It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will we see an increased militia presence if Clinton enters the White House?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There's a lot going on here. First and foremost, there is a belief among people on the right that they need the 2nd Amendment to protect gun ownership. In order for this to work, the 2nd Amendment has to be interpreted to be so inclusive that all people are part of the "militia." These are the people who will say that the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd doesn't refer to actual regulation.. by anyone. A good example of this would be this blog post on bearingarms.com.

What's hilarious about that post is that it completely ignores the use of "well-regulated" in reference to militias in Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation:


Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political or commercial relations and to declare war. No state or official may accept foreign gifts or titles, and granting any title of nobility is forbidden to all. States are restrained from forming sub-national groups. No state may tax or interfere with treaty stipulations already proposed. No state may engage in war, without permission of Congress, unless invaded or that is imminent on the frontier; no state may maintain a peace-time standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-regulated, disciplined, and equipped militia, with sufficient public stores of a due number of field pieces, tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.


Unfortunately for wishful thinking wingnuts, militias in the US and in the colonies before then, were never a self-appointed force of armed yahoos.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Gryphon66

Unfortunately for wishful thinking wingnuts, militias in the US and in the colonies before then, were never a self-appointed force of armed yahoos.


I agree with you about the wing-nuts, but the fact is, at least so far, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right. The Articles of Confederation have been superceded by the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, which is not as specific. I don't know that you can legally use them as a binding precedent at this point. The various militia acts subsequent to the Constitution are more like attempt to "take control" of the second amendment in retrospect.

And even if you buy off on the idea that "well-regulated" really means "controlled by government," back then it certainly meant "controlled by the State" because back then, states had real power. Even today, the National Guard is controlled by the state unless the Feds succeed in 'federalizing" the guard, which is a hot bed of contention in its own right and more a manifestation of the erosion of the power of the states than anything else.

As usual, if you take away my guns, only the wing nuts will have them, and you've just prevented me from protecting myself from them because the fact is, I'm not worried about government; I'm worried about the wing-nuts.
edit on 2/3/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   


Will we see an increased militia presence if Clinton enters the White House?


We will see an increase in militia presence regardless of who get elected.....and a lot of those new members will be undercover cops, FBI, etc.

The KKK wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the FBI membership.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I made this assertion the other day and the discussion dissolved into quibbling over semantics.

For those who know ... it is my understanding that the LEGAL bases of the American militia (US Constitution, State Constitutions, 1903 Militia Act, and I guess Common Law) would require that the militia(s) are under the command of either:

1. The Governor of a State (as Commander in Chief).
2. An Adjutant or other Officer placed in charge by the Governor.
3. The President of the United States.

The militia exists in a command structure headed by Civilian Elected Officials ... or it's not a legal militia.

Right or wrong, with backup?



You are mistaking legal definition with the inherent meaning of the word. Sort of how racism is defined technically as the belief that one's race is superior to another. That SHOULD mean ANYONE can be racist, but we all know that only white people can be that.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

Yes, thank you ... that is a perfect example of my comment earlier about semantics.

I am not referring to politically active gun clubs that have chosen to use the word "militia" in their club names.

I am referring to the lawful and proper American militia which exists under rule of law vis-a-vis the A) US Constitution B) State Constitutions C) the Militia Act of 1792 D) the Militia Act of 1903 and E) Common Law.

All of these stipulate that the militia exists within a "command structure" with an legally appointed (in the case of England) or elected official in command.

There is nothing that bestows any legal standing or authority to act militarily as a group on a group of citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights


edit on 3-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Many of these folks also completely miss the fact that our Founders were adamantly and totally against having a standing Army or Military and that fear (totally legitimate) was the basis of the militia system along with the fact that they had to act communally to preserve against attacks from ... well, within and without.

Funny to me that George Washington would have probably called out the Militia to put down the "Bird Sanctuary Rebellion," LOL.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
There's also a good amount of decent and CURRENT legal info within the text of DC v Heller ... LInk

Scalia does a decent job in his Opinion of outlining what the Militia is and isn't.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I believe it was part of the Militia Act of 1792 in which it stated any male between 17 and 45 were members of the unorganized militia. They were the last line of defense and the 2nd amendment would apply to the individual for that reason.

Thoughts?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You speak YOUR own mind there. You haven't sufficient grasp of knowledge for such a statement, thus rendering an insult piled upon others.
WHO was it that called vets potential terrorists first? DHS a product of an overreaching political system gone nuts and imploding. Lack of folks to blame ,the usual result ,of course.
GRASPING at every single idealogical straw after straw, until the emperor has no clothes.
SOON we we all be treated to the hue and cry of "Fascists,Nazis1" as the world swings right.
Militia's ,vets ,we aren't a blip on the radar in reality,as to what is ACTUALLY done.
edit on 3-2-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

I believe it was part of the Militia Act of 1792 in which it stated any male between 17 and 45 were members of the unorganized militia. They were the last line of defense and the 2nd amendment would apply to the individual for that reason.

Thoughts?


That squares completely with what I know. The 1792 Act codified what the American militia actually was legally in reference to the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, to wit:



To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;


The "right to bear arms" in the 2nd is as much a description of a duty as a privilege, in my opinion, but as Scalia pointed out, it is not and has never been "unlimited" by other law.

That's just my opinion, and, whatever the case, I do agree that the 2nd does in fact bestow the right for citizens in good standing to hold firearms for our protection and sustenance (and perhaps pleasure/leisure).



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Not really, there is a comma there.

The 2nd says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to a free people and because of that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You cannot have a very effective militia if people are not at all familiar with firearms because they aren't allowed to keep and bear arms, now can you?

So whether or not there is an existing militia, it is important to have those who understand and know how to use and fire their firearms so that when and if such a thing were to become necessary a militia could spring up out of nowhere.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
The Right to Bear Arms =/= Militia Membership. The vast majority of armed citizens in the US are NOT members or even sympathizers of the militia groups (just based on number of firearms out there.) Indeed, one could safely say that most armed Americans are pro-government and pro-LEO, and at least some portion is armed to protect themselves AGAINST the militia groups.

Most militia groups are small, isolated, extremist, and without good leadership. And the government likes it that way. If a charismatic militia leader ever arose, one who could potentially unite the disparate groups and attract more mainstream disgruntled citizens, well, he probably wouldn't last long.


Now you know why they gave
LaVoy Finicum's Last Ride



new topics




 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join