The Militia of The United States...

[USAF Medic]

Concerning the US militia?

Section 311, Title 10, United States Code (a) The militia of the United States consists of all ablebodied 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... show more Section 311, Title 10, United States Code (a) The militia of the United States consists of all ablebodied 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 commissioned officers of the National Guard.

Based on this, could it be argued that everyone fitting this criteria who does not own at least one firearm suitable for military use is in dereliction of duty?

Read More

 

[boogerhook]

Kind of reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

and Nelson, as well
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/01/georgia-gun-ownership-requirement/2044639/

 

[USAF Medic]

Kind of reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Reserve, Lincoln County New Mexico, also requires every head of household own at least one firearm.

 

[boogerhook]

Let's start with Lincoln City then, Ulysses ;-)

 

[USAF Medic]

I'd vote for it...

 

[boogerhook]

no chance up here

 

[U201491]

Kind of reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

and Nelson, as well
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/01/georgia-gun-ownership-requirement/2044639/

And Chiloquin Oregon

Just add that over 45 are also on that We're better shots anyway

 

[Gunguy45]

I certainly wouldn't. I'm opposed to anything being "mandated" at gunpoint. Freedom means freedom NOT to own a gun too.

 

[USAF Medic]

I certainly wouldn't. I'm opposed to anything being "mandated" at gunpoint. Freedom means freedom NOT to own a gun too.

The cool part is you are welcome and free to vote against it too.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Isnt signing up for the draft at 18 part of ones duty as well?

I did it, however Im quite sure no one I went to school with knew we had to.

 

[Gunguy45]

I didn't sign up for the draft because I was already in uniform and deployed on my 18th birthday.

I actually got denied job-training despite the fact that I listed my military experience. I had to show the dates on my dd214 (which they already had) before they would give me benefits.

But I'm opposed to the draft. It's legalized slavery. And a Republic that can't raise the people VOLUNTARILY to defend itself is already doomed.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I didn't sign up for the draft because I was already in uniform and deployed on my 18th birthday.

I actually got denied job-training despite the fact that I listed my military experience. I had to show the dates on my dd214 (which they already had) before they would give me benefits.

But I'm opposed to the draft. It's legalized slavery. And a Republic that can't raise the people VOLUNTARILY to defend itself is already doomed.

Oh I agree, but by law I thought it was our duty.

 

[Gunguy45]

Oh I agree, but by law I thought it was our duty.

It may be a legal obligation, but I don't think it's ANYONE'S "duty" to sign up for legalized slavery.

I was taught that it's every man's duty, if he's physically qualified, to volunteer for term of service in the military. I tend to agree with that, with the caveat that some people physically qualified are so emotionally incapable of serving that they ought to save themselves and the military a lot of grief by not signing up.

We have the most badass ground forces we've ever had by a LONG shot. Our Army and Marines are head and shoulders better than at anytime in our nation's history. They are professional, impeccably trained and generally,highly motivated. There may be a few sad Sacks here and there, but they are the rare exception.

Contrast that with the 1950s and 1960s draftee army, who didn't want to be there, were poorly trained and totally unmotivated, It's day and night.

Man for man, I think THIS army would beat the crap out of any army we've ever fielded given the same equipment. and that's DESPITE the "safety first, don't do anything to offend anyone" PC BS that is part of the army today.

I was in Germany in the early 80s. We were TERRIFIED of what would happen if the Sovs decided to invade, because we damn well knew the guys on the front-lines wouldn't hold. Hell, their own officers couldn't walk into a barracks unarmed just a couple of years before.

Today? God help the Russkies if we ever fought a real war. It would be so lop-sided an asskicking that Historians would forever after be asking themselves "What was Putin THINKING?" And that's not about equipment and not about technology. It's about the quality of Soldier/Marine we field these days. You will never EVER get that with a draftee army.

 

[U201491]

I certainly wouldn't. I'm opposed to anything being "mandated" at gunpoint. Freedom means freedom NOT to own a gun too.

Yeah but that is called a responsibility. If you want to be a conscientious objector then so be it.
But the defense of the Constitution is a Responsibility of every American and I mean every "Real" American.
To depend on everyone else to defend it but being unwilling to bear those arms...........
Well............................
Freedom is God Given but also an earned thing when there are those that would take if from us..
If you don't want to be Armed with a firearm, then be armed with a Knife, and Ax, a club. If that doesn't suit you then learn a Martial art. Simply put every man woman and child that lives in freedom here also has the responsibility to fight for it if necessary.
It will never be kept without that and it is unfair to expect others to take up arms for those that are unwilling to defend it themself. Harsh, yes, but so is life in general. It is up to all of us to ease that harshness by standing strong.
To this day I still believe those that ran to Canada during the Viet Nam War never deserved the right to come back to America. They showed their true colors then.
There were many that didn't want to pick up arms then, but they became Medics, Corpsmen and other things but they served their fellow Americans, The runners were cowards,
Well this Rant is over................. Damn..... That one wound me up a bit.
Yeah mandating everyone be armed is just fine by me, unless they feel for religious reasons or conscience they do not want to. They can help in other ways, but help is the key word, not run, not make excuses. it is the price of freedom and yes freedom has to have some price to keep it and it must be paid or lose it. Taking up arms is, sometimes, that price.

