A Well Regulated Militia, Always Ignored..

reply to post by RealSpoke

I agree with you, but the issue is about gun ownership, although the two topics certainly go hand in hand. Usually when the militia conversation comes up, the National Guard Act surfaces as the answer to your question. Anti-gun people will point to the act and proclaim that the National Guard took the place of the state militia. What they fail to realize is that the state militia's main purpose is to defend its respective state against federal government tyranny, and because the National Guard is federally funded, a conflict of interest arises. Besides, the National Guard Act was passed unconstitutionally and should be nullified.

reply to post by RealSpoke

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.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state.

The Second Amendment is not a command for the federal government to regulate gun owners into a federally controlled militia, it is an express prohibition of the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms (which included far more than guns), because in the time of any need of a militia it will be the people that federal government must turn to.

Context is everything and standing armies at the time the Second Amendment were non-existent. A consideration of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 - the very same year that Second Amendment came into effect - where militiamen were used to quell an insurrection. This militia was 15,000 strong, provided by the Governors of Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. None of these states had standing armies either, and more importantly there were no armories to supply weapons to the people who formed the militia.

Congress' willingness to perpetually approve funding for long standing armies did not, in effect, render the purpose of the Second Amendment meaningless. That Second Amendment begins with the argument that well regulated militias, such as the ones formed to face the insurrectionists of the Whiskey Rebellion, are necessary to a free state and this is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

You are assuming that the pramble phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is modifying the clause declaring the right "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infrionged." Consider the phrase,

"Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat."

Does this mean that Joe should buy a boat ONLY if he fishes for a living? What if Joe likes to water ski? The preamble does not limit the clause. It doesn't even need to be true for the rest of the statement to stand. And as long as we're quoting founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson said:

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Period. End of story. No militia required.

Likewise, does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its perceived benefits no longer exists? No individual right depends on the government's actions. That's why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were ENDOWED (with) by our creator. instead of some bureaucrat.

"Well regulated" means "working well" like a "well regulated" clock. It's like "gun control" means "hitting your target." The fact that someone does not know how to shoot a gun is really irrelevant. And this seems to be the main thrust of your argument. "Some people do not know how to shoot, therefore they are useless, therefore there is no individual right to own a gun."

I agree completely that these people may be useless, completely useless as a militia member, but as far as I'm concerned, their lack of skill doesn't have anything to do with my level of skill. All it means is that they won't be of concern to me. The people I am worried about are those who DO know how to shoot a gun and also don't want me to have one.

"Militia" means my neighbor and me. "Well regulated" means we work well together defending our neighborhood. The "right to keep and bear arms" is an individual one.

The US Supreme Court agrees.

Good points ( and a few bad in this thread).....


As far as a "well regulated miliita" that doesn't really exist in teh manner the OP is referencing. It originally did, militia members met and drilled, much like today's national guard. However; since 1903 and 1916 (several pieces of legislation were enacted dealing with the militia, the Guard, and the active military) I beleive, the militia's were folded into the National Guard, and the National Guard is technically the Reserve Army of the United States Federal government. Sure it's under "state" control, but only if it isn't federalized. Which means according to the founders intent, is now part of the very Fed army the citizens should be wary of.

So you have essentially two choices. Form your own milita and risk being watched as a potential terrorist group.

OR

Join (or start) your own STATE Defense Force militia. Many states have them. Some call them "STATE GUARD". These are state sponsered militia's. The only problem is, in some, they are VERY regulated and in others, hardly at all. And in a few.....NOT ALLOWED firearms. So their usefullness is debatable. Here is some info:

en.wikipedia.org...

The OP said 99% of gun owners don't have any military training or know how. I would beg to differ. I don't know if anyone has real numbers, but I would bet that upwards of 25% of gun owners are former military. 2nd, even if you weren't a veteran of the armed forces, it doesn't mean you don't have any training whatsoever.Think of the following:

Boy Scouts (especially Eagle and higher ranked scouts) have a rifle and shotgun shooting program and merit badge, and that training is quite indepth and NRA certified. Most Scouts have very good field skills in camping, survival, tracking, land navigation and map reading, first aid. etc. There is a fairly ready trained force right there.

en.wikipedia.org...

