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: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


The Constitution is considered a living document, and thanks to the system of amending it it changes over time. People treat it as if its sacred. For example they act as if freedom of speech is upheld by the first amendment. People say it's their right to have free speech because of the amendment when its actually the other way around. There is an amendment BECAUSE free speech was a good idea, when they seem to think that free speech is a good idea BECAUSE there's an amendment.

It's the cart before the horse. No one can say we should be able to own firearms BECAUSE its in the constitution, that's NOT AN ARGUMENT in favor of a position, it tells us nothing about WHY ordinary citizens should have the right to own a fire arm, it simply tells us that currently they DO have that right.

People forget that prohibition was a constitutional amendment as well and so was the repeal of it. The Constitution is not sacred, as much as I do think that people have the right to own a gun for self-defense, law enforcement, hunting, etc I also think that throwing out the second amendment to justify gun-rights is a weak an argument as can be imagined. It's like throwing out Thou Shalt Not Kill as a reason not to murder people, murder isn't wrong because a commandment says so the commandment says so BECAUSE MURDER IS WRONG. Same goes for your rights people.




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kastogere
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


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.


Well, frankly, using most of the guns that are available to the public is a piece of cake. There are just a lot of utterly stupid people who can't operate a doorknob properly. Don't blame the guns. They couldn't be much simpler than they are (as far as the user interface). We're just paying the price for being a society where everything has been dumbed down to the LCD. You buy a kitchen knife, the package warns you that the blade is sharp. Otherwise some moron will slice his finger off and sue the company for not warning him.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Finally people catch on. Do not expect the government to steer the guntoy culture in the right direction. They would rather encourage guns being portrayed in a bad light and encouraging the sales of guns prone to be used in crimes, such as conceivable weapons and discourage guns that can be used for armed resistance, such as assault rifles.

The swiss have the right idea. Military service is mandatory and after you are done you take your weapon home. If you are serious about gun rights, you should get a year in so you can actually put it to use in a way that is not totally random and go about keeping the guns off the streets in times of peace and the gun owners trained.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKoala
 

There is and was (1776) a difference between a standing army and a citizen militia.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
We have a well regulated Militia here in Michigan. They have had their name tarnished in the past but currentley it is made up of all volunteer persons. There is a large number of highly trained military veterans within the militia as well.

You also can't forget the hundreds of thousands of combat veterans throughout the country that would become the militias if and when the situation truly arises. Our government has made the word 'Militia' almost Taboo these days by making them all appear as fanatical, crazy, anti government terrorists when this is not the case minus a few small exceptions.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
The fact of the matter is that America is POORLY trained overall in the use of firearms.

Any non-felony convicted citizen can walk into a gun store and leave with a weapon they have never held or seen, let alone used, at any given time. We don't let kids drive without driving teachers, permits, and eventually their licenses... so

WHY IN THE BLOODY BLUE BLAZES do we not require proof of firearms training and safety with the purchase of every weapon sold in this country???

It's not that hard. We most definitely need a militia, and regulated gun owners who know how and when to use their firearms and aren't walking around like a bunch of timebombs who are as dangerous to themselves and the good guys as they are any enemies.

Well said, RealSpoke. Thanks for bringing the subject up.




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



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.



State controlled militia??? Not seeing that. Explain?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SarnholeOntarable
 



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.


That totally goes against the reasoning behind the 2nd!!!! How can we rise up against a tyrannical goverment, if we are armed with pea shooters vs their tax payer purchased super weapons??????



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Here in Connecticut we have an interesting trade off; to be able to buy a gun you need a permit, and to get a permit you need to pass a firearm training course and be fingerprinted, which all told costs a few hundred dollars and a few months of waiting. I say this is a trade off because once you have your permit you're allowed to carry concealed and you can walk into a gun shop and buy a gun immediately with no waiting period. PLUS, you can even use it to buy silencers (federal laws still apply, though).

...but let's face facts, here; the people griping about gun training really aren't out to preserve public safety; they're out to look for excuses to restrict guns ownership in any possible way they can. These very same "we need to license guns like cars" characters are the first people to insist that my permit shouldn't be honored in any other state even thought my driver's license is honored, because apparently I'm going to spontaneously want to murder people for no reason once I cross the into another state. How is it they don't think I'm spontaneously going to become a drunk driver with my driver's license for the same reason?

Gun controllers are nothing but a bunch of phonies, plain and simple. Looking to them to create "sensible gun regulation" is like looking to North Korea to create "sensible freedom of speech regulation".



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
there is a well regulated Militia in America...so well regulated it is nearly impossible to detect by the casual observer.

arms are more than just guns. if guns didn't exist...those 2 shootings would have been 2 mass stabbing events...

the problem with most people is that they refuse to grasp or accept that the Bill of Rights is entirely for the People...there is NO part of it that is subject to the Government...or to the political process at any level of Government.

