It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by astmonster
This gov is already screwing the american "citizens" and when guns are gone its really over. make no mistake this case will take guns away...............
Originally posted by apc
There was speculation on the Boortz show this morning that a ruling might only apply federally and therefore only affect DC, leaving to states to take care of themselves.
Even if that is the worst-case scenario, it still sets a dangerous precedent.
If such a ruling does affect the states, and then the Clintons retake power...
Originally posted by NJ Mooch
This will come down to interpretation.
1. Who fits the definition of a "Well organized militia" today?
2. Is such a militia "necessary to the security of a free state" today?
3. Does today's militia have arms? If they do does it fit this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?
So now that this is said think about this since I understand this in a few ways.
The answer to #1 would be the National Guard. They are a "well organized militia". I know they weren't around when this was written, but do they fit the definition today? If not, who would?
Answer to #2, yes and no. This one isn't easy since taking away this organized militia goes against the Constitution, but are they needed to protect the states today?
Yes they are since federal military personnel are not allowed to do the work they do on US land. I know that the Guard can deploy and come under active duty commanders, and I know the active duty people can be sent in to support the Guard in CONUS, so is this causing more of a problem by blending the difference in the missions of each organization?
#3 Is easy if you think the Guard is the "well organized militia" of today since they have arms. If you don't think that they are the "well organized militia" post who you think is so we can discuss another organization that should take on this role.
So you have some ideas from me. So who is today's "well organized militia"? I say it is the Guard people. I don't like how they get activated and used as active duty troops since that wouldn't be the way I use them. They should be used in CONUS period. If you want to go overseas go active, otherwise stay Guard.
If you get rid of the Guard who will become the "well organized militia"?
Who makes up these "well organized militias" today? This is where things get interesting. Normal citizens make up the Guard so they should be able to have arms as it says in the Constitution. So does this mean that only the folks in the "well organzied militia" should have this right?
I say yes since they are here to protect the state. I know many citizens want to "keep and bear arms", but this is where interpreting the Constitution gets interesting. People who make up the "well organzied militia" are needed to protect the state. That doesn't include everyone in the state.
Back when the Constitution was written there wasn't any National Guard so this makes sense when you have to deal with the way things were back then. If you look at it this way then this should be a no brainer.
I think that we have been off track for many years since we do have "well organzied militias" in every state, terriroty, and in DC. The Guard takes on this role. Tell me if any other person fits this definition, that is if you agree that the Guard is the best and only definition of a "well organized militia" today.