"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Have the USA people fo

I see people throw the secound part of the 2nd amendment about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" all the time but the first part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

So I see lots of Americans owning guns. Fair enough this is not a debate on if guns should be banned ect

But why does every state, town and city not have its own millitia? Surley if the constitution is still 100% relevent then you guys should have a millitia system still thats indpendant of the govement with regular training?

I hear people say that guns in the USA is to protect them from tyranny of the govemnet. Yes but that is supposed to work in conjuction with training and organisation of a militia.

If civil war was to breakout now the the rebels would be so disorganised and logisticaly inferoir that even if half the US army was to join you you would not have much chance as war is not just about guns and going pew pew pew but organisation and planning which a militia would be responsible for.

If you had kept up with the idea of private miltia then it would be a force to be recckond with and I bet the tyrannical things your govement is doing now would not be going on.IE if Boston had a militia I bet all the warrentless forced searchs would not have happend.

For my queation do you think the American people have forgot its duty?

Originally posted by crazyewok
But why does every state, town and city not have its own millitia? Surley if the constitution is still 100% relevent then you guys should have a millitia system still thats indpendant of the govement with regular training?

In the US, the citizenry IS the militia, legally.

That's how our draft system works...they don't impress you, they call you to active duty from the informal militia.

reply to post by crazyewok


Arizona does, maybe its the beginning of a trend

Militia

Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill creating a state militia that she could deploy at any time, and for any reason. The bill, SB1495, creates a volunteer state militia, separate and apart from the National Guard. Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, who sponsored a near identical House bill, said this type of legislation couldn’t have come at a better time.

Originally posted by Bedlam

In the US, the citizenry IS the militia, legally.

But it is hardly "well regulated". Surely one would assume it means training and organisation planning ect.

Plus the role of the militia is supposed to be a tool to proetct from tyranny is it not? Not just a pool for drafting.

The definition and meaning of "Militia" was a valid debate point .....until D.C. Vs. Heller, settled in 2009. In it, the Supreme Court finally settled the matter by, among other things, finding:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Source

I just thought I would throw that in to help with clarification.

Militia defines the entire U.S. Public, as they are fit to own and operate a firearm in this case.

Originally posted by Berzerked
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Arizona does, maybe its the beginning of a trend

Militia

Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill creating a state militia that she could deploy at any time, and for any reason. The bill, SB1495, creates a volunteer state militia, separate and apart from the National Guard. Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, who sponsored a near identical House bill, said this type of legislation couldn’t have come at a better time.

See exactly what I mean. Thanks for the quote Seeems at least 1 state has read the constitution

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The definition and meaning of "Militia" was a valid debate point .....until D.C. Vs. Heller, settled in 2009. In it, the Supreme Court finally settled the matter by, among other things, finding:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Source

I just thought I would throw that in to help with clarification.

Militia defines the entire U.S. Public, as they are fit to own and operate a firearm in this case.

No that fair enough. You dont have to be apart of a militia to own a gun.

My point is should other states be following the example of Arizona and forming there own militia? As surely that is the best way to check the power of the Fedral Govemnet?

reply to post by crazyewok


Many States do have a militia. They are controlled, funded and trained by the states that have them. Mostly they are back-up to first responders in case of a disaster. They allow the first responders to operate more effectively by pulling them off of traffic control, helping with aid, etc. Many are former first responders and military and a lot just want to do their part in a time of need.

But then you have home-grown militias, which are the ones people look at with a jaundiced eye. Some have a good agenda (To help their fellow man) and some...not so much. (Though they may think that they are helping)

That's the quandery.

Well if we were to create a "militia" we would most likely be labeled as enemies of the state...not so good. I would rather have the government think that the cost of quelling a uprising with extreme force would be equally damaging on both sides if all were armed... and hope that it just might be enough to deter some crazy thinking about police states or martial law.

What would be the point of a town militia? Unless you need protecting from local bandits in a 3rd world nation militias are pretty much worthless. All states have clauses for state militias and many have them but, call them State Defense Forces. They however are mostly unarmed and used for natural disasters and such. The last thing people want is some half trained armed militia shooting stuff up. They have no combat value and would just end up causing ploblems as they tripped over the local police, state police, and national guard in what ever emergancy came up.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The definition and meaning of "Militia" was a valid debate point .....until D.C. Vs. Heller, settled in 2009. In it, the Supreme Court finally settled the matter by, among other things, finding:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Source

I just thought I would throw that in to help with clarification.

Militia defines the entire U.S. Public, as they are fit to own and operate a firearm in this case.

