Yes, because there was no National Guard.

Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

To be fair I've read Mason's entire debate transcript in full along with others in context. I don't really read progressive sources on this stuff as it's better to get to the roots. When I decided to make my first pizza from scratch I read up on how to grow wheat. It's how I roll.

Just remember that when they passed the 19th Amendment, some said it might come back to bite you in the ass. This might be that issue.

Smartest thing I’ve read yet, that is the beauty of the good old USA, our system of government has so far won the test of time. It survived world wars, conflicts of all nature around the globe; I suspect we will live through Trump, little rocket man and if we are proactive Putin’s meddling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mason said what I quoted. There are several other of the Founders who said essentially the same thing--they basically all believed the same thing. The Progressive "sources" are the actual "interpretive" fiat changes that you espouse and which were made without using the amendment process.

You just did ..

Your "fiat changes" are part of the system they created and are the law of the land.

Also, your quotes were improperly placed. It was a made up quote. You know how these ""'s work right???

My "sources" are the words of the founding Fathers.

I've heard persuasive theories that giving women the right to vote is responsible for changing our political culture from an individualistic and legalistic male orientation emphasizing freedom and self responsibility to a nurturing female socialistic orientation which emphasizes a collective, communal, responsibility to care for one another embodied in by a "Motherly" State. On the other hand, a misogynist who didn't take care of his own family, Karl Marx created the foundation for that collective Mother State.

Which words?

This is like saying you believe in God but God is the problem. You're making little sense today.

At the time there was a debate if the United States should have a standing army or if our national defense should be composed of militias as defined at that time. You don't seem to want to include this in your thought process. Context for these remarks really does matter, and laws passed since then under the Constitutional framework they agreed to matter as well.

My thought process was in response to zimmy's "There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete." Militia being, at that time, the whole people, zimmy's notion would mean that the whole people would become obsolete. In which case, there would be no need of a Constitution, or anything else.

I knew there was a debate about the danger of a standing army at that time. I mentioned that recently in another thread. The Quora link I posted above mentions the Anti-Federalist's (Mason was an Anti-Federalist) fear of a standing federal army, and Mason specifically feared that what he, and the other Founders, understood the militia to be ("the whole people") would someday be changed and would be replaced by those unfaithful to what the Founders were attempting, and would replace it with various forms of standing armies.

To a great extent, Mason was right to hold that fear.

So you are saying that the way our country defends itself today is that everyone aka "the whole people" are members of militias. Is that how we fought every, or should I say any, war or armed conflict in the last 125 years?

No. According to the Founders concept, the militia is still the whole people. If the people choose not to be armed, and if government denies private ownership of "assault" weapons, then the militia is lacking in the will and the firepower to defend itself. Foreign wars are administered by the federal government, whether by a standing army or by conscripting from the whole people.

What law? be precise, where is this law? exactly that says the National Guard IS the militia? Also when did this happen? be precise.

You said it and I call bull

Do you think private citizens should have cruise missiles, bunker busters, nukes, etc to defend themselves? Do you think the militia concept is still relevant?

National Guard IS the militia? Well, militias became the National Guard and effectively remained that way ever since with some limited recurrence of state militias.

National Guard Mobilization Act 1933
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a497658.pdf

Trump should announce an executive order banning those on the american left from owning firearms....shouldn't really be a problem and if they complain about constitutionality etc...they will look foolish...they won't necessarily have to hand over their guns and get nothing, there could be a buy back type program...hand in your guns and get a comfort pet working in conjunction with american pet shelters..this would relieve the stress on overcrowded pet shelters nationwide...hand in your gun..get a comfort pet ...go back to your safe space which was just made much safer and comforting thanks to Trump....also, the creation of a national(easily searchable)registry of american leftists who never owned and/or no longer have guns on the premises...this is so the bad guys will know where to go to get stuff...that should reduce american homes with guns quite significantly and in a much higher proportion in the most violent cities and communities in America...which will no doubt make America a safer place...

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons. And Nukes are pretty much banned worldwide as weapons of war except as a deterrence.

Yes the original concept of the militia is still relevant since it and the whole people are one and the same. The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right. The individual right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the individual being part of a state or federally organized militia or even part of the unorganized militia of the whole people. On the contrary, originally, the militia was dependent on the right of individuals to arm themselves. That right is inherent and constitutionally guaranteed regardless of whether the individual joins the whole people as a defensive force or doesn't. But the 2A does express that the individual can take part in and with the militia in order to defend themselves against any threat.

