A well regulated Militia and the 2nd amendment

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Folks,

I've been thinking a lot about the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms). This is a direct copy from www.archives.gov:



The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."


What that means to me is that any American can own a gun, as long as it's in support of a "well regulated Militia".

So I started to think about what constitutes a well regulated Militia. While I certainly haven't identified all of the traits, here is a decent list:

1. Trained in basic team combat and hand-to-hand techniques, as well as firearms
2. Have a leadership hierarchy and defined roles
3. The ability to communicate (command and control - C2)
4. Have a logistics process in place (this includes personnel transportation and supplies)

How many of us can identify with a well regulated militia? I sure can't in my neighborhood. We have NONE of the above attributes - we are just a bunch of people with no direction. In the face of crisis (or the SHTF scenario), we'd either band together quickly or become quite uncivil in short order.

This from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org...)



"During WWII, as it had done during the first World War, the United States Congress suspended all amateur radio operations.[11] With most of the American amateur radio operators in the armed forces at this time, the US government created the War emergency radio service which would remain active through 1945. After the War the amateur radio service began operating again, with many hams converting war surplus radios, such as the ARC-5, to amateur use."


I believe we could expect the same action taken in the SHTF scenario. In fact, all forms of electronic communications would probably be limited in scope, if not completely shut off. In effect, eliminating the C2 capability of any "Militia".

www.whitehouse.gov...



"(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;"



How does a Militia stand up without C2? Anyone? Will we be reliant on drums and bullhorns?

Could the government take our firearms because we *cannot* stand up a well regulated Militia?

I pose this questions to more seasoned and intelligent folks here as I search for solutions.

Warmest regards,
Av




posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
No.




posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Wow, those guys spelled it out. Thanks for the reply.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
No.



Awesome.


Second.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Avardan
 


C2 is no longer enough. Now it is C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, & Intelligence). Of course if the web and phone service is shut down, you'll still need C3I. All which are achievable in a SHTF situation, albiet slower flow of data back and forth.

Many States do have Militias that are regulated, but to be truthful, I don't see them staying to cohesive for to long. They would need National Guard support at a minimum.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
The powers that be could care less about the Constitution or Bill of Rights except that they are impediments to creating a NWO . They feel the need to disarm us like they did Britain, Australia and Canada . Those people of those countries can't have semiautomatic weapons capable of mounting a defense against United Nation troops who would try to take control of the USA.
Obama who didn't even have the common decency to salute the American Flag could not respect it's laws . And the UN hate our laws . And again the Rockefellers seem to be on the other side like in the WW2 and now they are for giving up sovereignty to the UN . The ENGINE that drives the UN is the Zionist Jews per the Protocols of Zion .



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Yah, I don't care anywhere USA, just you try bearing arms in the street. Empty words on ancient parchment.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I grow weary of the gun debate. Nothing ever gets resolved.

Don't want guns? Don't own guns.

Don't want ME to own guns? Whaa. Get over it.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Nice find on the video. I'm going to add that to my own playlist. lol... I love the last part. Oh how very true.




posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
It is not necessary to attempt to interpret the meaning of 'militia'. The term Militia is pretty clearly defined under US law. Essentially, it includes every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 under the classification of 'unorganized militia.' If you're in that age group, you're already considered 'militia' by the government's own legal definition.

As it relates to the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment, however, it probably has to include everyone, not just draft age men, because of that pesky 14th Amendment and its equal protection clause. Either that, or you have to strike down the Militia Act as unconstitutional.

Regardless, its not even an issue unless the Supreme Court decides to revisit its decision in DC v Heller. Until that time, your 2nd Amendment rights as a citizen are unconnected to militia service.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Avardan
 


Your dilemma in understanding the 2nd is brought about by your reading of it as a permission slip for the citizen.

The right is not what can be squeezed, massaged and "interpreted" from the words and structure of the 2nd Amendment because the right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment and is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution to exist.

The Supreme Court has never wavered in its opinion regarding the origin of the right to arms of the private citizen. That origin is of vital importance in understanding what the right to arms is. If the source of the right is the 2nd Amendment and the exercise of the right is limited to just the object of the Amendment (i.e., the preservation of the militia) then examining the Amendment to discern what the citizen is 'allowed' to do would be appropriate.

