Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-itia /iːtia/ : a state, activity, quality or condition of being
militia /mil:iːtia/: Military service
The word militia dates back to at least 1590 when it was recorded in a book by Sir John Smythe, Certain Discourses Military with the meanings: a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline. The word Militia comes from the word Military and was commonly used in 1700s-1800s.
The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations. These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd, a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader. The latter developed into the militia, and was usually embodied by a royal warrant. Service in each organisation involved different levels of preparedness.
Militias go back a long way in history, however they are a military reserve type force and always have been. The militia in the UK went on to become the Special Reserve, Home Guard and Territorial Army, today it is known as the Army Reserve (Volunteers).
This throws in to question whether the Second Amendment was really just advocating a well trained Home Guard or Army Reserve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
Ask any English major, and they would tell you that the sentence has faulty syntax. If they had written:
"Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that would have been grammatically correct.
I doubt that we're going to amend the Constitution just to correct the grammar. Even if we changed it to the above version, there would still be dispute over the purpose of the "well-regulated" term. Does militia mean a bunch of average citizens grabbing their guns to go fight the enemy, or does "well-regulated" imply that this applies only to a more official, organized force?
To be unambiguous, we could just have, as others have suggested, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." However, if we were to rewrite the 2nd amendment, I would take that opportunity to make it clear that certain arms, such as nuclear weapons and biological weapons, may be outlawed, and that certain people, such as mentally ill or convicted violent criminals, may be prohibited from bearing arms.
you cannot use todays use of language and apply it to yesteryear, it doesnt work since the language is dynamic.
as for the second amendment itself, it is fine just the way it is. unfortunately too many people with the agenda of banning guns completely like to bastardize the amendment to fit their agenda.
"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
this part means that the founding fathers wanted the states to supply the military base. and they wanted it to be in good working order, or well drilled, so these guys would work together as a team instead of a gaggle of guys all wearing the same uniform.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
this part is the real meat of the amendment. it is the part that tells everyone that the founding fathers wanted the government to keep their damned hands off our guns. the founding fathers were wise and educated men, and they knew that the citizenry needed firearms for protection, hunting, and defense of the country. remember that is one reason why the japanese didnt want to invade the US mainland, because of an armed citizenry.
unfortunately far too many gun grabbers have only read the first part of the amendment, and think that the amendment only applies to the militia, and they couldnt be more wrong.
Many, if not most Americans feel that the current text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is worded just fine, Thank You Very Much.
But not all agree.
If YOU feel that the text is lacking in any way, how would you reword it to fit more in the context of the 21st century and beyond, if given the chance?
For reference, here's what it said when it was ratified in 1791:
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.
A well regulated Populace being necessary to the security of a state, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 08-06-2018 at 12:05 PM..
You're ignoring an important point of your statement, see bolded.
Army ammunition is locked in the central armory, hiwever there's no restriction in buying ammunition at a range and keeping that at home. 5.6mm Gw Pat 90 (the Swiss designation for 5.56mm NATO) is available at most ranges, and while you're supposed to use said ammunition at that range, there's no restriction from taking your unused ammunition with you when you leave.
So while you can dance with glee at the implication there's no ammunition for issued weapons, that implication is not true. Sorry to disappoint.
I am quite familiar with the Swiss Way. My point is that the 2nd Amendment types point specifically at their "every man a gun" policy and use that to beat others over the head with.
Swiss own 1/4 as many guns per capita. 25%. And many point to that as the "perfect setup"?
Here you go:
"All 26 cantons keep track of the guns held within their borders as well as the ammunition. A seller of a hunting rifle, for example, must report the sale and the name of the owner to cantonal authorities.
Ammunition and guns must be stored separately and securely. "
Of course, the Swiss have perhaps the most liberal gun laws in the civilized world...so, are we good with copying their basic format? You know, like having to report lost or stolen guns? A full registry? No loaded weapons allowed to be transported? Etc.
Note that, given current trends, it is more likely the Swiss will tighten up even their setup. They already do extensive checks including tests on anyone who wants to carry.....and they must demonstrate need and a lot of other info.
The people that argue from the historical technology angle for limiting the second amendment also want to limit our first amendment to word of mouth, 18th century printing presses, and quill pens.
I am quite familiar with the Swiss Way. My point is that the 2nd Amendment types point specifically at their "every man a gun" policy and use that to beat others over the head with.
Swiss own 1/4 as many guns per capita. 25%. And many point to that as the "perfect setup"?
Here you go:
"All 26 cantons keep track of the guns held within their borders as well as the ammunition. A seller of a hunting rifle, for example, must report the sale and the name of the owner to cantonal authorities.
Ammunition and guns must be stored separately and securely. "
Of course, the Swiss have perhaps the most liberal gun laws in the civilized world...so, are we good with copying their basic format? You know, like having to report lost or stolen guns? A full registry? No loaded weapons allowed to be transported? Etc.
Note that, given current trends, it is more likely the Swiss will tighten up even their setup. They already do extensive checks including tests on anyone who wants to carry.....and they must demonstrate need and a lot of other info.
Some States have hundreds of thousands of hunters. That idea would be unenforceable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