The federal encroachment on the original militia concept has created a new, federally regulated and funded notion of the militia. In effect, as Mason predicted, the central government has indeed usurped his notion of the militia being the whole people and turned it into what he and the Founders feared--a rather permanent standing army which funds, organizes, and arms a select force that can be used in various circumstances to police and control American citizens.

yes...."the right of the people" is a recurring theme in the Bill of Rights

The 2a supporter here are doing just what guy says .. wanting it both ways

Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:

1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),

2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,

3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!

If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn't it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don't mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).

"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990

in the 1970's The NRA pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment,

Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. (happens here )

1980s
Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms

The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion

But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years.

and if you think it cant swing back your not paying attention

https://youtu.be/nG4V_6pCLVo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what the hell are you talking about?

"erstwhile"....that was a good one :biglaugh:

Let's get this straight and put aside the semantics,THE NATIONAL GUARD US NOT A MILITIA. I know this may suit the agenda of some but it simply is not the case. Nebe,great video. Ronnie was right,we don't need machine guns to hunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Militia act 1903 (I am sure you know the nickname) divided state militias into two parts-the organized militia (National Guard) and the reserve militia (state militia).

Also, US Supreme Court Maryland v us 1961 381
"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution. 8 It has only been in recent years that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable of being assimilated with ease into the regular military establishment of the United States."

I don't know how long it will continue and am beginning to wonder if the Republic can be saved. I truly hope it does.

Particularly because a large percentage of Millenials, the cough cough future, believe Socialism/Communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ree/349830002/

?? The Fringe is those Moonies blessing guns. The Fringe is Antifa Legolas going to smash the Fasch. I don't believe either is callable of rational thought, or working together.

Freedom? Let’s talk about freedom.

Want to build a house? You need a permit.
Want to go fishing? You need a permit
Want to drive? You need a permit
Want to own a gun? You need a permit.
Want to vote? You need a permit
Want to own a business? You need a permit
Want to get a good job? You need a degree (stealth permit)
Want to go camping on state or federal campgrounds? You need a reservation.
Want to drive across the bridge? You need to pay a toll.
Don’t have good credit and want to buy a new car? Get ready to pay a lot more for it than someone with good credit. (Rich getting richer poor getting poorer)
Want to buy a house in a housing community with strict bylaws and want to store your boat in your yard and fly an American flag proudly? Get ready for Fines.
Want to invest your life savings in the stock market and have Wall Street crash and wipe out 50% of your nest egg while the elites sold yesterday ? (Stealth wealth redistribution)

Shall I go on?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think I brought this up a few months ago that all this 2nd Amendment outrage was just a political stunt to push back against the liberal social reforms of the 1960's.

Want to defend yourself, take a firearms safety course, apply(bow to your master) for an LTC from your town police, wait for them to maybe issue, go to gunshop put down your money wait while they call in background check after filing out the form truthfully and sign it, once approved you take your firearm that is on a list of approved firearms and can now defend yourself legally.


no need to go on and on


How did we get here? chasing our tails that is how
Progressive socialists wanting bigger government and more government protection to make decisions for us got their way and allowed it to happen while hard working Americans built businesses only to have Lizzie Warren and Obama tell us we did not build our businesses.

Don't like it? having freedom taken away? Vote Libertarian then and arm yourself, Otherwise enjoy slavery

yep the whole debate is about control

and once they control the food, your ass is grass

Everyone thinks I am a liberal art fag but the truth is, I identify more with libertarianism. Here’s the catch with being a libertarian.... you expect everyone else to be as smart as you. Truth is, thanks to the dumbing down of america by education cuts, brainwashing by the TV and mass corruption in our government, we need laws to protect us from those with no moral compas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell me where on earth you can have liberties such as those you mentioned without filling out the paperwork? Perhaps that place is where you could relocate your business. It could be a perfect time for you to realize Xanadu. Start all over in a place that makes you happy .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are absolutely correct, and anything that can be done to reclaim some liberty and freedom is necessary and is a worthy goal.

