I recently had a discussion with someone about the 2nd Amendment, and specifically the militia and it's "regulation".  

The individual brought up Hamilton's Federalist #29, and how Hamilton seems to elaborate on how the point was to have a militia, separate from any standing army, but nevertheless controlled by the Government.  He talks about regulation in the manner of being well equipped, but again, in the manner of being an organized thing.  

Have any of you encountered this aguement and if so, how is it best rebutted?  

Thanks!

It's been front and center here in Oregon.  It's been promoted by east coast activists with liber legislators using it for resume building.  Because they have a majority, they were able to pass a law against "unlawful militias".  If there are three or more that practice, drill, or parade with firearms, they can be held responsible for any rea; or perceived damages caused by any of their members.  ANTIFA and BLM are exempt.

Example by a liberal rep was being frightened by several people with guns near a city park.  Since they had guns and were "parading", they could be sued for psychological damages to those that observed them under the new law.

The very nature of the militia is that it is a volunteer group of citizens, organized locally, and the constitution infers it it is necessary to securing a free state. Hamilton's argument doesn't demand that the government create the militia, it charges the government with providing the militia with some degree of standardization or, in 18th century terms, regulation. This is for the purpose of assuring that freedom is never again at risk against tyranny.

The truth is, it's not the militia that has turned its back on the government but quite the opposite.

Yes I have heard of it.

The contemporaneous use of the word "regulate" didn't have the same finite definition that it does today.  Today, when someone says regulate, we think "controlled by dictate" or "a set of rules to be obeyed".

In the past it was used as "to keep in good order", to "insure upkeep", or to "guide in use".

In the days of an American frontier, this is exactly what we had and how it was implemented.

I've also heard this used to describe the intent of federal "regulation" of interstate commerce.

Regulate.  To keep regular, to insure function.

"Well regulated", not "strongly regulated" or "tightly regulated".  Why that word, "well"?

This is a good response, but there are passages within Fed 29 that seems to counter the argument of direct Gov control.  For example:
"..This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.”

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

If these quotes are presented, how would you logically (and verifiably) rebut them?

I have used this points myself in the past.  However, as I illustrate above, Hamilton himself seems at times to actually advocate for Gov control and not just the "in good order".

Historically the militia wasn’t voluntary.

His argument for "government control" is limited and specific.

Basically, from what I take away is, states have authority to structure their own militia, it is a smart thing to consider codify that structure with other states, and national government has authority to send one state's militia to aid another when necessary, as any issue requiring the raising of a militia has the potential to be an national level problem.  This is fresh off a time when states didn't even share a common currency.

The "in good order" is states need to have their militia organizations ready to mobilize when called on.

Its been a long time since I've read them and I've got some rereading to do.  Thanks for bringing the topic up!

Organizing, arming, and disciplining is nothing more than a way to ensure that there is uniformity in training and tactics so that they are capable of fighting as a common force. It was purely a force integration strategy. It wasn't about control for sake of the government overreach, it was about unified objectives and battle effectiveness. He then leaves all else, including the appointment of officers, to the states or militias themselves to regulate.

Those arguments are what has led to the passage of laws that make participating in an "unlawful militia" a crime.  We had multiple east coast groups testify to that in both the senate and house committee hearings here in Oregon.

You're correct of course.  So, the question remains, how do we rebut those quotes?  Especially using other quotes and references?

Your strongest argument is not found in other papers. It's all written right there, it simply needs to be interpreted with the colloquial intent of the time. Small snippets will never accomplish what you seek.

From Fed 29:

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even13 a week14 that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States.15 To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, 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; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

“But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size16 upon such principles as will really fit it17 for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army;18 the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

Here, he basically argues that attempting to "regulate" (develop a highly efficient and well trained) ALL militias throughout the country is impractical in terms of productivity, would be poorly tolerated and thus the militia in general should be mustered once or twice annually. He then advocates instead for a "select corps of moderate size" that "for service in case of need". That wording is important. Service in case of need is not a standing army, it is a reserve.

He further recognizes, again, as noted above but for emphasis:

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army;18 the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

What he's saying here is that, should the government require a larger army, it can be readily raised and, that the people; the militia will be as well armed and basically as well trained as the army, providing people with the ability to defend their own liberties and providing a defense against raising a large standing army, which they didn't want. It also infers that with such ability, such anarmy will never be larger or stronger than the people.

Frame all of that within the context of a new country where federal law enforcement was done by the Army... a lot of law enforcement was done by the Army in the early days, just as they were under British rule. This certainly didn't pertain to common issues of daily life but was of concern on the larger scale.