That is not the situation and that truth has been the law of the land for quite some time . . .

In 1876 the Court said in describing the exercise of the right to arms of two Freedmen (that of self defense from the KKK by ex-slave citizens), "The right . . . is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

The Supreme Court revisited the RKBA and 2nd Amendment in 1886 and quoted the 1876 case but exchanged the specific language of that case for the text of the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

In 2008 the Supreme Court revisited the issue: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .

So, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" is of course, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The right itself does not in any manner depend on what the 2nd Amendment says (or doesn't say), so it is not legitimate to impart qualifications and conditions on the right e.g., like saying a citizen must actually be, "well regulated" to exercise the right.

*
1876 - US v Cruikshank
1886 - Presser v Illinois
2008 - DC v Heller


edit on 23-6-2013 by Abatis because: grammar & punctuation



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Awesome Abatis, *that* was what I was looking for but didn't know it. As amusing as Penn & Teller are, your presentation was fantastic. Thank you.

--Av



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I suppose I could get my ass flamed for a Brit jumping in on this


But from where I'm sitting, it seems to me that the post by Abatis has reflected my own thoughts on this.
The 2nd Amendment, does NOT actually confer the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
But it does Officially Recognise and Reinforce the Fact that every American Has the Inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for his/her own Protection of life, Property, and the defense of the land when so called upon to do so.
And that Right, in no way can be, Removed, Contravened, Breached, Reduced, withdrawn, Diminished, Circumvented, or Abolished by anyone, Neither President or Act of Congress, or any appointed agent thereof.

But as a Brit who has gone through this Unlawful and Systematic removal of said Rights, by our own Govt.
I wholeheartedly urge all you Americans to stand Fast against this, as it probably is the Last bastion of freedom that you have to protect you from the tyranny TPTB are planning for us all.

On the Flip side though it certainly shows how bloody scared of the people the TPTB really are
edit on 26-6-2013 by Ramadhiman because: typo



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I guess I interpret it differently than others. This is how I interpret it:

The people were the militia in those days. There was no real army in the revolutionary war days and minutemen (citizen soldiers) were used. These were ordinary Americans that were called up to fight the revolution. In many cases muskets and firearms were supplied by the citizen himself. Thus since you need a militia "being necessary to the security of a free state" Hence the right to keep and bear arms for the private citizen

Or am I the only one thinking this?
edit on 26-6-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
 


That's basically correct. If you read through the Militia Act of 1792, it referred to all men ages 18-45. At the time, they were expected to be an organized militia, but that has since been dropped in later versions. Now, there are two classes, organized (the National Guard) and unorganized (everyone else).

Interestingly, they were apparently expected to provide their own firearm as well. Its in the first paragraph of the 2nd section.


Militia Act of 1792



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
One of the first posts I ever read on ATS:


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
(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.

The only problem i have with this is the "under 45 years of age"

When this was written many men did not live long after age 45.

I am 62 and still can shoot better then when i was 20 and in the navy and i was on a navy shooting team.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Avardan
 


C2 is no longer enough. Now it is C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, & Intelligence). Of course if the web and phone service is shut down, you'll still need C3I. All which are achievable in a SHTF situation, albiet slower flow of data back and forth.

Many States do have Militias that are regulated, but to be truthful, I don't see them staying to cohesive for to long. They would need National Guard support at a minimum.


The word "regulated" as it was used back in the 18th century does not mean what it has evolved into in the 21st century. The first thing that comes to mind today is control, laws, rules. In the 18th century is meant trained.

According to the constitution the FedGov is supposed to provide weapons use training to every citizen.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
(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.

The only problem i have with this is the "under 45 years of age"

When this was written many men did not live long after age 45.

I am 62 and still can shoot better then when i was 20 and in the navy and i was on a navy shooting team.


It is very important that the word "organized" is not used to replace the actual constitutions word "regulated". The word "regulated" was used for a very exacting definition.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny

According to the constitution the FedGov is supposed to provide weapons use training to every citizen.



Thanks for helping me start the day with a chuckle. I'd be good with that.


But the same Government that wants to restrict our right to bear arms sure seems to give them to our enemies pretty freely, don't they?

Maybe they should take a page from the Swiss.
edit on 26-6-2013 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join