

#4 - It's copied in almost every other constitution with the same exact meaning and interpretation. There are only 6 states without a state constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/dean-weingarten/six-states-without-constitutional-right-keep-bear-arms/

----------------

#5 - You can read other "drafts" of the amendment to see what the intent was:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

----------------

#6 - Current US Code defines the term militia as all able-bodied males 17-44.

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246

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.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

----------------

#7 - Current US Code says States have the authority to appoint officers and train the militia, therefore it cannot be used to be interpreted as a "federal military" such as the National Guard.

In Article I Section 8 of Constitution of the United States the power of congress to organize the militia is described:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

----------------

Howard

 

First, you’ve completely mischaracterized me and my motivations with this, showing you don’t know me, and you definitely don’t know why this issue matters to me.  Which has really destroyed my desire to even want to write this, because I feel like it will fall on deaf ears.

But what the hell. Most people who know me would not consider me a patriot, in the classical sense. And I almost never talk about my military service with anyone, especially those who have not served. I have *never* used my military service as thinking I was a hero. And I have *never* stated that I did it to make others free. Nor do I take much pride in my service.

So, not sure why you think I’m self-gratifying and self-righteous regarding any of that. I don’t place any life values in that stuff, but I disagree that I can’t do anything to fix the issues of this world. That was the whole point of Jesus coming here to help us usher His Kingdom to earth as it is in Heaven. Like we were commanded.

America had seemed to make some good strides on that. Ending slavery. Expanding rights. All up until around the 60-70s with The Great Society programs pushed by the federal government. They rewarded women for not marrying and not having a father figure in the home. For having more babies. And it devastated communities – many black, but also many white (just look at Appalachia). The communities targeted by these programs were the worst affected.

And if you knew anything about me, you’d know that I’m anti-what-America-has-become. I have no doubts about the evils of our government. Especially the federal government. And as a process improvement person, I think it’s beyond fixing. I believe it is systematically broken. In fact, that’s why I’m a member of the Texas Nationalist Movement to secede from the USA.

But it’s not systematically racist. Black people who grow up with a father are just as likely to succeed as white people who grow up with a father. Some data shows they are MORE likely to succeed than their white counterparts. Great video if you want to watch:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fxkpBKDuCg

The systematic issue is government. Especially, the handouts that make people dependent upon it and the poverty it creates. And police qualified immunity that lets bad cops get away with murder. Literally. But do not be deceived:  if you look at police encounters, a white man is more likely to be shot by a cop than a black man. Especially in the last few years when every black man shot leads to this rioting and such. But when a criminal is reaching for a weapon or holding a weapon and aiming it at you, you (whether citizen or cop) put them down. Regardless of color.

Just so you know, my “life values” (in order) are thus:  God, Life, and Liberty.

I believe that God created all people (first two values). There is only one race:  humanity. Within that there are tribes or ethnicity, but all are equally human and equally made in God’s image. But not all are equal culturally. Some cultures value things that are evil (money, idols, false gods, sexuality, etc.).

I believe as people we are to defend life from conception to the grave. The only exceptions to this are the standard biblical exceptions. If someone is trying to murder you or your neighbor, the innocent life is more important. If your country is engaged in a just war, then killing may be necessary for the Christian.

Finally, liberty. I believe the best way for Christian’s to be able to live Christ-like lives is through liberty. Which means we tolerate people who have views vastly different from ours. Romans 12:18 - If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

But there comes a time when it is not possible. When your way of life is threatened. When your way of providing food and shelter for your family is burned to the ground by looters and rioters who are allowed to do whatever they want because the police have been ordered to stand back.

Honestly, it makes me think a lot about Esther. The king made a decree that all the Jews were to be slaughtered on a specific date. He couldn’t “undo” the decree, so what he did was he allowed the Jews to arm themselves and defend themselves (sounds a lot like our second amendment, eh?). You see the same theme around the time of David and Goliath where it says they had no blacksmiths in Israel because they were slaves and the Philistines didn’t want them able to make weapons.

So, just as people travel across state lines to protest what they see as wrongful killing by police, people are travelling across state lines to defend businesses and homes from people who are using those protests as a cover to do evil. I think both groups (protesters and defenders) are amazing people and I applaud all that they do. And that would be the end of the story, if not for BLM Inc. and Antifa. Those organizations are trying to divide and start conflict. Trying to get us focused on race so we don’t focus on police power.

The fact is BLM is a Marxist-Communist organization. They care about “transgenders” and other leftist things. Not “Black Lives.” I really don’t know which came first, but if the motto, then the organization has hijacked the motto for their nefarious aims. They’re against the God ordained “nuclear family” and support “collective families” of all people. They are “a queer‐affirming network.” That’s (1) anti-God and (2) communist (which is anti-God, but another story for another time). Now I think most Americans just don’t know any better. They assume an organization called Black Lives Matter cares about Blacks and wants to help them out, but sadly wolves love to put on sheep’s clothing.

You can read it for yourself:  https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

And a neat follow up:  https://mises.org/wire/why-marxist-organizations-blm-seek-dismantle-western-nuclear-family

At the end of the day, communists are free to live in communist societies in our country. Nothing is stopping them from forsaking our money and doing their own thing. But in a communist society, I won’t be free to worship my God without persecution. So, it is not possible for me to live at peace with militant communists who are trying to burn my country to the ground.  

Kyle Rittenhouse

There is a chance I am wrong. I am used to Texas gun laws, not Wisconsin, but...

Kyle Rittenhouse - 17-year-old who shot and killed 2, wounded 1.

I keep hearing claims that his gun was illegal, yet the only evidence I can find about the gun being illegal are claims that since he wasn't 18 he couldn't legally possess/transport a gun, but that's not true.

But when I research this claim, what I typically see is articles like this (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53934109) that say things like this (see image 1) saying it is illegal to own or possess a gun under Federal, Wisconsin, and Illinois laws. But then you open the link and you see this (see image 2) stating that there is no minimum age for "long guns" like rifles in federal law.

Image 1

Image 2

So, he could have legally bought and possessed and transported and carried the weapon according to federal laws... and since he is in Wisconsin, Illinois laws do not apply to him. And Wisconsin only cares about and enforces Wisconsin law. And since I am hearing he was in Wisconsin because of defending a family business (the town is only 8 minutes from where he lives in Illinois), he had every legal and moral right to be there.

The only law I see him having possibly violated is the open carry law, but that is questionable.

I am still looking into that one but looking at their law it looks like he should be in the clear on that.

The law:  https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

This is what he would be charged with:

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

BUT in (3) it says:

(3)(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. 

941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. 

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/28

Which, presumably, it was not, so he is not violating that. If it was, then he is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

29.304 - Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/IV/304

 

Does not apply to him, so he is "in compliance" by being 17.

29.593 - Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/VIII/593 

He might not be in compliance here... so maybe he could be charged? But just a quick glance, there seem to be a lot of loopholes on this one and I have not fully flushed it out. I would argue he's in compliance with this law since he wasn't actually hunting.

Add to all this comments from the police chief and I am pretty sure he's going to walk:

Miskinis believed Rittenhouse allegedly “was involved in the use of firearms to resolve whatever conflict was in place” which resulted in “disturbance that led to the use of deadly force.”

Miskinis was of the view that armed civilians had every right to exercise their constitutional rights.

https://news.yahoo.com/kenosha-police-chief-blames-protesters-021200418.html 

---

Some additional info: