Well regulated militia?

[Sling Blade]

So what do you folks say to people that doubt the validity of the 2nd Ammendment, stating there's no such thing as a "well regulated militia"?

These folks state that all we are is a bunch of people with guns and are not technically well trained, disiplined, nor organzied as a militia should/would be - thus the "well regulated militia" does not exist and the 2nd Ammendment as written doesn't hold water as a right to bear arms.

Read More

 

[mcathcart]

its the "regulated" part that is confusing.

who regulates it? the government? I think it's assumed that it is "self-regulated"
I believe the idea is that a militia is to defend the people from a tyrannical government and/or army.

 

[Member 18201]

" Regulated " in the vernacular of the time was akin to " supplied and trained ".

 

[Tactical Option]

So what do you folks say to people that doubt the validity of the 2nd Ammendment, stating there's no such thing as a "well regulated militia"?

These folks state that all we are is a bunch of people with guns and are not technically well trained, disiplined, nor organzied as a militia should/would be - thus the "well regulated militia" does not exist and the 2nd Ammendment as written doesn't hold water as a right to bear arms.

The term "well regulated" actually means "well trained" as used in the time period it was written. To expand on the definition of milita, look to the Oregon constitution as an example. It says all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 are automatically members of the militia. (I may be off on the ages). This seems to back up the us constitution by defining militia and therefore further solidifying the 2nd amendment.

 

[Jamie6.5]

As the chief justice of the SCOTUS said:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" trumps whatever else may be said or interpreted about the 2ndA. The meaning of that phrase is clear and concise, and was a principle component in the McDonald decision.

Regardless of the "well organized militia" argument, either for or against.

I find it interesting that those that support obama disregard Sotomayor's statement that the SCOTUS should revisit gun control despite Heller and McDonald, and the precedent of "settled law."

 

[Sling Blade]

Thanks guys. This part about being well trained seems to be the fly in the ointment when it comes to this topic; as the the nay sayers point out, there is no training or organization - just a bunch of people with guns.

 

[Member 18201]

The right of the people in the First and Fourth Amendment is rarely considered a collective right, tho once the possibility of responsibility, self reliance, individual liberty, and firearms come into the discussion of the Second Amendment, logic is terminated.
Interesting , no ?

 

[Sling Blade]

As the chief justice of the SCOTUS said:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" trumps whatever else may be said or interpreted about the 2ndA. The meaning of that phrase is clear and concise, and was a principle component in the McDonald decision.

Regardless of the "well organized militia" argument, either for or against.

I find it interesting that those that support obama disregard Sotomayor's statement that the SCOTUS should revisit gun control despite Heller and McDonald, and the precedent of "settled law."

Thanks - I was writing my last reply while you submitted this.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

" Regulated " in the vernacular of the time was akin to " supplied and trained ".

Exactly. This is one of the problems with our people not having studied that time frame and it's usage of words. Regulation at arms is what was stated, that being trained to use arms in conjunction with other patriots for community defense

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The right of the people in the First and Fourth Amendment is rarely considered a collective right, tho once the possibility of responsibility, self reliance, individual liberty, and firearms come into the discussion of the Second Amendment, logic is terminated.
Interesting , no ?

That's because the 2nd is the very lynchpin/paladium of our liberties and those who seek our destruction want it abolished. This is why statists of all stripes so viciously attack any militias that try to form

 

[fd15k]

The term "well regulated" actually means "well trained" as used in the time period it was written. To expand on the definition of milita, look to the Oregon constitution as an example. It says all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 are automatically members of the militia. (I may be off on the ages). This seems to back up the us constitution by defining militia and therefore further solidifying the 2nd amendment.

Another interpretation that I have seen is "standardized". It has to do with the issue of munition supply when people use all kinds of non-standard rifles and muskets.

 

[Bam]

I've seen the type of people these groups/organizations attract... and when you mix un-intelligent with power hungry, ego, control. It just doesn't work.

You get the military wannabes and just, because you're ex military doesn't mean you have the means and ability to train the wannabes. You can't just take any "willing" person and make them into something they are not, training only goes so far and some people just can't be properly trained.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Yes, that is because the militia has been stigmatized, terrorized and even outlawed in some states for this very purpose. You can hardly attract a better class of warrior that way

 

[DireWolf]

The term "well regulated" actually means "well trained" as used in the time period it was written. To expand on the definition of milita, look to the Oregon constitution as an example. It says all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 are automatically members of the militia. (I may be off on the ages). This seems to back up the us constitution by defining militia and therefore further solidifying the 2nd amendment.

