I know reading context isn’t easy for Americans so let me, a foreigner, explain it to you.
That document was written about 10 years after the Americans launched an armed insurrection against their government so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation. In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with. They understood that the free state (for white landlords) was precarious and could change so they believed that the hedge against that was local participatory militias. To note here is a “well regulated militia” in this era implies the adoption of military rank and file and internal regulations, not governmental imposed regulations on the existence of the militia or the weaponry itself.
I know reading is very hard. I hope with practice you may someday be able to read and understand context. It takes a lot of effort to become literate. Good luck on your journey.
so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation
They did primarily because they wanted to expand their settler colonies further into native lands while the British government had tried restricting settler expansion.
The “free state” was never about preventing oppression of the citizens or launching an insurrection against the state. I don’t know where this bizzare view comes from, since the constitution literally defines treason against the state to be punishable by death.
In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with.
No, it doesn’t. Read Article 8, as it describes what the militia’s purpose is. At the time “the people” meant “the states”, as each state was to be secure in it’s own abilities and authorities to manage it’s militias. The purpose was to put down insurrections and slave revolts.
Remember, also, that to be “in the militia”, you were also reporting for regular muster and inspections. By the government.
Considering there are only 7 articles to the constitution I assume you mean Article 1 Section 8 which defines the ability of the federal government to call forth a militia but does not itself impose any substantive limits on the militias beyond that? Is that the article you are referring to? Maybe you should re-read it. Well regulated language is conceptually distinct from congress’s power defined in A1 § 8 to organize and discipline a militia once its activated. The text also imposes no federal prohibition on state or unorganized militias from setting membership or arms. If it isn’t prohibited by the language of the document, it is allowed.
The 14th provides birthright citizenship, outlines that states won’t imprison people without due process, covers congressional proportionality, and makes insurrection/treason cause for not being eligible for office
Seriously, take a constitutionality class, you need it
I pray you actually read what people point you too:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The 2nd amendment LITERALY states it to use against the gov…
No it doesn’t. The role of the militias were to be called up to put down insurrection and slave revolts.
Ahem…
Where, exactly?
I know reading context isn’t easy for Americans so let me, a foreigner, explain it to you.
That document was written about 10 years after the Americans launched an armed insurrection against their government so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation. In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with. They understood that the free state (for white landlords) was precarious and could change so they believed that the hedge against that was local participatory militias. To note here is a “well regulated militia” in this era implies the adoption of military rank and file and internal regulations, not governmental imposed regulations on the existence of the militia or the weaponry itself.
I know reading is very hard. I hope with practice you may someday be able to read and understand context. It takes a lot of effort to become literate. Good luck on your journey.
Good explanation. Really no need for the insults though.
They did primarily because they wanted to expand their settler colonies further into native lands while the British government had tried restricting settler expansion.
The “free state” was never about preventing oppression of the citizens or launching an insurrection against the state. I don’t know where this bizzare view comes from, since the constitution literally defines treason against the state to be punishable by death.
No, it doesn’t. Read Article 8, as it describes what the militia’s purpose is. At the time “the people” meant “the states”, as each state was to be secure in it’s own abilities and authorities to manage it’s militias. The purpose was to put down insurrections and slave revolts.
Remember, also, that to be “in the militia”, you were also reporting for regular muster and inspections. By the government.
Considering there are only 7 articles to the constitution I assume you mean Article 1 Section 8 which defines the ability of the federal government to call forth a militia but does not itself impose any substantive limits on the militias beyond that? Is that the article you are referring to? Maybe you should re-read it. Well regulated language is conceptually distinct from congress’s power defined in A1 § 8 to organize and discipline a militia once its activated. The text also imposes no federal prohibition on state or unorganized militias from setting membership or arms. If it isn’t prohibited by the language of the document, it is allowed.
Yes, sorry… the militia clause, as its known
The purpose of the militia is to put down insurrection, not to engage in it.
The word “regulated” has had only one actual meaning… the same as it means to regulate interstate commerce.
And only a couple of years later, the militia acts passed.
Please take a government class before continuing with your understanding of the Constitution
Please read why the 14th amendment extended the bill of rights to apply to people…
That’s not what the 14th amendment does
The 14th provides birthright citizenship, outlines that states won’t imprison people without due process, covers congressional proportionality, and makes insurrection/treason cause for not being eligible for office
Seriously, take a constitutionality class, you need it
I pray you actually read what people point you too:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law