M14 Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
One more time....it the 2nd Amendment simply authorizes armed militias, why is it in the Bill of Rights, the individual liberties section.

Militias do NOT equate to the National Guard, they were originally state guards...whose services were loaned out to the national government as deemed appropriate.
You, sir, are quite correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyben

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,197 Posts
"Many modern legal scholars and political pundits claim that the opening clause of the Second Amendment limits the right to keep and bear arms to those serving in the militia – or the National Guard as we call it today. But rules of construction don’t support this reading. The opening clause serves as a sort of introduction, telling us the “why” behind the “what.” It provides context for the amendment, but it does not define its scope. The second clause of the amendment defines whom the protection from infringement applies to – “the right of the people…”

This is the theme of the whole article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,679 Posts
It's you, me, all of us who are Citizens and Nationals (pledged allegiance) of majority age and aren't disqualified by some treasonous deed or infamous crime. It could happen. One helluva way to find out what this country, or what's left of it, is really made of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Standing Army

Art I section 8 USC says the president can call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Nation, suppress, insurrections and repel invasion.

If the National Guard is the Militia now, why were half of them in Iraq and Afganistan a few years ago? Seems they were in violation of the main constitution by using them overseas or the second amendment by infringing our rights since they are not.

The actual law says we are the Unorganized Militia and the Guard the Organized Militia.

In the Debate over the standing army and militia, a selected militia was rejected (a very highly prepared version of the Militia) since it was thought it would not be responsive to the people since they were special... The selected militia is very close to todays National Guard.
They were also afraid the militia would be neglected as a means to weaken it.
Since 99.999 % of US men from 17 to 45 have No idea they are even in it, I would say that fear has come true!


10 USC 311
(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.


Any WWII buff knows they had to turn the Guard units into regular army units to deploy them overseas.
Joe


QUOTE=Douglas Haig;1437031]And we'll we are at it let's remember the "well regulated" in the term of the day meant well equipped, trained etc. as regular forces.[/QUOTE]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,208 Posts
Why is there ANY mention of a MILITIA in the 2A at all?

Does it serve any useful purpose about the individual right to bear arms?

I think the writers of the 2A screwed-up and just caused confusion.
Of course, they are the forefathers of the NRA rule books.....

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Why is there ANY mention of a MILITIA in the 2A at all?
My first thought is because it was the militia who started the fight with the British, or I should say, defended the nation from the attack by the Brits when they were coming to disarm them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,931 Posts
The founding fathers never believed in a standing army, so they used a "well regulated militia" to be the arm of the federal government. They could not fathom the globalization, the sacrilege, that our federal government has become. Only that it would be over-reaching like the British were.

The purpose of the Bill Of Rights, all 10 of them, is to protect us (individuals) from our own government. I believe the first part of the 2nd is the justification for us to be armed.

The liberals KNOW this, which is why they want to take our weapons away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,250 Posts
Why is there ANY mention of a MILITIA in the 2A at all?

Does it serve any useful purpose about the individual right to bear arms?

I think the writers of the 2A screwed-up and just caused confusion.
Of course, they are the forefathers of the NRA rule books.....

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
The Founding Fathers had a deep seated fear of standing armies. They had seen what had happened in France, Austria, Prussia, and other European countries from where our fellow countrymen had emigrated.

As the colonies developed from the early seventeenth century, the greatest fear was a hostile native American population, which in many cases, wasn't so open and welcoming to the colonists. As settlements grew, and the frontier pushed back, there was always a need for common defense. Folks volunteered to protect their own property, as well as that of their neighbors and fellow colonists.

The various local and colonial governments supplied the heavier weapons, which were mainly cannon. They levied taxes to support those purchases.

There were any number of conflicts, including the Seven Years War, which required that militias be called up to defend their fellow citizens. There were even mutual aid pacts among the colonies.

Any type of colonial military force was just too expensive to maintain. Along with the mutual mistrust of standing armies, it was believed that any emergency could be handled by calling out the militia. There would be ample time to assemble and face whatever threat there may be.

After the Revolution (a slight misnomer, since basic government did not change), the confederation formed didn't provide for any type of central military power. The colonial army was all volunteer, and lapse of enlistments caused constant manning problems for the colonies. A central Navy was needed, since it was so capital intensive.

After the conflict, it was thought that there would be few outside threats, and that conflicts with native Americans would be handled by calling up the militias.

However, the problems with the British in Canada, and their constant bickering with the U.S., Spain, and France, did create the need for a standing army, even though it would be small.

During the 1812 War, the British were able to inflict real damage because their army was veteran, with long experience against other European and Asian armies. The U.S. lost valuable time getting volunteers, training, and then deploying them in the nation's defense.

As history has shown, however, standing armies, even small ones are necessary for the security of the country. The standing reserves and National Guard units are the backbone of the country's defense. However, they aren't, as has been written about countless times, the militia.

There is also, as others have mentioned, the placement of the amendment. As with the other nine amendments, the 2nd refers directly to the individual, not a group. The founders were so concerned with individual rights, that it can't be conceived that any of the Bill of Rights could possible be attributed to a group.

In fact, groups do not have inherent rights. The term group rights is oxymoronic on its face.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
654 Posts
A liberal may read all the facts put forth and get a totally different perspective.
The liberal brain is wired differently than a conservative brain.
Lotsa shorts & loose connections, you might say.

Libs are perfectly capable of comprehending the meaning, intent, and inherent genious of what is written. The problem lies in their deep-seated narcissism & myopia.

They refuse to accept a reality that does not conform to their grand designs, even if that reality has been proven superior to their failed socialistic agenda.

In other words, they're idiots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,694 Posts
Lotsa shorts & loose connections, you might say.

Libs are perfectly capable of comprehending the meaning, intent, and inherent genious of what is written. The problem lies in their deep-seated narcissism & myopia.

They refuse to accept a reality that does not conform to their grand designs, even if that reality has been proven superior to their failed socialistic agenda.

In other words, they're idiots.
Intelligence, ability, and common sense did not exist until these people popped out of mommy. They are arrogant enough they can ignore history and have convinced themselves...'we're so smart, we'll make it work this time'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Good read for sure. There are a lot of interesting points here. The government is so quick to stomp out militia activity, be it on weapons charges or conspiracy, etc., it's interesting because that's what the British were trying to do a couple hundred years ago only they didn't press charges and send in the BATF.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top