Want to build a house? You have no property - belongs to people and state. States determines what you get..
Want to go fishing? People's Fish, keep one, give rest to State.
Want to drive? You don't need car, take bus. When bus broke take foot.
Want to own a gun? No gun. The state will provide for your safety.
Want to vote? Vote, ha! Our Democratic Elected Officials win 96-96% every time because people are happy.
Want to own a business? No business. The people own everything. State does not need Glassblowers though but your skill set will help cultivating rubber trees.
Want to get a good job? You need to know someone.
Want to go camping on state or federal campgrounds? Maybe in 2022 there is opening.
Want to drive across the bridge? Show me your papers.
Don’t have good credit and want to buy a new car? There is no money, only wealth of people.
Want to buy a house in a housing community with strict bylaws and want to store your boat in your yard and fly an American flag proudly? All housing community have strict enforcers.
Wealth redistributs you

You mean the Oath affirmed by law enforcement, military, politicians (blech) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"

I am more libertarian too but don't think most people can handle it. Much thanks to the infection of progressive ideology in the classroom rather than an open and equal debate of pros and cons from both sides of the ideological spectrum, and perhaps finding a common ground.

Very good comrade. In communist Rhode Island , you don’t ever retire, you just keep working to support the state workers who retired at age 45!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I still love you...

The United States could never become Libertarian, who would support all the lawyers. Do you know any that ever produced anything?
Just remember we are the only country in the world where a business cannot plug two extension cords together, thank a lawyer. If you don't believe that ask your local OSHA inspector.
1. U.S. 1 lawyer for every 300 people
2. Brazil: 1 lawyer for every 326 people
3. New Zealand: 1 lawyer for every 391 people
4. Spain: 1 lawyer for every 395 people
5. UK: 1 lawyer for every 401 people
6. Italy: 1 lawyer for every 488 people
7. Germany: 1 lawyer for every 593 people
8. France: 1 lawyer for every 1,403 people

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy :rotf2:

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

You'd be hard-pressed in CT, to find a town that ever cuts education spending from one year to the next. Do we, as a nation, spend less on education than we used to? Not in college, that's for damned sure.

And I love you and your dirty jugs collection. Hehehe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is an article which I highly, highly recommend entitled "The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality". It has a Libertarian sounding point of view that talks about the actual civility that existed under local, private, control in what has erroneously been referred to as the "Wild West." In the main it contrasts the civility of a type of local self governance of people associating in mutual commerce to the breakdown of civility caused by the intervention of a powerful central government reshaping that society in order to advance the interests of political ideology fueled by greedy politicans and corporate types. It touches on the relative peacefulness and civility during the militia concept in practice in the Western U.S. frontier in contrast to the change to violence that occurred when the federal army entered and replaced the militia with federal law:

http://www.independent.org/publicati...cle.asp?id=803

It's a trifle longish, but an extremely interesting, eye opening, and not boring, article. Here is the excerpt that specifically mentions militia:

"Terry Anderson and Fred McChesney relate how Thomas Jefferson found that during his time negotiation was the Europeans’ predominant means of acquiring land from Indians. By the twentieth century, some $800 million had been paid for Indian lands. These authors also argue that various factors can alter the incentives for trade, as opposed to waging a war of conquest as a means of acquiring land. One of the most important factors is the existence of a standing army, as opposed to militias, which were used in the American West prior to the War Between the States. On this point, Anderson and McChesney quote Adam Smith, who wrote that “‘[i]n a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character.’” A standing army, according to Anderson and McChesney, “creates a class of professional soldiers whose personal welfare increases with warfare, even if fighting is a negative-sum act for the population as a whole."

"The change from militia to a standing army took place in the American West immediately upon the conclusion of the War Between the States. The result, say Anderson and McChesney, was that white settlers and railroad corporations were able to socialize the costs of stealing Indian lands by using violence supplied by the U.S. Army. On their own, they were much more likely to negotiate peacefully. Thus, “raid” replaced “trade” in white–Indian relations. Congress even voted in 1871 not to ratify any more Indian treaties, effectively announcing that it no longer sought peaceful relations with the Plains Indians."

"Anderson and McChesney do not consider why a standing army replaced militias in 1865, but the reason is not difficult to discern. One has only to read the official pronouncements of the soldiers and political figures who launched a campaign of extermination against the Plains Indians."

Much of the article can be applied to the current nexus of big government with big business. And to a potential danger in federalizing the "militia"--of making it a form of a select standing federal army rather than a localized "whole people" defense force.