Understanding the "Militia"

A lot of people on this forum are woefully misinformed as to what constitutes the militia. This will clarify it for you.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If you still insist that the 2nd amendment does not refer to an individual right,. you are simply wrong. The supreme court has ruled on this.

Go to pg.24, and the last paragraph of www.scotusblog.com...

"23 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court

...

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate”: "To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”)."

End of story.

Furthermore, if you STILL insist that the 2nd amendment does not refer to the ability of the people to keep arms in anticipation of a tyrannical government coming to power, the supreme court has also addressed this:

Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed.,
2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of
Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of
America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the
Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in
id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum
that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen
militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive
military force if the constitutional order broke down.

It may be the end of the story. Then again it may be a catalyst for amending the 2nd amendment. The constitution was written 230 years ago. At this point it is kinda like trying to use the instructions for a typewriter to learn to use a computer.

The world is no longer as simple as it was when the document was conceived. Perhaps it is time for a new Constitution.

Here let me start:

We the People do hereby declare too give control of our lives and decisions to our Government. The rights of the individual are to be forsaken for the rights of The Corporations as the individual has been proven to not know WTF is good for them...........

Sarcasm off.

Originally posted by angrysniper



If you still insist that the 2nd amendment does not refer to an individual right,. you are simply wrong. The supreme court has ruled on this.

There are many of quotes from our Founding Fathers that make it completely clear that the 2nd Amendment refers to the People. Its undeniable.

Gun grabbers greatly dislike that fact. Tough luck to them. If they dont like it, there are many other countries in which they can MOVE to which do not have that "pesky" 2nd Amendment Right to worry about. They are free to leave any time they wish. Farewell.

America would get along quite nicely without Traitors within her borders anyway...

reply to post by Mamatus

I know some here would strongly disagree with my interpretation on this...but I'll say it anyway because it's how I understand this to work after research and college studying it.

The fact it's 230+ years old for original concepts is why those who created it also created the Supreme Court and bestowed upon them the power of interpretation to changing times and events.

The 9 Robed ones were given unbelievable power and autonomous authority which, unlike the other 2 branches, is NOT subject to checks and balance in any normal way. They ARE the ultimate check and balance in reality and by design.

To further that and remove politics from the system of the highest court, they were also the only members of the Government designed from the start to serve terms of LIFE ...and not set for regular change, rotation or removal. Once in, they die or retire of their own choosing. That's it...outside a very unlikely course of action outlined as a last option should that actually go haywire on us someday. The lifetime appointments also insured the court would reasonably consist of members from different Presidents and times. This, to read the papers supporting the Constitution, insured interpretation and change for meaning of the document would come in a slow, controlled and reasoned way ..... NOT subject to emotions and general reactionary attitudes of any given time.

...and that is why the Constitution is STILL the best document for a basis of Government in the world today, despite the scumbags who happen to lead two of our 3 branches right now. Even that...was planned for.

reply to post by Mamatus


This "outdated" remark concerning the founding documents is complete RUBBISH! The ideals that our forefathers had, become "outdated" ONLY when the possibilities of what they envisioned might happen could NOT happen. Thus far, as I see it, a tyrannical government taking over their country is just as real a possibility today as it was way back then. History has proven this many times!

The Second amendment was used in 1946 to great effect. Eleanor Rosevelt applauded the action. Probably 95% of the population don't know a thing about it unforunately. My grandfather was a part of this battle against government tyranny. The link gives some good info, there is a book about it with much more information.

Battle of Athens (1946)

Citizens of McMinn County had long been concerned about political corruption and possible election fraud.[1] The U.S. Department of Justice had investigated allegations of electoral fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944, but had not taken action.[1][2] The wealthy Cantrell family essentially ruled the county. Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, and was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944, while his former deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff.[1][2] A state law enacted in 1941 had reduced local political opposition by reducing the number of voting precincts from 23 to 12 and reducing the number of justices of the peace from fourteen to seven (including four "Cantrell men").[1] The sheriff and his deputies worked under a fee system whereby they received money for every person they booked, incarcerated, and released; the more arrests, the more money they made.[1] Buses passing through the county were often pulled over and the passengers were randomly ticketed for drunkenness, whether guilty or not.[1]

In the August 1946 election, Paul Cantrell was once again a candidate for sheriff, while Pat Mansfield sought the state senate seat.[1] After World War II ended, some 3,000 military veterans (constituting about 10 percent of the county population) had returned to McMinn County. Some of the returning veterans resolved to challenge Cantrell's political control by fielding their own nonpartisan candidates and working for a fraud-free election.[1] They called themselves the GI Non-Partisan League.[3] Veteran Bill White described the veterans' motivation:


There were several beer joints and honky-tonks around Athens; we were pretty wild; we started having trouble with the law enforcement at that time because they started making a habit of picking up GIs and fining them heavily for most anything—they were kind of making a racket out of it. After long hard years of service—most of us were hard-core veterans of World War II—we were used to drinking our liquor and our beer without being molested. When these things happened, the GIs got madder—the more GIs they

en.wikipedia.org...(1946)

www.americanheritage.com...

reply to post by ajay59


I am not disagreeing with you. Although I would argue that our "Principals" as a Nation have changed significantly in the last 230 years. Times do change, so do attitudes and methods. I would prefer to stick with the rock solid principals of The Constitution. However, so much of it has already been thrown to the wind that it may be time to draw that document into the open again.

Maybe it is time to review what we all think we believe in. In doing so maybe we will all see how much we have already lost. Heck 99.9% of Americans work for hours and stand in line to willing waive their Fifth Amendment rights every tax season....

reply to post by Mamatus


By bringing up the 5th, I assume you are pointing to the fact that a form 1040 is more a coerced confession than anything else? That, of coarse, being but one point concerning the 5th.

reply to post by ajay59


You are correct.

reply to post by Mamatus

Although I would argue that our "Principals" as a Nation have changed significantly in the last 230 years. Times do change, so do attitudes and methods. I would prefer to stick with the rock solid principals of The Constitution. However, so much of it has already been thrown to the wind that it may be time to draw that document into the open again.

I would think we need to get our Principals back in line with the document, rather than change the document to suit our needs today....besides...we could never pull it off today....they can't even get a budget..how are they ever going to agree to anything with our rights involved

reply to post by Mamatus


It is probably not necessary to bring up the part about " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". We trade our labor for compensation and there is no profit made!

reply to post by okiecowboy


Our Principals will never return to those originally written. There are simply too many people with too many differences and zero ability to learn new tricks.

"We the Sheeple" would never look good on a new Constitution......... I hate that over used term because real sheep get along pretty well with each other.