Yes you are correct but even to go one step further I will add that a militia is not a standing army.

Technically all States have a militia since militia's are made up from the populace.

I agree that is is not a standing army. BUT surely "well regulated" Implies some sort of training and way to organise incase of it being needed?

Rather than inviduals bumbling about without direction whne the crap hits the fan so to speak.

reply to post by crazyewok


Oh, in terms of should they? Yeah... I think it's a fairly good idea, actually. Missouri has a Militia and while not directly formed by the Office of the Governor, it does sometimes train with and has worked closely with State and Local Law Enforcement. They get called when manpower is needed to do Search and Rescue for a lost camper out in the vast Mark Twain forest or other matters where large numbers of volunteers with a base line of training is necessary but not worth a standing, commissioned force to maintain, outside of that.

Having had some peripheral contact with the local Battalion of the Missouri Militia in this area, I can say they take it quite seriously too. They have formal medics among them that share training in that as well as practical things like properly establishing an landing zone for medical evacuation. They also travel heavy, when needed, with their own communications, equipment and more.

I'd say there are very good uses ...and yes, they do have min. levels of standard for firearms ownership, training and proficiency to be a member. That is a part, not a focus of what they do though.

Originally posted by crazyewok
I agree that is is not a standing army. BUT surely "well regulated" Implies some sort of training and way to organise incase of it being needed?

Rather than inviduals bumbling about without direction whne the crap hits the fan so to speak.

That is exactly what well regulated has been interpreted to say.

Even Hamilton wrote about it. In Federalist #29 he wrote,

"This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Oh, in terms of should they? Yeah... I think it's a fairly good idea, actually. Missouri has a Militia and while not directly formed by the Office of the Governor, it does sometimes train with and has worked closely with State and Local Law Enforcement. They get called when manpower is needed to do Search and Rescue for a lost camper out in the vast Mark Twain forest or other matters where large numbers of volunteers with a base line of training is necessary but not worth a standing, commissioned force to maintain, outside of that.

Having had some peripheral contact with the local Battalion of the Missouri Militia in this area, I can say they take it quite seriously too. They have formal medics among them that share training in that as well as practical things like properly establishing an landing zone for medical evacuation. They also travel heavy, when needed, with their own communications, equipment and more.

I'd say there are very good uses ...and yes, they do have min. levels of standard for firearms ownership, training and proficiency to be a member. That is a part, not a focus of what they do though.

See another good example which I think perfectly fits the first part of the secound amendment.

well as far as the U.S. government is concerned the national guard is the militia or at least a sub set.

i know here in fl, there is a armory, in just about every city and every small town.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes USC-prelim US Code Notes Updates Authorities (CFR) USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) (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.

this is also from the wiki.
National Guard of the United States

The United States National Guard is authorized by the Constitution of the United States. As originally drafted, the Constitution recognized the existing state Militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The Constitution distinguished "Militia(s)", which were state entities, from "Troops", which were unlawful for states to maintain under normal circumstances. (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3)

edit on 9-5-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

reply to post by crazyewok


Quite frankly because it's not the 1700's anymore.

And most of america has become very complacent. The constitution was written in a different era. When the country needed militia to support the army.
Now not so much.

But IMO everyone at the age of 18 should be sent to boot camp and at least complete basic training. And sent home with a rifle to be maintained and ready in case the country needs us.

Switzerland does this. Works for them.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Quite frankly because it's not the 1700's anymore.

And most of america has become very complacent. The constitution was written in a different era. When the country needed militia to support the army.
Now not so much.

In some ways it seems hypacritcal for people to demand there right on the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment but ignore the first.

But I agree basic training at 18 and sent home with some sort of muster plan would IMO fullfil the requiments of the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Quite frankly because it's not the 1700's anymore.

And most of america has become very complacent. The constitution was written in a different era. When the country needed militia to support the army.
Now not so much.

In some ways it seems hypacritcal for people to demand there right on the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment but ignore the first.

But I agree basic training at 18 and sent home with some sort of muster plan would IMO fullfil the requiments of the 2nd amendment.

Your falling into the trap that many people do.

The second amendment wasn't actually written to give anyone a right it was written to put limitations on the federal government.

The right to bear arms comes from old English law with foundations in Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli and others.

Its a minor thing but one I like to point out. Basically the framers of the constitution were going under the assumption that owning weapons was a right already so they put in the second to protect that right from the government.

The Second Amendment does not require anyone to form or join a militia, any more than it requires people to keep and bear arms. It simply prohibits the infringement of the people's right to bear arms.