Where have "all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 are automatically members of the militia" gotten this training?

 

[Member 18201]

Where have "all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 are automatically members of the militia" gotten this training?

I paid for mine myself.

What do you do ?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

In Highland Scotland able men into their 70s were required to heed the Chiefs call. In Viking lands men into their 80s went hosting (raiding)

BTW I see we have a new troll

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

At this point in time, there are two classes of the militia, the organized (well regulated) and unorganized (not so well regulated).

The organized militia is the National Guard and Air National Guard. The unorganized militia is every other adult male between 17 and 45. (see Title 10 USC 311 at 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute)

Now, in the Miller v US case the justices said, in part " that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." (US v Miller 307 US 174, 1939 FindLaw | Cases and Codes)

Since, if we are in the unorganized militia according to law, and the law expects us to show up with a rifle of the type and caliber in general usage, I don't know what they could say...

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Where have "all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 are automatically members of the militia" gotten this training?

What it means is that the people are to have the right to possess firearms, and that doing so will naturally lead to familiarity with those firearms, which will enhance the chances of having a well trained militia when it is needed.

But the USSC (Scalia, writing for the majority, if memory serves) has also specifically stated that the operative clause is not dependent upon the enabling clause. This means that:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

does not have any effect on:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment could read:

The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And it would still mean the same thing. The second clause is not modified by the first clause. If this were to change, it would mean changing the interpretation of many parts of the Constitution and many past decisions. The short version is, it ain't happening.

And just a short word to DireWolf, please check any possible assumptions about guns and dumb rednecks at the door.

 

[Misterbill]

An organized militia pretty much goes without saying. I'ts the NG.


The unorganized militia is really without any rational reason at all.

We have NO NEED for an unorganised mitia in the USA.

NO ONE is going to invade the continental USA. I say again, NO ONE.

So what need do we have of an unorganized militia? NONE, that I can see.

We are a nation with multiple ITRVs targeted upon whomever pisses us off enough that are completely immune to a 1st strike or any other rationally believable scenario.

Our territorial sovereignty is not in question, from the US Virgin Islands to Guam.

Where, exactly, other than extremist militant groups claim comfort from a century -old law that protects no one?

I need no authorizing lae, I NEED no arguments to let me work to protect my neighborhood in the event of extreme emergency. In no case that I could realistically imagine would that protection be needed beyond a matter of hours or a few days.

I WOULD ALREADY DO THAT, regardless of whatever authorizing federal law. So tell me exactly what we need an "unorganized" militia for?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

An organized militia pretty much goes without saying. I'ts the NG.


The unorganized militia is really without any rational reason at all.

We have NO NEED for an unorganised mitia in the USA.

NO ONE is going to invade the continental USA. I say again, NO ONE.

So what need do we have of an unorganized militia? NONE, that I can see.

We are a nation with multiple ITRVs targeted upon whomever pisses us off enough that are completely immune to a 1st strike or any other rationally believable scenario.

Our territorial sovereignty is not in question, from the US Virgin Islands to Guam.

Where, exactly, other than extremist militant groups claim comfort from a century -old law that protects no one?

I need no authorizing lae, I NEED no arguments to let me work to protect my neighborhood in the event of extreme emergency. In no case that I could realistically imagine would that protection be needed beyond a matter of hours or a few days.

I WOULD ALREADY DO THAT, regardless of whatever authorizing federal law. So tell me exactly what we need an "unorganized" militia for?

Because at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, the founders envisioned no standing armies, no national guard, no US Army, etc. They wanted to provide for a common defense by arming all individual citizens rather than spending large amounts of tax money on a permanent military (how smart of them!), which could then be used by a despotic regime to control the citizens. So yes, the 2nd Amendment is based on an unorganized citizen militia that would leave the farms and fields and assemble carrying their own personal firearms in times of danger. This is a great argument for why civilians should be able to own full automatic weapons, etc. In short, anything the military would issue should be legal for civilians to own.