The jury has reached a verdict in Jennifer Crumbley's manslaughter trial over the 2021 Oxford High School shooting carried out by her son Ethan Crumbley.
Right and when’s the last time you reported for drill?
It was 2013 for me.
You looked right past the part where he talks about an actual militia, not just every citizen. Maybe critically read that instead of just using bits to confirm your bias.
Yeah, I made sure to capture the entire sentence so I wouldn’t be cherry picking/quote mining to skew it to my “side” of the debate. In 1776, planning a yearly exercise/drill for a town or city was something that would happen when everyone got together for traveling judges, organizing fire brigades, and all kinds of civic tasks.
If you want to start planning a yearly get together for people to have a training day with the national guard or reserves like CERT does for disaster drills, it would probably be a huge hit with the tacticool dads and gravy seals. Would probably get better turnout than the CERT drills that serve critical importance to first responders and make the civilians better at how to respond to disasters too.
You are glossing over that the Federal Government to this day considers every (male) citizen to be the militia. Your saying the equivalent of “Nader’s talking about specifically the Pinto, not cars in general when he says our roads are unsafe.” I’ll even conceed that your right that Title 10 does need to be adjusted to include women, because they already serve in the military and are fully capable to fighting in wars. You are also glossing over Hamilton saying that requiring everyone to be a well-regulated militia was unreasonable, so they would just need to rely on “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens” being armed and equipped. That right there is the definition of “every Tom, Dick, and Harry”. He wanted to make sure that they didn’t neglect to be armed and equipped by checking every year or so. I would like to direct the request for critically reading Federalist 29 instead of just using bits to confirm your bias" right back your way.
If “expecting them to be trained as a military is unreasonable, but we can still rely on them to bring their guns and fight with the professionals with just a little training once a year” doesn’t rely on the right of all classes of citizens having a right to be armed, I don’t know what else it means. The Militia Acts say the same thing; every able bodied citizen is considered part of the militia, and as such can be conscripted at any time of need. When conscripted, the “every able bodied citizen” needed to show up with a gun, initial ammunition, bayonet, and field equipment.
We have the same system now, except it’s called Selective Service instead of reporting to your town hall when you move, except you do that too by establishing residency for local voting and tax purposes.
As SCOTUS has so ably noticed, the 1900’s aren’t early enough to tell us the intentions behind an agreement from the late 1700’s. So a law passed in 1916 to help with drafting soldiers has shit all to do with the 2nd amendment. Especially since it’s so easily revocable.
And training did not take place once a year. It took place at least once a month, more often in some places. Finally, trying to use a term of art like “the great yeomanry” as evidence it was every man is just gilding the lilly. He even uses the exact phrase “A well regulated Militia” in opposition to your great yeomanry. Which would seem to suggest that only those who practiced often enough had a right to bear arms as the founders understood their contemporary language.
Jumping on subjective terms and ignoring what’s actually said might work in your gun forum circle jerks but it doesn’t pass muster in the light of day.
That passage on the makeup of the militia is from the 1792 Militia Acts, and is fully contemporaneous with the 2nd amendment being a mere 16 years after the Declaration and 9 years after the end of the war. There is clear continuity from before the founding to today that the militia is the citizenry.
Let’s throw out the “flowery language” since you dislike it, it doesn’t change anything. In plain English he wrote that the discussion was about and included all classes of citizens. I don’t know if you are speed skimming or just that biased in your comprehension of the work. His use of “a well regulated militia” was to say that it was an unreasonable expectation and counter productive, and the only expectation was that the people be armed. He is literally saying “give up on the whole well regulated militia for everyone thing and be happy that at least everyone, the people at large, will be armed”.
I don’t know if you are trolling at this point, just not reading the paper, or so biased that you actually think that “the experiment [the project of disciplining the entire militia of the United States], if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” is actually advocating in favor of only arming the disciplined [well regulated] militia.
The chain of laws would be the two Militia Acts of 1792, then the Militia Act of 1795 which made 1792’s Presidental powers permanent, then the Militia Act of 1862 where they expanded every able bodied white male citizen to include black males, then the Militia Act of 1903 which made the organized militia officially into the National Guard and the unorganized militia of all other male citizens (and those who have stated formal intention to become a citizen this time) into the unorganized Reserve Militia, and then finally the National Defense Act of 1916 providing funding to the National Guard and creating the ability to draft the Guard for overseas service.
Right and when’s the last time you reported for drill?
It was 2013 for me.