Rifle Merit Badge
www.usscouts.org...
Shotgun Merit Badge
www.usscouts.org...

ROTC (especially college level) ROTC is designed as a college class to produce officers. Many enroll in it, but not everyone (for various reasons) gets a commission out of it. But in just 2 semesters of ROTC most will learn basic rifle marksmanship, care and use of the M-16. Basics of how to use hand grenades, M-60/M249 Machine Gun, AT4 antitank rocket, basic land nav, squad and platoon level tactics and maneuvers, radio use, etc.

Army site:
www.goarmy.com...
Wiki page: Includes basic cirriculum
en.wikipedia.org...


Civil Air Patrol: A volunteer auxillery of the USAF. Members work disaster relief, Search and Rescue, and are trained in these function by teh USAF. Cadet members attend military encampments and special activities, including summer camps with Air Force Special Ops, Air Force Officer Schools, International Cadet Exchanges, Flight training. While a unarmed, and civil program, a cadet who completes to the upper levels of the progam will have a fair amount of military training, and will be promoted to E-3 if enlisting.

Wiki
en.wikipedia.org...
CAP page
www.gocivilairpatrol.com...

CMP (civil marksmanship program) A GOVERNMENT sponsered civillian shooting program, designed to teach rifle marksmanship to all citizens. At one point, you could purchase government M-1 Garands through them


en.wikipedia.org...
www.odcmp.com...

Anyways, my point (especially to the OP) is that there are people and groups who, while not military, have good solid firearms and/or basic field craft and basic military skills that could form the nucleus of any sort of "militia". Gun owners aren't just "bubbas with bullets and beer" as so many like to point out.

reply to post by RealSpoke


There are some that agree with you and are taking steps to educate the people on how to use a firearm. Its called the appleseed project. its all about the second amendment and how to create a educated population of gun owners.

appleseedinfo.org...

Originally posted by seeker1963
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??????

I actually took a whole college course on the 2nd amendment and it's issues. "Guns and the Constitution" Sr/Graduate level....good course.

One of the things I remember is the term "arms" back in the day basicly meant the standard individual service arm of an infantryman, Which at the time would have been the "American Long Rifle" (often cited as the Kentucky Rifle). Today that would be an M-16/AR-15. NOT a peashooter. The people needed some basic weapons to stand up agains a founding army. So the 2nd protects, specifically, that type of weapon.

Some people (especially anti gun types) stretch that into some statement of, "well you guys think machine guns, or cannons, or nuclear bombs are covered by the 2nd".

Well one could make a basic argument for light machine guns, and grenades, because those could also be standard infantry arms today, maybe even to things like the M72 LAW and AT4 anti tank rockets, which can be carried and used by one individual.. BUT crew served weapons such as cannon, were refered to as "ordnance" in the lingo of the 1700s and was specifically left out. Lots of people at the time of the writing actually owned cannons and other "ordnance", but the founders thought it should be open to regulation.

So AR-15's and other individual military weapons should be personally owned, but crew served weapons should be regulated.

If I am not mistaken when the British marched on Lexington and Concord, it was to capture cannon, supplies, and other heavy weaponry that was at the armory, while the individuals had their personal arms at home. it was at the armory because, even though the 2nd had not yet been written, having the heavy weapons at an armory and personnal weapons at home was standard procedure for militie back then.

i got excited because i saw "militia" and thought it was a call to arms!

"A well regulated militia" modifies but doesnt define the Second Amendment which (as part of the Bill of Rights to protect individual rights) states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yes, "regulation" refers to timing as in a clock and not regulation by the state per se. "The security of a free state" also establishes the importance of a militia to that end. This covers security against all enemies (foreign and domestic).

Tangentially, with all of the recent mass shootings we could be seeing them escalate from a solitary shooter (lone gunman) to a patriot militia or extreme groups (tied to militias) to demonize the concept of militias and remove that rationale for the Second Amendment (either by taking advantage legislatively of "random" shootings or carefully orchestrated false flag operations). Once the supporting leg of militias is negated then it will be easier to directly assail the right to keep and bear arms. Remember rogue governments are more afraid of a well "organized" militia than they are of either people protecting themselves from local crime or lone gunmen terrorizing citizens.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Uhhhh what we do have well regulated militias....