It probably makes a stronger argument against a standing Federal army than banning guns. That's the real tyranny here.

But this explanation still leaves the general perception that Hamilton (while agreeing that total control/regulation was impossible and impractical) still believes that the militia should be called up at least once or twice.  This seems to still be an argument in favor of Gov control, albeit at a lesser degree.  

Place yourself in the shoes of a gun-ban advocate that's arguing that the 2nd is specifically related to a militia, and that said militia is intended to be funded, trained, and ultimately subservient to at LEAST the state governments.  There are several articles by lefties online stating how "Hamilton himself, SOLVES the question of the 2nd Amendment."  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/  
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-no-less-than-alexander-hamilton-defined-it-for-us-bbd08daf

At this point, I'm tending towards a rebuttal that ultimately concedes Hamilton's point BUT emphasizes that Hamilton was at best wishy-washy on the topic, asking more questions than providing answers.  Sure, he advocates gov control, but freely admits that this control is impractical at every stage but the most basic.
Additionally, I think it's a worthwhile rebuttal to state that Hamilton was one person out of many, with a slightly differing view, and that frankly, he was WRONG.  That Madison's views were more appropriate.  One can look at Hamiltons strange views about the banking system as an example of his latent monarchal, statist tendencies.  

Here is an interesting breakdown of the issue.
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-meaning-of-the-militia-analysis-of-hamiltons-federalist-papers/

I would point back to the Militia Act of 1792. It declared all able bodied men members of the militia  but didn't create and compulsory muster, left them to arm themselves, and they remained under the "authority" of the state unless called upon by the POTUS.

But we've tried for years to distance ourselves and the 2nd from a DIRECT tie-in and requirement to the militia.  

Do you think the way forward lies in embracing the militia and the argument that "every citizen is a part of the unorganized militia", in the idea of an individual right, or in some sort of amalgamation?  

Most importantly, in keeping with the topic, how do we PROVE this concept?

I don't think that you have to embrace the militia itself. If you accept the concept that our forefathers intended for each of us to be ready to defend our country if needed as the Militia Act demands AND be secure from facing a standing army on native soil as Hamilton wrote, then you can embrace 2A. This is especially true since the militia scheme conceived of by Hamilton never came to pass but, the 2A did.

I think it's poof is self evident. 247 years of history. Liberal theory likes to treat gun rights like a new experiment. That's just not the case. We're living in the world's oldest functionung democracy. We have our problems but, by and large, we remain the freest nation on the planet because we have the capacity, as a population, to defend our freedoms. That's a relatively unique attitude seen in few places like the US and Switzerland.

This still leaves us open to direct criticism via the militia.  IF the militia is vital to the defense of the nation, and it's vital the people be "regulated" in regard to that militia, then it's pretty obvious that the tie-in exists.  

The inevitable question then becomes "why aren't you IN a militia?" and then the assertion that until you ARE, and until you are "regulated" as a part of that militia, you in particular have no guarantee of anything.  

To be clear, I disagree with this completely.  However, it's a compelling viewpoint, and I want to argue it with something other than "I disagree..."

I think "regulated" doesn't mean what you think it does.

10 U.S. Code § 246 says all able bodied males over age 17 are in the militia, either organized, via the guard, or otherwise in the unorganized militia. Thus, we are in the militia by law.

I've made the same argument for years, and I agree with you.  

You're missing the point of my post here.  I'm NOT trying to argue with you, I'm looking for well-constructed and thought out rebuttals to what Alexander Hamilton himself seems to say, because an anti-gunner presented his words in Federalist 29, and I was stumped beyond "well, Hamilton had some eccentric ideas in general, soo...."

As I said above, his own words seem to indicate that at least "well-regulated" implies that a citizen must undergo training and be a "properly constituted, ordered and drilled military force, organized state by state.."

I'm trying to progress past the "normal" discussion with an ignorant anti, where I correct them mercilessly about "what AR stands for" and "actual crime stats with long arms of all kinds".  If an opponent confronts us with the words of one of the founders themselves, we need a cognizant rebuttal.

Why not shift from Hamilton? Jefferson wrote in his letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824:



"we established however some, altho’ not all it’s important principles. the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press."

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313

This.

Plus, why would the founders enumerate specific things the government couldn't control and then insert verbiage that grants control? It flys in the face of the intent of the amendments themselves.

This thread dovetails perfectly with this topic.  These are the discussions we need to be having so we can have legitimate discussions.

