Well regulated militia?

[Thebastidge]

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?

You miss the point that many things which are not expressly allowed become prohibited. Without this tradition (in conjunction with the law) chances are very good that you would NOT have the same attitude towards it that you do now. Witness the UK, from whence many of our notions of common law and custom are derived, and people there do NOT have the atttude that they would automatically defend themselves, their properyt, and their neighbours, because it is PROHIBITED to do so now, and the (entirely natural) instinct has been conditioned out of most people.

We are all products of our environment to a certain extent, not a blank slate upon which culture is written from scratch but certainly influenced greatly by the expectations and mores of our surroundings. This is why these traditions ar eimportant.

As for there being "no need" for the unorganized militia, you have just undermined your own argument by saying how you are prepared to act as the unorganized militia at need. Whether it lasts for hours or days. You can't imagine a situation where it's necessary for longer than that, but you do visualize the possibility it might be needed for that time frame. The rest is simply a failure of imaginzation (also referred to as "normalcy bias") on your part that is provided for by the people who wrote the consitution and deliberate upon the laws, so it doesn't bother me too much.

I NEED no arguments to let me work to protect my neighborhood in the event of extreme emergency. [...] I WOULD ALREADY DO THAT, regardless of whatever authorizing federal law. So tell me exactly what we need an "unorganized" militia for?

You're simply objecting to the formalized acknowledgement of it, which doesn't make sense.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

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

Need is relative, and dangers come from many different forms. Being invaded is not the only reason the militia could be called out. Insurrection or rebellion is another....

 

[gunfreak]

Watch this it will explain it.

The 2nd Amendment - YouTube

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Once again Mr Bill proves he is delusional

 

[oknow]

simple mater is a well trained militia is a militia that can load,aim and hit the intended target and organized is to be there with their guns when they are needed to protect their area

 

[hermannr]

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?

Bill, your first mistake is not understanding that the founding fathere did not want ANY perminent standing army as a perminent standing army could be misused to supress liberty.

So, if you do not have a standing army, how is a country to defend itself...Well, the general population became the army in case of need to defend the country from outside invaders...think Switzerland...Every man, between 17 and 45 was to have a rifle that could be used if called to defend the country. If they ddid not have a rifle, the government supplied the rifle, but the citizen had to pay the government back for the cost of it. This held up to almost the (un)civil war.

The problem today is/was caused by the 16th and 17th amendment. Before these two amendments were passed, the national government was dependent on the states, after those two amendments were passed, the states became dependent on the national government. Now the national government could do whatever it wanted to and did not have to worry about making the states mad.

A well regulated milita..only means a well trained body of men, trained and armed to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic...does the NG fit this definition...only in part, and the NG was not what was originally intended.

Are these little "milita" groups that are running around what was intended...no...they don't fit the definition either. Why? Because they were not to be little independent "private" armies. The milita was to be the body of all abled bodied men in the country, trained and armed to defend the country...not a group of trained men to go off into other countries and fight war on foreign soil like they use the NG today. Iraq was not a NG "training session", it was a foreign war...that is what our founding fathers did NOT want to see happen.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Nicely said, hermannr

 

[oknow]

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.

well said especially the ( In short, anything the military would issue should be legal for civilians to own.)

 

[oknow]

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.

(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 have just explained what is wrong with this administration thank you

 

[The B]

Who the bubblegum is Mrbill and what the hell is he doing here? Somebody trade that man his guns for an Obama 2012 sticker.

 

[MarkAd]

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.

you are wrong when the Consistution and bill of rights were written each village had an organized miilitia group. Each group was responible for thier trainging. Granted some of the "trining" was not very good but it was there
.
Might i suggest you learn some more history before making wrong comments.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

you are wrong when the Consistution and bill of rights were written each village had an organized miilitia group. Each group was responible for thier trainging. Granted some of the "trining" was not very good but it was there
.
Might i suggest you learn some more history before making wrong comments.

Might I suggest you stop splitting hairs? The WHOLE POINT is that the founders expected non-professional, unsalaried citizen soldiers to show up when needed, trained formally or not, with WEAPONS THAT THEY OWNED. Obviously, they expected the citizens would own weapons that were on a par with the English military. THE POINT is that this would bear on what they intended the 2nd Amendment to mean. But you go ahead and CONTINUE to argue the point that ONLY PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS are who they intended to have the 2nd Amendment apply to. It seems counter-productive to what I think your position is on the 2nd Amendment, so I can only wonder incredulously at your confusion and stubbornness.

Maybe you're the one that needs a little more education. You can read all about it here: Militia in the Revolutionary War

 

[dolooper]

I don't particularly concern myself with the definition of "well-regulated". Or of "militia" for that matter. All the matters to me is what right does the amendment enumerate. It enumerates to the people the right to keep and bear arms; the rationale for that right is immaterial until the text of the Constitution is changed.

The first clause could just as well read "Sandwiches with sufficient quantities of mayonnaise being necessary for the satiation of Dolooper's hunger..." in my mind and still derive the same right.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The first clause could just as well read "Sandwiches with sufficient quantities of mayonnaise being necessary for the satiation of Dolooper's hunger..." in my mind and still derive the same right.

And the USSC explicitly agrees with you.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

you are wrong when the Consistution and bill of rights were written each village had an organized miilitia group. Each group was responible for thier trainging. Granted some of the "trining" was not very good but it was there
.
Might i suggest you learn some more history before making wrong comments.

The original reason for militias was defense against savage indian raids where they murdered, raped, kidnapped and looted.. the Minutemen in particular were so instituted to counter the raiders. They were fully capable of operating in concert with other militia groups, as the Brits discovered on April 19th, 1775

 

[Tactical Option]

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

My Dad taught me how to shoot as a child AND 25 years of competitive shooting AND 20+ years job related training. I guess its a personal responsibility thing.

 

[Tactical Option]

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?

If you dont like the law as its written, lobby your congressman to amend it. The Constitution does not change with the time period. Thats why the process was put in place.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The NG is not the militia.. that is an absurd libtard's interpretation. The NG is now a Federal-controlled reserve army, not a state controlled militia

 

[Bazooka Joe]

The Supreme Court brings this up in Heller, but it had also ruled previously in other Constitutional cases, i.e. a prefatory clause in the Constitution does not limit the operative clause. In the case of the Second Amendment the operative clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The prefatory clause which does not limit the operative clause is "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." The court says that the operative clause should be consistent with the purpose of the operative clause but that it is not a limit on the operative clause. The court had ruled similarly on another Constitutional case which involved a prefatory clause, so this interpretation was not a new one applied only to the Second Amendment.

 

[Sling Blade]

Thank you, Bazooka Joe. That was absolutely clear and concise.