Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News The RoundTable New Server, New Round Table for Spring 2022

Definitions of words change over time. What was the definition of a milita back in colonial times or when the 2nd Amendment was written?

The militia was a long-standing English institution transplanted to Britain’s North American colonies. In basic form, the militia was the community under arms: all able-bodied free men under a certain age (later limited in most states to white men) were obligated to serve.

https://law.stanford.edu/2020/10/12/stanfords-greg-ablavsky-on-law-and-the-history-of-american-militias/#:~:text=The%20militia%20was%20a%20long,men)%20were%20obligated%20to%20serve.

And

During colonial America, all able-bodied white men of all ages were members of the militia, depending on the respective state’s rule.

https://brewminate.com/a-history-of-militias-in-the-united-states-since-the-colonial-period/

A militia at that time was basically all able-bodied free, white men that fell within a certain age range.

And yes, the 2nd amendment is in two parts. The first is about the militia, the second about the right of the people.

It says the people have a right to a militia that can bear arms. Once again, the words "well regulated militia" validate this point. If the Founders wanted individuals to bear arms - they would have stated that. The 2A doesn't state that.

Nowhere does the word "individual" exist in the 2A. As we both know, the Founders were fond of the word and they would have said individuals, if they meant individuals.

Reading the 2A to mean individuals is dishonest. Ergo my issue with Scalia.

Scalia was a strict Constitutionalist.

People is plural.
Militia is plural.

I am hard pressed to find singular nouns in those three sentences.

It says...once again...

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

The people. All of them. Are granted the right to keep and bear arms by the constitution of the United States.

Because the nation might one day need for them to be armed. Like in Ukraine.

It says what it means and it means what it says. The founders don't need you putting words in their mouths.

Correct, as it pertains to “well regulated militias.” I don’t belong to a militia, do you Gregor? The OAF Keepers are not a militia, neither are the 1-percenters.

If I don’t belong to a militia, how is it my right to bear arms?

In reading different sites, the historical context is that the US did not have a standing army in 1789, therefore men (white men naturally, no women or slaves) 18 - 45 were conscripted to military service if called upon and they were to bring their own weapons.

I do believe you’re over 45 years old Greger.

Ps.

Which means my reading of the 2A is correct. And, as the link above validates that was how the SCOTUS viewed the 2A intrepatoin as well, until 2008 when Scalia abandoned his "strict constitutionalist" thinking and bent himself into a pretzel to logically explain in a majority opinion why individuals have a right to bear arms.

Which brings us full circle back to the post that began this discussion;

Execpt this occurred in 2008, not 2011.