Separation of Church and State means that the People collectively exist perpetually as a Sovereign body distinct and separate from the State they created and the created thing, the State, has no authority to make laws with regards to the People.

if, OP, for example, is not a part of a well regulated Militia...its not someone else's fault...it is OP's fault.

learn to live free and stop waiting for someone to recruit and mobilize you.









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



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke

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.


I was trained to handle a gun safely and shoot straight from a very early age. The statement that "none of our people are trained". is inaccurate. Many of our people are trained, but they are not the vocal majority. Most of us just keep our mouths shut and mind our own business. I just took my two boys (14 & 8 years old) to the local shooting range and put them through the paces. Every station in the range was full of people learning how to safely and efficiently use their weapons of choice.

With regards to the term "well regulated", I agree that this is more or less ignored.
edit on 8/8/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


it seems to me that since the government is not going to train a militia to fight against the government should it become tyrannical(seems to headed that way, its up to the citizens to train citizens, i heard of militia groups and defenders of the constitution i would suggest trying to seek out one of these groups and see if they offer training, if so than there is your well regulated militia, every one else is just a gun owner that will be recruited to defend the constitution once the shtf.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I believe a lot of people miss the point of this amendment. It applies to us even to this day using a very SIMPLE use of logic that would have been used when it was ratified in 1791...

2ND AMENDMENT
"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."

Lets look at this amendment broken down using the grammar it was written in. We know the Amendment is speaking to two separate items under the same "Subject" The subject being the security of the nation and free states.

Part 1:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Regulated:
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

The use of the word "Well" before the word "Regulated" points us to the correct definition:
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement

The reason I chose the second one and not the others is that the sentence is referring to an action and outcome. In order to meet that outcome you must remain fluid and disciplined in warfare and in normal daily lives. If you are rigid in life and on the battle field you are prone to break and you are slow to respond. Being fluid allows us the opportunity to be fast responders when it comes to the security of our FREE STATES.

So a "Fluid and Disciplined" Militia of the people (to which this amendment is referring to) are a necessity to the security of a Free State.

My personal opinion: I believe each state should require gun owners to attend specialized training in firearms for basic safety before being able to purchase a weapon. I am a firearm owner and I would vote in an instant for that! Also I believe it is the Free State's responsibility to organize state and local militia's. This would be similar to the national guard except this would only be called in on for emergencies (Hurricane Katrina would be a perfect example) Militia's can be used for more than warfare... People volunteer to help during floods and hurricanes why not make it the duty of militia volunteer's to help their state during these times of need. It would be similar to going on deployment for military reservists. You have a normal job but when your called you dont lose your job you just go and help. Having this type of organization within the states could relieve the budget burdens during emergencies and also secure our Free States during these times of need. And of course we also know the uses of militia's during war time whether the foe be foreign or domestic. By having a dual purpose for militia's not only do we have a humanitarian force but we also have a fighting force who cares about their community and who has worked with their militia brothers in team work that will benefit them in battle. I feel that this bond and proper military training will ensure that our FREE STATES are safe from any threat natural or man made!

Part 2:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the "PEOPLE" that is you and I, will have the "RIGHT" (a given freedom) to keep and bear "ARMS" (Weaponry to defend the Free States) and that right shall "NOT" I repeat "NOT" be "INFRINGED UPON". This part of the amendment states that we as people of the USA have the given freedom to keep and hold ARMS (1. A weapon, especially a firearm). This does not state whether it is a destructive device, full auto device, a incendiary round or a freaking nuclear bomb!!! This states that it is our given right to be able to own and to hold these weapons for the protection of our selves, our community and our Free States! Now some will say I dont trust anybody with a nuke... well that is fine. I don't either. That is where regulations could take place on the production and maker of the device and not the people. This would not affect the people to be able to obtain what they need to have in order to protect themselves, their community or their Free State. What this would do is ensure that the responsibility lye with the manufacturer (i.e. held corporately and personally responsible for damages caused by the use of the product outside of wartime) No manufacturer would take that risk! This would also ensure that no law will infringe on the rights of the people but rather the responsibility of the manufacturers who sell them. So if a manufacturer asks for a background check that would be good and would weed out those irresponsible of owning a weapon. This would create an era of moral responsibility between weapons manufacturers. As a way to eliminate their responsibility for arms sales is by showing and proving that they showed proactive measures to ensure the weapons were sold to the right hands.

CONTINUED....



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
CONTINUED...

Having a standard for this would greatly reduce confusion and would give us a measure to in which to hold people versus manufacturers accountable.

It is NOT the Government's job to Police the people!!! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS! I Personally have known what it is like to shoot a fully automatic weapon and I can tell you this... I am more dangerous with a semi automatic than a fully automatic. The only thing a fully automatic weapon affords you is suppressive fire which gives you an advantage on the battle field. Policing the use of fully automatic and explosive devices is the very definition of a police state! the government will always have the upper hand to suppress the people if they dont have the ability to even the odds! With this kind of suppression of the people the only other logical tactic afforded the people is guerrilla warfare which is dirtier and causes more collateral damage...



