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.

 

A Well Regulated Militia, Always Ignored..

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
After all of these shootings I started thinking about the 2nd amendment and wondered why is the term regulated always ignored? I've never seen it even brought up in any debate on ATS or anywhere for that matter.

Let's look at the 2nd amendment..

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


What did the term regulated mean in the 1700s?


The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[114] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."


en.wikipedia.org...

Madison thought the gun owners, or militia should be trained to defend the nation, or they would be entirely pointless against a tyrannical government.


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 extent, upon such principles as will really fit them 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



Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. 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.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition.


www.foundingfathers.info...

Hamilton clearly thought that the PEOPLE were the militia and that they should be (regulated) trained. The supreme court interprets the militia is EVERYONE. Then EVERYONE should be regulated.

So why are none of the constitutionalists not upset that we do not have a well regulated militia (population of gun owners)? Anyone can go buy a gun without knowing how to use it, what good are they against tyranny? They aren't. They are useless.

What would we have currently if there was an uprising? A trained Federal Military vs Bob with guns in his basement. 99% of these people do not know any military maneuvers. 80% of these people couldn't even hit a moving target. Would we win regardless? Probably not. But by being even somewhat trained, your chances of survival would increase, and hope to tire them like the North Vietnamese.

Why doesn't the NRA lobby for a state controlled militia? Their motto is pro-2nd amendment.. They don't because it would not reap immediate gun sales for corporations. It would also shatter the illusion that guns give their memnbers immediate power against the government, which is one of their talking points.

Why ignore one part of the 2nd amendment but feel so passionate about the other?? It makes really no sense to me. Anyone panicking over gun control should be panicking that there is not a well regulated militia of gun owners.


edit on 8-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
And before anyone starts attacking me or creating a straw man argument by saying that I'm some anti-gun leftist, I'm not. I like guns and feel they should be legal
edit on 8-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
It says two things; one, that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and two, that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Its says them in sequential succession, but it does not anywhere imply that the second statement is dependent on the first, such a connection would only be made if you read your own interpretation into the text, rather than read the text as it is. This is the same thing the US Supreme Court pointed out when they threw out Washington DC's handgun ban last year.
edit on 8-8-2012 by SilentKoala because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKoala
 


I understand that. Read the thread, it isn't about that at ALL.

TLDR version;

Why is everyone pissed off over gun control but not pissed off that we do not have a well regulated militia? They are both in the 2nd amendment.

Hamilton considered everyone in the nation as part as the militia..yet none of our people are trained. Anyone can go buy a gun without knowing how to use it...which means they are all sorts of useless.


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 extent, upon such principles as will really fit them 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


www.foundingfathers.info...://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

edit on 8-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
So you're saying that in addition you also want a well-regulated militia? Isn't that what the military is? Or are you saying, we need more militia groups, like the Michigan Militia? Cause I can agree with that...



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


I understand what your trying to convey, only understand that the words of old do not carry the same definition as they would today. So I imagine there would be a loss in translation from todays degenerate version of english.

Also, we do have a militia, although it has been hijacked by the Fed, its called the national guard...each one is privy to its base state....not the nation.

And those who buy guns and don't know how to use them can be just as dangerous as those who do. Its a hell of a learning curve if you don't, but it doesn't take long to get the hang of it.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala
So you're saying that in addition you also want a well-regulated militia? Isn't that what the military is? Or are you saying, we need more militia groups, like the Michigan Militia? Cause I can agree with that...


So can I, we need a plan B to the states orginal Plan A.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Kastogere
 


The national guard is not a militia. It is another branch of the Army. If the supreme court interprets the MILITIA as everyone, then everyone should be trained.


Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;..... 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.


www.foundingfathers.info...

How can you defend or help the state if you are in Iraq for a year?


edit on 8-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I think the terms do go hand in hand....
firstly there would be NO militia at all if the RTBA is infringed.
The RTBA is the basis for the miitia....
And the armed popuace is assumed to be more proficient with said arms if they do indeed own and use them.
The militia, is a civillian force which is formed of the people when the need arrises......to defend the country or to aid ,or put down revolt, depending on how tyrannical the goverment has gotten......
Its late perhaps i do not explain well.....



