The ‘Nice Girl’ Who Saved the Second Amendment

[Pawpaw]

She said that currently the militia is the National Guard. Wrong!! She needs to do more research and get her facts straight on exactly who the militia is.

No she didn't. She said that was an argument that started in the 1960's and was even being discussed in law schools.

Her statement starts at about the 50 second mark.

She states later, in no uncertain terms, that the framers wrote it as an individual right and saw no ambiguity at all in the wording.

[anygunanywhere]

She said that currently the militia is the National Guard. Wrong!! She needs to do more research and get her facts straight on exactly who the militia is.

No she didn't. She said that was an argument that started in the 1960's and was even being discussed in law schools.

Her statement starts at about the 50 second mark.

She states later, in no uncertain terms, that the framers wrote it as an individual right and saw no ambiguity at all in the wording.

Yes, she did. 1:06. SHe said that there was an argument that the 2A was a collective right that the 2A was for the militia. She then said that the militia is the NG. Listen to it again. She was not in agreement that the 2A was a collective right, but she said that the militia is the NG.

[Pawpaw]

She said that currently the militia is the National Guard. Wrong!! She needs to do more research and get her facts straight on exactly who the militia is.

No she didn't. She said that was an argument that started in the 1960's and was even being discussed in law schools.

Her statement starts at about the 50 second mark.

She states later, in no uncertain terms, that the framers wrote it as an individual right and saw no ambiguity at all in the wording.

Yes, she did. 1:06. SHe said that there was an argument that the 2A was a collective right that the 2A was for the militia. She then said that the militia is the NG. Listen to it again. She was not in agreement that the 2A was a collective right, but she said that the militia is the NG.

Again, she's explaining the argument the antis have been using, even in law schools. You're starting in the middle of her statement and completely missing the first part. That's a lot like ignoring the first half of a sentence. It changes the entire meaning.

[anygunanywhere]

She said that currently the militia is the National Guard. Wrong!! She needs to do more research and get her facts straight on exactly who the militia is.

No she didn't. She said that was an argument that started in the 1960's and was even being discussed in law schools.

Her statement starts at about the 50 second mark.

She states later, in no uncertain terms, that the framers wrote it as an individual right and saw no ambiguity at all in the wording.

Yes, she did. 1:06. SHe said that there was an argument that the 2A was a collective right that the 2A was for the militia. She then said that the militia is the NG. Listen to it again. She was not in agreement that the 2A was a collective right, but she said that the militia is the NG.

Again, she's explaining the argument the antis have been using, even in law schools. You're starting in the middle of her statement and completely missing the first part. That's a lot like ignoring the first half of a sentence. It changes the entire meaning.

Nope.

Smart lady and definitely knows a lot about the Constitution and I respect her for her stance on the 2A but she is wrong on the militia.

[Paladin]

She said that currently the militia is the National Guard. Wrong!! She needs to do more research and get her facts straight on exactly who the militia is.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

James Madison Federalist No. 46

According to James Madison the militia was to be all men able to bear arms, approximately 20 TIMES the size of any POSSIBLE American standing army.

With the current population of the United States, a militia, as James Madison envisioned and codified in the US Constitution, would number 20-25% of 327 million people or 65-to-82 million American militia.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Per U.S. Code the National Guard is part of the organized militia. When the National Guard is called to active duty in the federal service, they are relieved of their status in the state militia. All other citizen able-bodied males at least 17 to 45 are part of the unorganized militia. Congress has failed to organize, arm, or train the "unorganized militia" as originally intended by the founders/US Constitution.

[anygunanywhere]

She said that currently the militia is the National Guard. Wrong!! She needs to do more research and get her facts straight on exactly who the militia is.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

James Madison Federalist No. 46

According to James Madison the militia was to be all men able to bear arms, approximately 20 TIMES the size of any POSSIBLE American standing army.

With the current population of the United States, a militia, as James Madison envisioned and codified in the US Constitution, would number 20-25% of 327 million people or 65-to-82 million American militia.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Per U.S. Code the National Guard is part of the organized militia. When the National Guard is called to active duty in the federal service, they are relieved of their status in the state militia. All other citizen able-bodied males at least 17 to 45 are part of the unorganized militia. Congress has failed to organize, arm, or train the "unorganized militia" as originally intended by the founders/US Constitution.

Exactly.

[bblhd672]

I’m way past 45, but as long as I can lift my modern musket to take aim at the enemy, I will be part of the unorganized militia.

