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

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
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.


The battle of Athens 1946. That's why.

en.wikipedia.org...(1946)




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


The name "National Guard" in itself implies it is a militia for the NATION, or national government, in-other-words,. Federal. That is not state led, trained, supplied. SO, it is not what the 2nd Amendment originally was referring to when written. The idea of an overarching and controlling national government is what the colonists were fighting against.....rememeber?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
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.


I would not say it requires but "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" seems to encorage to formation of local militias.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by MrSpad
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.


The battle of Athens 1946. That's why.

en.wikipedia.org...(1946)


If New Orleans (or Louisiana) had their own trained militia, then when the hurricane devastated the area, they would have been pulled into service to prevent the riots and looting, etc... that actually did occur. This is one recent example for the NEED of a non-standing local militia.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by MrSpad
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.


The battle of Athens 1946. That's why.

en.wikipedia.org...(1946)


If New Orleans (or Louisiana) had their own trained militia, then when the hurricane devastated the area, they would have been pulled into service to prevent the riots and looting, etc... that actually did occur. This is one recent example for the NEED of a non-standing local militia.


I was just about to mention that!

Yes if there had been emegancy procedures in place and a trained militia it may have gone alot diffrently!



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Kinda makes the enemy think twice about attacking a country that has 300 million armed citizens.
Trained in the use of weapons of war.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 



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.


The way I read this.
You can't have a militia without armed citizens.
In times of trouble and when you need to call up the locals to defend the nation.
It makes sense for them to have weapons they can use for defense.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


if you noticed i said the US government, not states.
there are two schools of thought on this , one is the states lost the right to maintain the militia, when the US statrted arming the militia and others say that the militia acts of 1792 and1795 strengthened the states rights.


i'll provide two links make of it what you want.

Militia (United States)

Militia Acts of 1792
edit on 9-5-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


ETA:

this is from the first link about half way down. section called National Guard.




National Guard
The National Guard (or National Guard of a State) differs from the National Guard of the United States; however, the two do go hand-in-hand. The National Guard is a militia force organized by each of the states and territories of the United States. Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States.[35] The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial government.[36] The National Guard may be called up for active duty by the state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[36]
edit on 9-5-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


ETA: thought i might add this.
Militia Act of 1903




U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard and the chair of the Committee on the Militia,[1] sponsored the 1903 Act towards the end of the 57th U.S. Congress. Under this legislation, passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.
edit on 9-5-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
The first part of the second amendment is call a preamble. A preamble is not a legally relevant part of a law. The actual law comes after the preamble.
The Declaration of Independance speaks of "unalienable" rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unalienable rights means "natural, God given" rights, rights everyone are born with that cannot be taken away. Self defense (life) is one of the "unalienable rights". Even though self defense is considered a natural right the Second Amendment was included to make absolutly clear that it was a right of the people and not just the sates or federal government. The Constitution clearly states what rights belong to the federal gov., to the states, and to the people.
So a perhaps a modern version of the Second Amendment would read: "Even though the states have the right to have a well regulated militia; The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed!"
edit on 9-5-2013 by Magister because: correction






top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join