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


If you believe that then you must believe that everyone in the militia must be well regulated (trained). You can't ignore one part of the sentence, yet claim the other.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



You should check this out. Militia movement.

People are trying to do militias again. However, most people and the gov are really anti-militia now. See, it's been in decline ever since they were associated with things like the OK city bombing and Waco. Now they're seen by most people as basically homegrown terrorist groups, which they're not, but that's the idea people get from the media.

To start a militia today you have to watch out. You're basically guaranteed to have federal agents infiltrating the group and trying to shut it down.

Even though that's not the way it probably should be, you have to understand that's the way the gov wants it. Like it is now.

The reason is because while they may be scared of individuals, the last thing they want is large, armed, and organized militia groups. That's the reason the gov doesn't force you to be in a militia.

If they did then the people that like guns would all very quickly join up into militias so they could keep playing with their guns see?

In other words, it's done this way on purpose. It's not because they accidentally read the Constitution wrong or something like that. They know what they're doing.
edit on 8-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


They didn't realize the future of guns then.It was written when you still had to bite the pouch and stuff the ball.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
The National Guard was supposed to be the militia. It was hijacked by Bush cause the army became all volenteer, and they were afraid to reinstitute the draft after what happened in the 60's. They didn't have ecough bodies to procecute the war in Iraq. So they hijacked the National Guard.

Anyway there are private millitias in most states. Google millitias and see what shows up.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SarnholeOntarable
 


What does it have to do with the time line? A well regulated militia would be the same thing it was then as it is now. Which would be a group of people trained that actually know how to use their guns and military tactics.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


The constitution was not talking about a private controlled militia, it was speaking of a government STATE controlled militia. The founding fathers were not anarchists. The constitution is a statist document.

Oranges and apples.

edit on 8-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Bingo.

Tell folks you own a gun and it's one thing.

Tell folks you drill one weekend a month with a firearms instructor in a group and it becomes a completely different thing.

For all the bitching that's done over education and training you think nobody really means it the way they turn pale when you talk about shoot house runs and ambush drills.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


What I meant was,If they had the fire power back then that we do now....there would obviously be some control over the 2nd.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I understand exactly what you're trying to convey. Now we can call the National Guard a well regulated militia, but that in my opinion is nothing more than word play. The reality is that the National Guard is nothing more than an extension of Active and Reserve elements of the regular Army. They train at the same bases, have the same MOS designations, and virtually work off of the same military regulation manuals. I believe a well regulated militia was intended to be a completely separate entity working completely independent of the Army as we know it. The general mission of a well regulated militia or National Guard is open to interpretation, just like the rest of the constitution seems to be these days. Everyone will have a different opinion on what that mission is supposed to be. Just the same as everyone having an opinion on the state of affairs. Some think things are going as it should, and the Federal Government has been working within its mandate allowed by the constitution. Others believe the Federal Government has stepped well over their bounds in regards to the constitution.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition.

Insurrection: The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
What happens if it is the Federal Government are the ones who act in a matter of insurrection? Once again it's a matter of whether you think they have or not. Let's say for instance that they have. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the people if the National Guard acted in complete independence from the Federal military? Wouldn't what we have today with the National Guard working virtually hand in hand with active and reserve Army create a possible conflict of interest.I really don't care what the Supreme Court says. I see the Supreme Court as the main reason things are in the state they are today. I see a complete purge and reworking of how the Supreme Court operates as the absolute first thing that needs to be done to fix these issues.This of course is just my opinion. There will be plenty of people who disagree with me and I can accept that, but there is something very wrong here and I think the Supreme Court holds much of the blame.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



The reason is because while they may be scared of individuals, the last thing they want is large, armed, and organized militia groups.

That's the reason the gov doesn't force you to be in a militia. If they did then the people that like guns would all very quickly join up into militias so they could keep playing with their guns see?

In other words, it's done this way on purpose. It's not because they accidentally read the Constitution wrong or something like that. They know what they're doing


I think this point is great, and it directly singles out why I think there should be a militia training course for all gun owners.

If everyone knew how to use their guns and military tactics, the country would be safer, and the "guns help fight against tyranny", argument could actually be true.

If a well regulated militia is interpreted as everyone, then EVERYONE should be regulated (trained).



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


I couldn't agree more.
Second line lol.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join