I don't GD. Very few legitimate discussions happen there and those that do get lost in the static. My experience has been that, generally speaking, those who intend to take away our freedoms have no interest in what our founders intended. They're completely content with violating my rights if it means achieving their goals. The days of spirited debate and concession of well founded points are behind us. We're now living in a time of blind idealism where people follow their programming until it walks them to the edge of a cliff. Those most thoroughly indoctrinated will step off the edge, those not will wake up and become free thinkers. The key is, they have to feel the pain of their "party's" policies.

But that is a digression... in support of the OP's goal of finding fruitful arguments, I contend that it's still a matter of interpretation in most cases. Consider that, aside from the federalist papers and the constitution, both US and among the states, no law was made regulating firearms in any way until FFA in 1934. If our founders intended to regulate our right to bear, it would be evident in the laws the passed. The lack of such regulation is evidence itself.

Simple explanation is Hamilton is partially right....but not completely.

If well regulated ment good working order in the 1790's, then training may be one option for a well trained militia.However, the good working order can also mean that the militia "individual" needs the proper weapons and supplies.

It occurred to me this morning that more evidence of our 2A at work lays in more recent history...

”You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
~Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

One could readily submit that this is evidence of the unorganized militia securing the free state.

Sadly, there is zero evidence of this quote at all.  Our "proof" cannot consist of things that are easily disproven.

Frankly, I think that the INTENT of your point is correct, and actually better evidenced through the combat events in Ukraine and Israel.

Dig it. I honestly never looked hard at the provenance of that quote before. Doesn't look like it was ever confirmed and could be propaganda. It's not useful if it's not true.

It's as simple as reading and understanding the amendment itself.

First, the body of law that it is in, is the Bill of Rights.

A government doesn't grant itself rights. Government has the power to do what it wills.

Further, as stated in the Constitution, our rights are natural, predating not only our government, but every government, ever, because they  are created by God, and granted by God. The Founders, and most Western Culture believed that no power was higher than God. If God granted the rights, government could not legally take them away. Stating that they came from God was important because it nullified any attempts by the government to remove from us our rights.

So, the Bill of Rights is nothing more than a statement to the government, that the people had the rights listed, or enumerated.

The whole body of the Bill of Rights then, deals with rights of the people.

Further, the mentioning of the militia, is in a part of the phrase known as a preamble. What it does is state an advantage, or a reason, but it isn't part of the legal portion, and preambles can be ignoired or not read, they mean nothing.

So, the legal; portion starts after the comma. Read the 2A starting at that point.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now to any native speaker it is clear and concise.

1. What is the right? It is to keep ( own) and bear ( carry on one's person ) arms.

2. Who's right is is ? A stated, the people.

3. What cannot be done legally in any way? Infringement on that right by the government.

There is no mention of what types of arms may be borne, and no specifications on what manner they may be borne. Those choices are clearly left to the individual. And, this includes defensive items, as the definition of arms a that time included shields , armor etc. So having the right to bear arms, also includes modern body armor.

As stated, it is the right of the people. Any citizen is included in " the people," because it is speaking about the people of the united states, and as stated by George Mason, " I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Nobody is left out. This speaks of the unregulated militia, which is anyone old enough and capable of the act.

My last quote is from Samuel Adams.

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”

There is no debate. The debates prior to the adoption f the Bill of Rights are interesting and show the mindsets of the founders, some were more loyal to the Crown, and wanted that type of government. Those are the ones advocating against some of the freedoms we have. Others, were near anarchists. What they put together and signed, and ratified, and is the law of the land, is, in the end, today, all that matters.

Believing that these prior debates have anything other than explanatory powers as to where each member stood on the topic, gives power to the left. All that matters is what they signed into law, and what was signed into law, was a statement by the government, that God gave us our individual rights, which the government has no power to infringe, in any way.

The best rebuttal is to realize that all these freemasons wanted power and control....and I give no shits what a federalist says or a politician.  If we fear our safety then its our own duty to protect ourselves.  
If you look at a lot of the forefathers....they were all in competition with one another on power.  If you can't see it your blind.  If you care about the constitution, then your lost.  You need to look at one thing...Tyrants, murders, warmongers, Big pharma companies, WallStreet are not to be tolerated....but we allow it so who cares.

But indecent exposure is legal...thats the U.S. we live in

to debate it just go look at a history book...deep in the archieves.  Pretty much if you look at america...we didnt like obeying a king so we made a new place only to have a king again....and histoory repeats itself....starts off with executive powers then they will claim divine authority etc