"Militia", what that meant then.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co...recNum=846 gives an effective example of what a militia meant back in the day. The definition hadn't changed since Jefferson's time.

[The Grand Nudger]

People spend too much time worrying about what limited men "meant" centuries ago.  A fuller discussion of "what they meant", historically, can't omit the policy of the crown to confiscate gunpowder (in order to choke potentially rebellious colonists off from the supplies required to effectively resist control).  This caused conflict in Concord and Lexington and broadened the scope of the nascent rebellion to include the first armed revolt against the crown in the south.

This is the context in which our current preoccupation with firearms as a means to oppose a tyrannical government was initially formed.  There are a whole host of other reasons that the people who wrote our constitution felated the militia, but none of them will amount to any prescient and level headed thinking on the part of the founding fathers with regards to our predicament today...what with the militia being defunct and all. 

I also suspect that some of the language of the constitution was self serving in that..a group of rebels who used (among other things) the confiscation of gunpowder to incite treason would be unlikely to leave the same door open for the next guys once they'd established control.  Perhaps we should notice that, in arguing for their independence, they made constant reference of the right of armed rebellion. This right is conspicuously absent from our constitution.  It's as if such a compelling right somehow vanished the moment they assumed power. I don't think that the people who wrote the constitution were interested in some Random Joseph having a gun, unless he was shooting at the british, and once the utilily of the armed rabble was expended..they were chiefly concerned with the same sorts of disarmament and control policies to which they had so recently objected to the point of insurrection.

Long story short.  What any given thing "meant" then will not be uniformly applicable today, nor is there any compulsion that we figure out "what they meant".  What do we mean, what do we want, what can we do, today...better positioned to comment upon these things than the specters of people categorically unreliable in comment or ideology. The "what they meant" angle is a trap, meant to keep people bickering as a means to stall any current legislation.

[Brian37]

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co...recNum=846 gives an effective example of what a militia meant back in the day. The definition hadn't changed since Jefferson's time.

Nu uh! It gives disturbed people with no record at time of buy to use concert goers as fish in a barrel. 

You are so delusional man, why cant we use Morris Code laws to regulate cell pones?

...---...

Or is that 

---...---

One of those means. S.O.S. and I wouldn't count on the NRA do shit.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co...recNum=846 gives an effective example of what a militia meant back in the day. The definition hadn't changed since Jefferson's time.

Nu uh! It gives disturbed people with no record at time of buy to use concert goers as fish in a barrel. 

You are so delusional man, why cant we use Morris Code laws to regulate cell pones?

...---...

Or is that 

---...---

One of those means. S.O.S. and I wouldn't count on the NRA do shit.

Dashes in the middle. Think about a "sandwich" with two pretty ladies both named "Dot".

[Whateverist]

People spend too much time worrying about what limited men "meant" centuries ago.  A fuller discussion of "what they meant", historically, can't omit the policy of the crown to confiscate gunpowder (in order to choke potentially rebellious colonists off from the supplies required to effectively resist control).  This caused conflict in Concord and Lexington and broadened the scope of the nascent rebellion to include the first armed revolt against the crown in the south.

This is the context in which our current preoccupation with firearms as a means to oppose a tyrannical government was initially formed.  There are a whole host of other reasons that the people who wrote our constitution felated the militia, but none of them will amount to any prescient and level headed thinking on the part of the founding fathers with regards to our predicament today...what with the militia being defunct and all. 

I also suspect that some of the language of the constitution was self serving in that..a group of rebels who used (among other things) the confiscation of gunpowder to incite treason would be unlikely to leave the same door open for the next guys once they'd established control.  Perhaps we should notice that, in arguing for their independence, they made constant reference of the right of armed rebellion. This right is conspicuously absent from our constitution.  It's as if such a compelling right somehow vanished the moment they assumed power.  I don't think that the people who wrote the constitution were interested in some Random Joseph having a gun, unless he was shooting at the british, and once the utilily of the armed rabble was expended..they were chiefly concerned with the same sorts of disarmament and control policies to which they had so recently objected to the point of insurrection.

Long story short.  What any given thing "meant" then will not be uniformly applicable today, nor is there any compulsion that we figure out "what they meant".  What do we mean, what do we want, what can we do, today...better positioned to comment upon these things than the specters of people categorically unreliable in comment or ideology.  The "what they meant" angle is a trap, meant to keep people bickering as a means to stall any current legislation.

Once some of us began to perceive the government devolving into tyranny, those of us interested in opposing that government would need a way to determine if the degree of consensus was sufficient to act.  It is hard to imagine what form such an attempt to determine consensus would take short of holding an election.  Otherwise, those with a short trigger might find themselves dealt with in the same manner as happened in Waco, with the approval of many of the potential militia members who might otherwise have supported insurrection had they been consulted.  So as a practical matter, it is hard to imagine a better way to determine when a consensus had been reached apart from the elections we already hold.

This scene in Mel Gibson's The Patriot is unimaginable nowadays, given the vastly larger number of people and the ease communication and transportation now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lucius Malfoy would have kicked his ass.

[The Grand Nudger]

The crown also appealed to the practicality of their model.  They insisted that the objections of the rebellious colonists were unfounded..and truth be told, they were.

Nevertheless, a small portion of those colonists went all pewpewpew and then argued, as the crown had argued, that there was no reason to ever go pewpewpew on them.  

You'd think that they (and now you) imagine that they'd solved the problem of tyranny forever.  I mean, obviously, when subject to tyranny, the best way to remedy it...is a vote......it's not like your fellow subjects might vote in favor of the tyrant or anything.........

[Brian37]

Nu uh! It gives disturbed people with no record at time of buy to use concert goers as fish in a barrel. 

You are so delusional man, why cant we use Morris Code laws to regulate cell pones?

...---...

Or is that 

---...---

One of those means. S.O.S. and I wouldn't count on the NRA do shit.

Dashes in the middle. Think about a "sandwich" with two pretty ladies both named "Dot".

And they both married guys named Matrix. Caused a shitload of confusion with their friends.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Dashes in the middle. Think about a "sandwich" with two pretty ladies both named "Dot".

And they both married guys named Matrix. Caused a shitload of confusion with their friends.

Yeah, he was a Neo conservative.

[Whateverist]

The crown also appealed to the practicality of their model.  They insisted that the objections of the rebellious colonists were unfounded..and truth be told, they were.

Nevertheless, a small portion of those colonists went all pewpewpew and then argued, as the crown had argued, that there was no reason to ever go pewpewpew on them.  

You'd think that they (and now you) imagine that they'd solved the problem of tyranny forever.  I mean, obviously, when subject to tyranny, the best way to remedy it...is a vote......it's not like your fellow subjects might vote in favor of the tyrant or anything.........

Still small bands of pewpew'ers going off whenever they got pissed off doesn't seem like anything I'd support.

A big difference between then and now is that each colony had some degree of self rule.  The only beef was with the oversight insisted upon by the king.  So each colony had a representative body which could meet with the others and come to consensus on what to do about the king.

We don't have that.  All we have are regional and national representative bodies - which already hold the power formerly represented by that king.  Pretty different situation.

I find it absurd to interpret the second amendment as sanctioning insurrection.  And permitting the holding of guns for that reason is just nutty.  An endless escalation of violence is not a great solution to any problem, as is thinking that any ad hoc band of insurrectionists would represent your interests better than the current rule of law.