A "Well Regulated Militia" .....

[TheLibertonian]

Here is a short explanation that I think best explains what was meant by 'well regulated':



If the purpose of having an armed citizenry to stand up militias against possible tyranny and oppose a standing army that would promote that tyranny through force, how can those militias be 'regulated' by the same government that 'regulates' the army that intends to oppress the people (the militia)?

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Wouldn't that mean the national guard as it is today is unconstitutional?

 

[PsyOps]

Wouldn't that mean the national guard as it is today is unconstitutional?

How so?

 

[TheLibertonian]

How so?

If the suggestion is command is supposed to be at a state level...?

 

[PsyOps]

If the suggestion is command is supposed to be at a state level...?

Are we talking about militias or the guard? They two completely different things.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Are we talking about militias or the guard? They two completely different things.

The national guard replaced the state militias.

 

[PsyOps]

The national guard replaced the state militias.

That is NOT the militia in which the 2nd amendment refers. And a military force run by a government (state of federal) is not what is meant by 'well regulated' as mentioned in the 2nd.

 

[TheLibertonian]

That is NOT the militia in which the 2nd amendment refers. And a military force run by a government (state of federal) is not what is meant by 'well regulated' as mentioned in the 2nd.

You cannot have a militia without regulation. It's not a riot, a mob, or a posse. Each individual state is supposed to raise and train militias on a regular basis and THOSE are supposed to counter the federal army.

 

[PsyOps]

You cannot have a militia without regulation. It's not a riot, a mob, or a posse. Each individual state is supposed to raise and train militias on a regular basis and THOSE are supposed to counter the federal army.

And you believe those militias are the national guard? You mean that entity that can be called up by the president of the united states; the same guy that is commander in chief of the federal army? No doubt you'll reject the words of our founder:

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves" - Richard Henry Lee

And here's an important note to consider:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment.

 

[TheLibertonian]

And you believe those militias are the national guard? You mean that entity that can be called up by the president of the united states; the same guy that is commander in chief of the federal army? No doubt you'll reject the words of our founder:

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves" - Richard Henry Lee

And here's an important note to consider:

​

In the state of Maryland all men between the ages of 16-60 were required to, on a regular basis, muster before an officer of the state government and show they had a weapon (halberd, pike, or musket, later on just musket) and be able to obey and understand simple commands given to them by an officer of the militia.

You cannot organize a militia without training. A militia without training is what we call a "mob".

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't see any militias being mustered any more for their training, I see the national guard and reserves. The militias that the founders were talking about were "by the people" but they were regularly mustered and trained. Maryland had a damn good militia.

 

[PsyOps]

In the state of Maryland all men between the ages of 16-60 were required to, on a regular basis, muster before an officer of the state government and show they had a weapon (halberd, pike, or musket, later on just musket) and be able to obey and understand simple commands given to them by an officer of the militia.

You cannot organize a militia without training. A militia without training is what we call a "mob".

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't see any militias being mustered any more for their training, I see the national guard and reserves. The militias that the founders were talking about were "by the people" but they were regularly mustered and trained. Maryland had a damn good militia.

You most certainly can organize and train a militia without government doing it. It was done during the Revolutionary War. There isn't a requirement for a militia to be 'regulated' by government. People go to shooting ranges, participate in weapons training, and organize in groups all the time. The purpose of a militia, as stipulated in the 2nd, is to have a fighting force apart from the government - both state and federal - to fend off tyranny. How does government form militias against itself? It can't; that's why these militias are made up of the people, form, organized, and regulated by the people.

 

[BlueSunday]

Here is a short explanation that I think best explains what was meant by 'well regulated':



If the purpose of having an armed citizenry to stand up militias against possible tyranny and oppose a standing army that would promote that tyranny through force, how can those militias be 'regulated' by the same government that 'regulates' the army that intends to oppress the people (the militia)?

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I can accept your suggestion and link that the words in question had different connotations back when the Constitution was being written only if you admit that the men who penned such a thing had no idea of "nuclear war "and that maybe had they known the way things are now things might be different.

 

[TheLibertonian]

You most certainly can organize and train a militia without government doing it. It was done during the Revolutionary War. There isn't a requirement for a militia to be 'regulated' by government. People go to shooting ranges, participate in weapons training, and organize in groups all the time. The purpose of a militia, as stipulated in the 2nd, is to have a fighting force apart from the government - both state and federal - to fend off tyranny. How does government form militias against itself? It can't; that's why these militias are made up of the people, form, organized, and regulated by the people.

Yeah, and you know the "Old Line State" thing is because our militias were trained and knew not to break.


Guess what other state MIlitias did. Oh. Right. They broke and routed.

 

[PrchJrkr]

Yeah, and you know the "Old Line State" thing is because our militias were trained and knew not to break.


Guess what other state MIlitias did. Oh. Right. They broke and routed.

WTF does this have to do with the quoted text?

 

[Gilligan]

I can accept your suggestion and link that the words in question had different connotations back when the Constitution was being written only if you admit that the men who penned such a thing had no idea of "nuclear war "and that maybe had they known the way things are now things might be different.

OK..I agree that nuclear weapons should be restricted.

Now, do you understand what the term "well regulated" meant in 1787?

 

[Larry Gude]

Do y'all accept that the Constitution forbids the federal gummint from restricting the right to keep and bear arms and that all other powers are to be delegated to the states whereby they CAN regulate private firearm possession and use? I ask this as a a starting point because we're clearly, from 1936 on, beyond the feds violating the Constitution in regards to the 2nd.

 

[This_person]

Do y'all accept that the Constitution forbids the federal gummint from restricting the right to keep and bear arms and that all other powers are to be delegated to the states whereby they CAN regulate private firearm possession and use? I ask this as a a starting point because we're clearly, from 1936 on, beyond the feds violating the Constitution in regards to the 2nd.

Using this logic, states can restrict newspapers from reporting on things, can establish an official state religion, can impose cruel and unusual punishments.....

 

[Gilligan]

But how many state laws are being - or have been - challenged on the basis that they violate the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Larry Gude]

Using this logic, states can restrict newspapers from reporting on things, can establish an official state religion, can impose cruel and unusual punishments.....

That wasn't the question.

 

[Larry Gude]

But how many state laws are being - or have been - challenged on the basis that they violate the 2nd Amendment?

Again, not the question. What's the point of states rights if they are exactly the same as the feds?

 

[stgislander]

Again, not the question. What's the point of states rights if they are exactly the same as the feds?

I would agree because it was understood that the Bill of Rights only limited the power of the federal government.