You looked right past the part where he talks about an actual militia, not just every citizen. Maybe critically read that instead of just using bits to confirm your bias.
Yeah, I made sure to capture the entire sentence so I wouldn’t be cherry picking/quote mining to skew it to my “side” of the debate. In 1776, planning a yearly exercise/drill for a town or city was something that would happen when everyone got together for traveling judges, organizing fire brigades, and all kinds of civic tasks.
If you want to start planning a yearly get together for people to have a training day with the national guard or reserves like CERT does for disaster drills, it would probably be a huge hit with the tacticool dads and gravy seals. Would probably get better turnout than the CERT drills that serve critical importance to first responders and make the civilians better at how to respond to disasters too.
You are glossing over that the Federal Government to this day considers every (male) citizen to be the militia. Your saying the equivalent of “Nader’s talking about specifically the Pinto, not cars in general when he says our roads are unsafe.” I’ll even conceed that your right that Title 10 does need to be adjusted to include women, because they already serve in the military and are fully capable to fighting in wars. You are also glossing over Hamilton saying that requiring everyone to be a well-regulated militia was unreasonable, so they would just need to rely on “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens” being armed and equipped. That right there is the definition of “every Tom, Dick, and Harry”. He wanted to make sure that they didn’t neglect to be armed and equipped by checking every year or so. I would like to direct the request for critically reading Federalist 29 instead of just using bits to confirm your bias" right back your way.
If “expecting them to be trained as a military is unreasonable, but we can still rely on them to bring their guns and fight with the professionals with just a little training once a year” doesn’t rely on the right of all classes of citizens having a right to be armed, I don’t know what else it means. The Militia Acts say the same thing; every able bodied citizen is considered part of the militia, and as such can be conscripted at any time of need. When conscripted, the “every able bodied citizen” needed to show up with a gun, initial ammunition, bayonet, and field equipment.
We have the same system now, except it’s called Selective Service instead of reporting to your town hall when you move, except you do that too by establishing residency for local voting and tax purposes.
As SCOTUS has so ably noticed, the 1900’s aren’t early enough to tell us the intentions behind an agreement from the late 1700’s. So a law passed in 1916 to help with drafting soldiers has shit all to do with the 2nd amendment. Especially since it’s so easily revocable.
And training did not take place once a year. It took place at least once a month, more often in some places. Finally, trying to use a term of art like “the great yeomanry” as evidence it was every man is just gilding the lilly. He even uses the exact phrase “A well regulated Militia” in opposition to your great yeomanry. Which would seem to suggest that only those who practiced often enough had a right to bear arms as the founders understood their contemporary language.
Jumping on subjective terms and ignoring what’s actually said might work in your gun forum circle jerks but it doesn’t pass muster in the light of day.
That passage on the makeup of the militia is from the 1792 Militia Acts, and is fully contemporaneous with the 2nd amendment being a mere 16 years after the Declaration and 9 years after the end of the war. There is clear continuity from before the founding to today that the militia is the citizenry.
Let’s throw out the “flowery language” since you dislike it, it doesn’t change anything. In plain English he wrote that the discussion was about and included all classes of citizens. I don’t know if you are speed skimming or just that biased in your comprehension of the work. His use of “a well regulated militia” was to say that it was an unreasonable expectation and counter productive, and the only expectation was that the people be armed. He is literally saying “give up on the whole well regulated militia for everyone thing and be happy that at least everyone, the people at large, will be armed”.
I don’t know if you are trolling at this point, just not reading the paper, or so biased that you actually think that “the experiment [the project of disciplining the entire militia of the United States], if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” is actually advocating in favor of only arming the disciplined [well regulated] militia.
Oh no I’m reading it. I also read his other writings. He very explicitly argued for a standing military as soon as the country could afford it.
But this also lays out what they thought of Militias, that it wasn’t just every person with no training.
I’d love to see a source linking the 1916 law all the way back though too. Obviously I wasn’t able to track it further back.
The chain of laws would be the two Militia Acts of 1792, then the Militia Act of 1795 which made 1792’s Presidental powers permanent, then the Militia Act of 1862 where they expanded every able bodied white male citizen to include black males, then the Militia Act of 1903 which made the organized militia officially into the National Guard and the unorganized militia of all other male citizens (and those who have stated formal intention to become a citizen this time) into the unorganized Reserve Militia, and then finally the National Defense Act of 1916 providing funding to the National Guard and creating the ability to draft the Guard for overseas service.