 

[Stomper]

Our mitary today is indeed amazing, and they got some cool tech. The Army came out of its "low period" starting around '83 and was high speed, low drag when I was enlisted from '85-'93. From day one we trained to fight (and win) against a 10-1 numerical disadvantage, plus we knew we had glow-bugs to back us up.

We respected good leadership, openly despised incompetents and slackers, and would have handed ANY enemy their fresh-cut livers.

The best thing about our military (then and now), we're there because we wanted to.

 

[Gunguy45]

Yeah but that is called a responsibility. If you want to be a conscientious objector then so be it.
But the defense of the Constitution is a Responsibility of every American and I mean every "Real" American.
To depend on everyone else to defend it but being unwilling to bear those arms...........
Well............................
Freedom is God Given but also an earned thing when there are those that would take if from us..
If you don't want to be Armed with a firearm, then be armed with a Knife, and Ax, a club. If that doesn't suit you then learn a Martial art. Simply put every man woman and child that lives in freedom here also has the responsibility to fight for it if necessary.
It will never be kept without that and it is unfair to expect others to take up arms for those that are unwilling to defend it themself. Harsh, yes, but so is life in general. It is up to all of us to ease that harshness by standing strong.
To this day I still believe those that ran to Canada during the Viet Nam War never deserved the right to come back to America. They showed their true colors then.
There were many that didn't want to pick up arms then, but they became Medics, Corpsmen and other things but they served their fellow Americans, The runners were cowards,
Well this Rant is over................. Damn..... That one wound me up a bit.
Yeah mandating everyone be armed is just fine by me, unless they feel for religious reasons or conscience they do not want to. They can help in other ways, but help is the key word, not run, not make excuses. it is the price of freedom and yes freedom has to have some price to keep it and it must be paid or lose it. Taking up arms is, sometimes, that price.

FREEDOM means also being free to shirk your moral obligations.

I'm just fine with the hipsters and pacifists and other "takers" in our society. They'd make worthless soldiers anyway.

I think they are cowards. I think they have shirked their duty. I think they are not worthy to kiss the boots of the young men and women who volunteered knowing that they'd be sent to a war zone.

That's MY opinion. But I'll fight for their right to be cowards and shirkers. MANDATORY service is SLAVERY. PERIOD. And forcing someone who is constitutionally incapable of using arms to BEAR arms is about the dumbest Fing idea I've ever heard of.

 

[USAF Medic]

A well regulated militia. Most people have no idea what that means.

 

[frauhunter]

In addition to 10 USC 311 it may be instructive to have a look at Art I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which are the Powers of Congress, specifically p. 13 & 14:

- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

- 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;

Germain to some of the discussion thus far is the requirement placed on Congress to arm the Militia. I see no differentiation here between the Organized or Unorganized Militia, just a reference to the Militia. Thus the question is not "Do I have a right to own a firearm?", but, rather, "Why hasn't Congress issued me my M-4 yet?".

Also noteworthy, but a tad off topic, is the stated mission of the Militia. I'm sure I'm missing something breathtakingly legal and bureaucratic, but that bit about laws, insurrection, and invasion leads me to suspect that controlling our southern border might be within their purview while traveling to distant lands, meeting new and exotic people, and kicking over their tea wagon probably isn't.

Ex Gladio Libertas

 

[1337BaldEagle]

A well regulated militia. Most people have no idea what that means.

All of this reminds me of a post I saw an Reddit a while back. Sad to say it wasn't mine. But I don't disagree with one word of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it seems there is some confusion as to what the Second Amendment actually means, even among US gun owners. I will attempt to clarify what it says, why it says that, and why it's important.


First, the text. "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."


In order to understand the text, we must establish a working definition of these words, let's do this now, focusing on the ones that may present confusion.


Regulated - controlled or supervised, set to an external standard, (And common at the time of writing) disciplined and equipped.


Militia - "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason


Also, the Militia Act of 1903: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.


So the Militia is all able bodied men 17-45, although in the modern age, women can easily be included.


Infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something), to encroach or trespass, Obsolete(But likely valid at the time of writing) to defeat; invalidate.