Local militias, unconnected to the centralized government, were basically neutered at Appomattox in 1865. To re-institute, you pretty much have to massively slash the federal government.

I train and regulate my target practice at least every weekend, for it's my right. So far no entity of my city, county, state or federal government has told me I couldn't......it's working for me. And in all honesty, it better not. I live out in the country and alone oftentimes while my man is out of town working and if someone were to come invade my home, first they need to get past my dogs and by then I'm awake, loaded and ready to protect myself and my daughter all while after I've called 911 to get out to me, but in the meantime you deal with me and my gun. Sorry but that's my right and I am more than ready to deal.

For those who would like to know the truth about the National Guard, I offer this link.

History and governing laws of the Guard

reply to post by RealSpoke


i assume - you are advocating a malitia similar to the swiss armed forces model ?

ie - compulsory basic training for every citizen + periodic refresher coursers , and mandated storage of weapon and equipment ?

Originally posted by SarnholeOntarable
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.

Why?

The intent was to provide citizens a shot at maintaining their freedom from tyranny not matching the military ball for ball.(Its the ultimate relief valve for over reaching govt.) the musket was the "assault rifle" of its day and equal to the best military issued weapons.. We would have zero chance maintaining our freedom with muzzle loaders today. The 2nd IS NOT about technology! or "sporting purposes" you are submitting a false argument...

Is the U.S.military always going to have superior cutting edge weapons technology; firepower and numbers?
I hope so.

I just hope they follow the law and not apply these advantages against the people who paid for them.

The biggest problem with the US at the present time is that you don't know what the hell the military will do in a SHTF. The military take an oath, first, to the constitution. If they were to be used against the people they may just turn around and decide to protect them.

The problem is one of training. Soldiers are trained to follow orders. They are not supposed to think! What you all need right now is a protest drive starting deep down south lead by someone with some Charisma. By the time the slow moving procession entered DC you would have a huge armed force, hopefully, you would have picked up a lot of military units on the way.

Otherwise they will come and take your guns from your cold unmoving rather dead hands.

You need a group to lead, hm, Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal, a few politicians to do the baby kissing, some musicians to get the youth in. Everybody needs to be armed. Oh yea, take lots of lawyers, a battalion should do. Actually, no, leave them home, take a few retired judges with you.

P

I had this conversation with people at work... Mostly idiots but this is their response to your question..

We were talking about that shooting in the movie place.. Then one of the people stated that I don't understand why we need a big gun like the one that guy used.. I stated because we have the 2nd amendment.. They said well we still don't need that gun..

I stated but we do the 2nd amendment stated that we have the right to keep and bare arms for a well regulated militia so in cause the government got to big we will be able to bring it down.."This is me being stupid of course but that is what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is.." Anyway these people don't believe we need big guns because our government isn't bad at all.. But then again out of 30 people I asked if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 only 2 said no..

For the record I do not like guns but I am glad as hell for the 2nd amendment in case it is ever needed..

reply to post by 46ACE


There are limits placed on it, we cannot own nukes, or other WMDs.

There are age limits

Certain states you have to have a permit

*

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I get what you're saying.

But do you agree that the founding fathers thought a militia was just as important as having the populace the ability to bare arms? Why would they put that in there otherwise?

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I had this conversation with people at work... Mostly idiots but this is their response to your question..

We were talking about that shooting in the movie place.. Then one of the people stated that I don't understand why we need a big gun like the one that guy used.. I stated because we have the 2nd amendment.. They said well we still don't need that gun..

I stated but we do the 2nd amendment stated that we have the right to keep and bare arms for a well regulated militia so in cause the government got to big we will be able to bring it down.."This is me being stupid of course but that is what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is.." Anyway these people don't believe we need big guns because our government isn't bad at all.. But then again out of 30 people I asked if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 only 2 said no..

For the record I do not like guns but I am glad as hell for the 2nd amendment in case it is ever needed..

edit on 8/8/2012 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)

That comes down to apathy about learning anything about the constitution. I was lucky I had a very good history teacher in HS that spent the better part of a month on the Constitution and the Decleration of Independance. Then I majored in political science, so I took plenty of Constitutional Law and Constitutional Issues courses. I have forgotten alot of the specifics, but can identify BS about it from 3 miles away.......