• @ubergeek@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 days ago

    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.

    • @sentinel@lemmitor.com
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

      • @ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        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.