[Pawpaw]

Again, she's explaining the argument the antis have been using, even in law schools. You're starting in the middle of her statement and completely missing the first part. That's a lot like ignoring the first half of a sentence. It changes the entire meaning.

Nope.

Smart lady and definitely knows a lot about the Constitution and I respect her for her stance on the 2A but she is wrong on the militia.

Here's a transcript of what was said, starting at about the 44 second mark. Seems pretty clear to me.

Ms. Malcom: But from the 1960's on with riots and assasinations, there was much more concern. There was an argument that got a lot of traction, especially in law schools, that it was a collective right. That it was only a right for the malitia to be armed. And so members of the malitia, which would now be the National Guard, had a right to be armed but not individual citizens.

The way the amendment is worded made it somewhat confusing because it starts out with A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, COMMA, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So then you can see that there was some possibility for some discussion on that.

Mr. Holman: You don't think the framers intended any ambiguity on that point though.

Ms. Malcom: No, I don't think to them there was any.

From there, she goes on to explain her research and that she's convinced they intended it to be an individual right.

[Paladin]

Here's an interview with her on PBS.

https://youtu.be/TyXcY7NJHFg

Besides her misrepresentation of what the militia is, I do think she gives one of the best interviews on the second amendment that has made it to the "MSM".

[Paladin]

Some additional discussion on the militia:

The Militia: In History and Today

The American Militia and the Origin of Conscription: A Reassessment

[Thomas Jefferson] spoke of the “necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier.” “We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens,” he wrote, “and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education.”

President Jefferson and his Republican successor, James Madison, desiring a classification scheme similar to Knox’s rejected plan, repeatedly called for militia reorganization. In effect, they hoped to conscript a massive reserve of citizen soldiers, as was done in Switzerland. Throughout this period, whenever the idea of militia classification was resurrected, it was simply a code that, in modern terminology, meant a national system of universal military training.

[anygunanywhere]

Again, she's explaining the argument the antis have been using, even in law schools. You're starting in the middle of her statement and completely missing the first part. That's a lot like ignoring the first half of a sentence. It changes the entire meaning.

Nope.

Smart lady and definitely knows a lot about the Constitution and I respect her for her stance on the 2A but she is wrong on the militia.

Here's a transcript of what was said, starting at about the 44 second mark. Seems pretty clear to me.

Ms. Malcom: But from the 1960's on with riots and assasinations, there was much more concern. There was an argument that got a lot of traction, especially in law schools, that it was a collective right. That it was only a right for the malitia to be armed. And so members of the malitia, which would now be the National Guard, had a right to be armed but not individual citizens.

The way the amendment is worded made it somewhat confusing because it starts out with A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, COMMA, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So then you can see that there was some possibility for some discussion on that.

Mr. Holman: You don't think the framers intended any ambiguity on that point though.

Ms. Malcom: No, I don't think to them there was any.

From there, she goes on to explain her research and that she's convinced they intended it to be an individual right.

Okay. You win. You’ve convinced yourself.

[Pawpaw]

Are you always this arrogant when someone disagrees with you?

[Paladin]

I have documented from US Code, Federalist Papers, and statements made by former presidents/our founding fathers that the militia is not simply the National Guard but all able bodied adult males of fighting age. While certain radical elements (on the US Supreme Court and elsewhere) continue to pretend otherwise, the facts and the law are explicit.

[anygunanywhere]

Are you always this arrogant when someone disagrees with you?

Works both ways Pawpaw. I'm not being arrogant. I heard her interview and read your transcript. I understand what she says differently than you. Are not individuals allowed to disagree? I guess you missed Paladin's post. Her statement is partly true. Since logically if part of a statement is false it is all false.

I have documented from US Code, Federalist Papers, and statements made by former presidents/our founding fathers that the militia is not simply the National Guard but all able bodied adult males of fighting age. While certain radical elements (on the US Supreme Court and elsewhere) continue to pretend otherwise, the facts and the law are explicit.

[Paladin]

One other point about the interview with Dr. Malcolm,

At one point she states "Heller allows an individual right for weapons that were in common use"

In fact Heller states:

United States v. Miller...limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

...Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Heller

Heller is ruling about the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Miller allows for weapons used by the militia... i.e. M9 pistols, M4 and M16 select fire rifles, etc and allows for the prosecution of "unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce ... in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment"

US vs Miller

It is worth noting that Miller did not defend the case in court and short barreled shotguns are used by the military. No evidence was submitted in the legal proceedings.