It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? (The 2nd Amendment in truth)

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 04:53 PM
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?" - Tench Coxe, 1788.

Amendment 2:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does this much contended amendment really say? I believe first we must make a distinction between today and "yesterday" if you will.

Why the "Militia"? How does it differ from an Army? Can not an Army protect us now? Nay.

"In 1789, the word army - in contradistinction to militia - connoted a mercenary force, as even a casual glance at contemporaneous dictionaries reveals. This was largely why an "army" was feared. It was not composed of a randomly conscripted cross-section of the general militia (all citizens capable of bearing arms), but was instead filled with hired guns. These men, full-time soldiers who had sold themselves into virtual bondage to the government, were typically considered the dregs of society - men without land, homes, families, or principles. Full-time service in the army further weakened their ties to civil(ized/ian) society, and harsh army "discipline" increased their servility to the government." -- The Bill of Rights by Akhil Reed Amar, Yale University Press New Haven & London, 1998.

An excellent excerpt. We are told to "praise" our soldiers, they "die" for us.

Do they really?

Who of us has honestly gone over to Iraq to "protect" us, it is obvious it is a mercenary war whether we agree with the agenda or not. My home, your home, neither are in danger of ravenous Iraqis. The same was for Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of men joined the military thinking they were fighting for their country and learned the harsh lesson they were expendable mercenaries furthering a shady and unknown cause. Vietnam was the betrayal of the populous in that sense.

This is why in 1860s when Lincoln ordered the first draft, many were killed in New York in the infamouse draft riots. A draft? How could you be pressed into mercenary service? We were not soldiers of some lord or king, we were soldiers for our homes and our families and inevitably the country. If we felt threatened we the Militia would join of our own free will to defend ourselves. This happend tremendously during the War of Federal Aggression, where civilians joined the local "volunteers". However when Southern capabilities proved far stronger than Northern, Lincoln needed meat for the machine and so he forced people into mercenary service.

World War 2 is not far from this although people being drafted was no different than people volunteering. The draft was really unecessary in World War 2 as only two people in the entire nation of 150 million tried to avoid the draft through any means (in this case it was conciencious objection). World War 2, while a draft was taking place, was fought by willing civilian soldiers. Men who left their ordinary jobs and families to serve in a larger "army" to defend this nation and others. More accurately that army would be called a militia. Citizen soldiers.

Iraq today differs because they are not citizen soldiers. They have made a career of war for one reason or another, money for school, money to live. It matters not simply put the majority are there for money or for an idea of "defending America" that is about as true as it was in Vietnam.

If America needed defense, then why are we sitting at home this evening and watching TV before going to some ordinary job tomorrow or to school or to the store? Why are we not grabbing our rifles and marching off to the enemy's land to give them battle? In part the complication of who the enemy is, but say the same of Iraq? How many of you militia have taken up arms and marched off to Iraq?


The idea of militia has nearly died, probably purposefully as without the militia the people can not rule.

This was the heart of the second amendment. Not the heart in the sense that the milita can have weapons, but that everyone has weapons as everyone is apart of the militia and should the country or state have need of you you will be ready.

That need can be anything, from fighting the Hun to fighting Washington D.C. and in our history those needs have been called upon.

This is an accurate picture of the 2nd Amendment. The concept of army to our fore fathers was different from us today.

We confuse the citizen soldiers of WW2 who served in a national military, with the mercenaries of Vietnam or Iraq today. The goals of the government may be noble, or they may not be. But many of these mercenaries will serve that government regardless for they make a life out of war and the government feeds them. This, at least, was the fear of our founding fathers. I believe it is a just fear.

Why when the decision to go to Iraq was made, did not a call for volunteers go out to the states? Because the Federal Government had all the Mercenaries it needed.

The people were not consulted, they were not important, the government had all the hired guns it needed to wage a war regardless of popular consent.

Would the reaction have been far different had we not had a standing army and needed to ask for the states to raise volunteers? Maybe, maybe not. Depending on how just the cause was.

Vietnam's cause was not very just and the war undoubtedly would have ended sooner if it was fought by militia and not an army.

So in conclusion, the second Amendment is the result of what our founding fathers understood and what we have forgotten. We are the only ones who can defend our rights, our States, and our Union. No professional mercenary can do this for us, regardless of how many blindly patriotic civilians wear the "God Bless our Soldiers" bumper stickers.

And when the time comes to defend our rights, let us hope we do not have to suffer the fateful fear of The Federalist No. 28 Alexander Hamilton:

"If the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which the nation consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource...."

"In the event of tyranny, state governments could do precisely what colonial governments had done beginning at Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hil: organize and mobilize their citizens into an effective fighting force capable of besting even a large standing army." Ibid.

Thus supports The Federalist No. 46 by James Madison.

This is the meaning of the Second Amendment, should the government favor the power of a mob and ignore the rights of a few, to arms we may choose in defense of the rights represented in our State Constitutions, our State laws, our societies and communities. The rights the Federal Government has no power over.

The rights that the Army or Navy or Air Force or Marines are incapable of protecting.

[edit on 5-8-2004 by FreeMason]

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:49 PM
Wow amazing, the idleness of this post is proof that most humans are just idiots.

This post, is an example of excellent reading of the 2nd Amendment and its true meanings and applications to today.

But no, people would rather debate opinions about the 2nd Amendment, because I suppose it is more comfortable to exist in a fantasy world where your opinions are possibly true than reality where you are simply wrong.

In that sense, there really is nothing to debate here, because the reading is dead accurate. So instead of a debate how about discussing HOW THE CONSITUTITON IS NO LONGER FOLLOWED HOW IT IS MEANT TO BE IN ORDER TO PROTECT US FROM TYRANNY?

Just a suggestion.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:03 PM

Feel better now?

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:34 PM
Right or wrong, militias created the United States and won our Independence........only the federal government fears the militias.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:39 PM
curme, I don't need your sarcasm in my thread, we all know you are pretty slow.

I also don't need your picture in my thread, that's just nasty.

new topics

top topics

log in