So the 2A can read like this; "A well-disciplined, equipped, and supervised body of all citizens aged 17-45, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited, undermined, or invalidated."


Now, onto the English language lesson. The first part of this sentence is a dependent clause, it can't stand on its own as a sentence. The second part, however, can. Because the independent clause is usually also the primary, independent thought in the English language, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the militia, the ability to form a militia is dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Note also that the militia clause is not a restrictive clause, it does not confine the right to keep and bear arms to militia service.


"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams


Why then the militia clause at all?


To understand that, we need to look at two things; history, and the preamble to the bill containing the 2A. In terms of history, the men who wrote this amendment were the same men who rebelled against a tyrannical government. They had fought a war against the armies (who were also the police) of lawmakers and rulers who oppressed them. They understood the dangers of such a government, and that the potential for one to rise up was there even in the most well intentioned governments.


Then there is the preamble; "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"


As we can clearly see, the point of all the original amendments was to restrict the power of the federal government. The militia clause is not there to restrict the use of arms to it; it is a warning to the sitting government (and permission to the States/people) that restricting the rights of Americans without just cause could result in armed rebellion through militias as it had to create the country in the first place.


So what does this mean for the US gun owner? Well, it clearly means that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people, independent of the militia. It also means that anything opposing the right to keep and bear arms without just cause (like being in jail) is infringing on that right. Note the right is both to keep and bear arms, and arms is an inclusive term. Yes, this makes SBR and carry permit laws unconstitutional. And since the militia is one aspect of the right, it means that Destructive Device and Machinegun laws are also unconstitutional.


Now, at one point, this was a federal government only thing, but now there is the Supremacy Clause, which basically states that all of the restrictions on the federal government apply to state and municipal governments as well. Again, any state or municipal law conflicting with the 2A is unconstitutional.


There are those who detract this viewpoint, and here are some common things they say and the problems with them;


"The Founding Fathers never envisioned modern weapons and the most powerful gun of the time was a single shot musket!"


First, the Founding Fathers were well aware of multi-shot weapons like the Girandoni Air Rifle and Puckle Gun, both capable of far higher rates of fire than muskets. Second, they actively fielded privately owned artillery cannon and cannon armed warships, the most powerful weapons of their time, against the British regulars in the Revolutionary War. Third, the militia clause is still there. The militia still exists, and it is supposed to be able to challenge the power of the federal government. The army doesn't use muskets anymore. Finally, nothing in the text of that or any other amendment suggests they wrote it with only their technology in mind. To apply this view to the 2A would require the same of the other amendments, meaning every modern piece of communications technology would be unprotected, as would search and seizure of any vehicle and house design unknown in the 1700's. Yet over and over again, those things have been protected by the relevant amendments, and so modern weapons must be protected by the second.


"The right is restricted to being well regulated!"


As we can clearly see from the text and basic English, the "well regulated" function both does not mean regulation as in laws, but also only applies to the militia, not the right to keep and bear arms.


"All rights have restrictions, so gun control is not unconstitutional!"


As we have just seen, gun control, which infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, has to be unconstitutional by nature. It is true that there are restrictions on gun ownership that do not infringe on the 2A, but none of them are gun control. Laws against assault, murder, theft, etc., are all restrictions on things you may do (with or without arms) that do not run contrary to the right to keep and bear arms.


"You're crazy, if this is true the courts and government are all one giant conspiracy!"


Unfortunately, it's not so crazy. First, different people can interpret the same thing in different ways. So sometimes the courts do rule gun control as OK. This makes them wrong. Second, power is a corrupting influence, and politicians and judges are powerful people. Remember, that is why the Amendments and the militia clause exist in the first place. And finally, it's not a conspiracy when it's true. Look at the Patriot Act, or the NSA scandals. Both also clear violations of the rights of US citizens. How then is it difficult to believe that they may try to push unconstitutional laws in other areas? And why wouldn't a government that is doing things to curtail rights fear an armed population?


Why is this important? It is important not because any government attempting to enact gun control is evil, or that doing so will automatically give rise to tyranny. It is important because it opens the door to it, if even just a little. It's not just your rights you're fighting for, it's also the rights of all future Americans.


What can you do about it? Contact your representatives on all levels of government, share your views and concerns. Vote. Be polite and educate those around you about legal gun ownership. Take people shooting! You may not think you are doing much in a country of 400 million, but if you and everyone else you know does something, eventually you can see the results.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle

 

[Gator Monroe]

After almost 4 years with the NCSM/CSM/NCM (Militia Groups of Northern California & California) I'm now a Sergeant and have leaned & trained with Former Military & Former Law Enforcement , and we have liaised with the Sheriffs of two local Counties (Shasta & Siskiyou ) and feel the Localized Militias of America are viable .