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
onsecondopinion.blogspot.com...

"Regarding commas found in the eight different versions of the Second Amendment returned as ratified from various state legislatures, there was at least one of each with no, one, two, and three commas. [OSA pp.720, 726, 728, 730, 732] The original sources of the Second Amendment's clauses, the leading Mason Triad clauses in the original state declarations of rights, came in two versions - 'well regulated militia as natural defense' and 'right of the people to bear arms for defense'. [FVRBA pp.65, 72] This simple historical fact makes it evident that the Second Amendment has a fundamentally two clause structure. The fact that the Second Amendment was based upon these two different descriptions of a defensively effective armed civil population made the two clause structure obvious to the Founders no matter how many commas (or caps) a copyist might have added or deleted within its language."



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
The regulated militia IS your state or territory's National Guard. The guard is the legacy of the state militias. In 1903, the Dick Act (no jokes please) re-organized the National Guard into a new system. They remained under the control of the state Governor but could be federalized. The first such federalization of the NG came under Woodrow Wilson for the Mexican Border Conflict against Poncho Villa and then WW1 (not under Bush like another poster suggested). That said, militia units fought under regular army command in every major American conflict, from the Revolution to OEF/OIF.

The Guard is regarded as the "organized" militia. From 1792 to 1903, every able bodied male was considered to be part of the "unorganized" militia. In modern times, the "unorganized" militia consists of anyone eligible for Selective Service, so any male 18 or over.

Even if you adhere to the "militia" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment(which is not what our current government's interpretation is), only females and anyone under 18 could be barred from weapon ownership.

According to most of the Founders (Hamilton was a federalist control freak who hated the idea of democracy), the right to bear arms was a citizens' right, unconnected to military service. Jefferson, in particular, had some interesting ideas in this department (The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants).



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Uhm, you realize that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are complimentary? That w/o one the other doesn't have as much weight?

Our fundamental right to "arms" is to ensure that we are not able to be put under the tyranny of a despot.

USA Today version would read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as a well regulated militia, the people armed, is necessary for the security of free state."

Our forefathers saw first hand what happens to a disarmed populace. They knew what is done to people who aren't able to defend their liberty as they lived through/saw how England ran its business and our forefathers wanted to be sure such horrors would not beset America.

The weapons available now are terrible in the damage that they can inflict, but so were the weapons of the time of our forefathers.

Franklin's quote about sacrificing liberty for safety deserves neither is truth.

Derek



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


The same national guard that has been used to "bust unions", and murder U.S. citizens. I would have to say that the National Guard is probably not the militia that everyone would rely on during a domestic crisis. I certainly would not trust them, and would much rather have a citizen based militia that doesn't have such a blood tinged past. What I think is needed, is for the militia to be completely separate from the army, not able to be federalized at all. The citizens should be training in all forms of armed combat/survival, within their own community groups. So that the people whom you would rely on in a crisis, are all familiarized with how to survive in one. If you have a community planning committee, they should organize training events much like community soccer tournaments.

"Bring your family to our monthly survival get-together, BYOA" (bring your own ammo).



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I wholeheartedly agree. But we have haven't had a real militia since the Revolutionary War. And let's get this straight: a militia is NOT a standing army. The National Guard was intended as a militia (actually more of a "home guard"), but our NG is now taking turns serving in Crapistan. What good is a home guard if they're not at home? There is also a marked difference between the two, as militias aren't paid, and all of their weapons and uniforms (if they have one) are paid for by each individual militiaman (traditionally).

But state-sponsored, or even just state-approved, militia are not only a great idea, they are needed. Well-trained, regulated militiamen to assist in border security (which would likely be their use). They could also be organized for man-hunts (escaped felons, murders on the run, etc.). Militias aren't intended for day-to-day use like the police, but for larger issues that police don't have the man-power for, and for issues that military troops would be inappropriate for.

S&F

/TOA



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


I am sixtysix....i am trained...though never a full time soldier.,i spent my teens as a cadet soldier till eighteen,
5 yrs
I can run radio net or take a bren gun down in short order even now....and in between too...
Ive shot in competition and for qualifications at 96%avg.maybe a shade better....dont want to brag...

Also have a few years of IPSC shooting......and know a smattering of demo both home made and service....
trained as part of a mobile support column for nuclear war....(go in after the bomb goes off...)
I can read maps and chart a compass course on land or sea....fall big timber or fight forest fires, run any piece of equipment made for a man to work.
Logged the Monashee mountains for years, and never cut a block of trees but bug wood.......
I still have a skidder that runs fine, just for sentiment and snowplowing....could be armour plated in an evening too hey? it could mount an anti tank rocket like a milan or other as well as a belt fed machine gun and gunner....not stealth maybe,but effective ,
So i have considered things....am well trained considering ,and would be better of we had formal militia for civvies...not army reserves...
Militia is in the mind.............. wolverines!



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join