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.
This is why the second amendment makes no sense. Who or what is regulating the militia? And how do we determine that the regulators are regulating it "well"?
Start with Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. This section enumerates the powers of Congress.
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power...
... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...
Then Article 2, Section 2. This section assigns the duties of the Chief Executive.
Quote:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...
And finally, the 2nd Amendment. Which assures that armed resources are available to Congress.
Quote:
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.
This was particularly important during the early years of the republic when it only had a Naval force at its disposal and some states and municipalities were enforcing strict gun laws or outright bans.
'Militia' ties the 2nd Amendment to the body of the Constitution, and when read together, it makes sense of the 'well-regulated Militia' clause.
The Constitution protects well-regulated militias run by the states via the 2nd Amendment but also specifies that states are, at least in times of peace, forbidden from keeping standing armies.
So what's the difference?
Run by the states? Umm..no. But, a standing Army IS run by the "state". (Central government) It is funded, trained, equipped and gets its orders from the central authority. It's purpose is fighting wars. Here or abroad. It is uniformed, divided into units, has a dedicated command structure, it's members draw pay and are also obligated to a set term of service. In short, a REGULAR force.
Militia is comprised of regular citizens. It is funded and equipped privately and has no dedicated command structure. There is no set term of service and it's members are not paid. At least not by the central authority. Nor does militia need to answer to or receive orders from the central authority. It is an IRREGULAR force.
Militia is NOT run by either the states or federal government. It can serve alongside or in cadre to regular forces for the needs of national defense from foreign aggression. But, it operates independently. There's a huge difference twixt militia and the regular military (of which the National Guard is a part). Contrary to what many believe the NG is NOT militia. It says US ARMY on their uniforms and they are trained and funded by the federal government. They can also be deployed overseas, which militia cannot do.
Militia supplies their own weapons and equipment, thus the "well regulated" part and the reason that the right to keep and bear arms "shall NOT be infringed." "Well regulated" in the context of the 2A means armed and equipped in a manner so as to be an effective volunteer force that can be assembled from the general citizenry.
This is the biggest reason that the general citizenry has historically used both past and current issue to the military type weapons. The CMP was a program originally designed to make such weapons available to the citizenry from surplus military inventory of current issue or from weapons being replaced. This program has been gutted and is now more of a collectors warehouse for more wealthy types.
Anyway, that's some of the nuts and bolts. Truly you need to study US history. And the militia has not always been called upon for military type service. It has been utilized for community defense against criminal aggression as well. Western "posses" were militia called up to pursue outlaws. The James' Daltons , Youngers, the (in) famous Wild Bunch all ran up against citizen militia.
Street gangs today should be bumping heads with citizen militia imo. It would be more effective than the cops.
The Constitution protects well-regulated militias run by the states via the 2nd Amendment but also specifies that states are, at least in times of peace, forbidden from keeping standing armies.
So what's the difference?
The National Guard is not a standing army. It's a reserve force to the army, and a standing militia to the state. The Constitution says nothing about keeping reserves for the army.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,556 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
The Federalist Papers were written by John Jay( first chief Justice ) , James Madison ( 4th President ) and Alexander Hamilton ( 2nd Commander of the Continental Army after Washington)
These men wrote those papers to sell the Condition. And the Bill of Rights to the people .
The 29th Federalist Paper point blank says
Quote:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''
Militia can be any able bodied man. Citizens are the militia.
The framers wanted the militia to be well regulated, while the NRA wants them the be 100% unregulated.
once again you make the mistake of trying use todays interpretation of phrases from yesteryear, and you cant do that. at the time the phrase well regulated meant in good working order.
the part you are also forgetting is that there are TWO parts to the amendment, the first part recognizes the need to protect the nation, its the second part that recognizes the the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and that the right shall not be infringed.
the NRA is standing for EVERYONES right to keep and bear arms, but if you were to actually LISTEN TO WHAT they say, instead of listening to the idiot pundits who tell you what they, and not the NRA, believe, you wuld know that the NRA does not want criminals or the mentally ill to own firearms. but they also recognize the need for due process if you want to take someones gun rights, or any other rights for that matter, away.
The Federalist Papers were written by John Jay( first chief Justice ) , James Madison ( 4th President ) and Alexander Hamilton ( 2nd Commander of the Continental Army after Washington)
These men wrote those papers to sell the Condition. And the Bill of Rights to the people .
The 29th Federalist Paper point blank says
"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''
This is why the second amendment makes no sense. Who or what is regulating the militia? And how do we determine that the regulators are regulating it "well"?
"Well regulated", at the time it was used meant well-maintained, orderly, functional.
once again you make the mistake of trying use todays interpretation of phrases from yesteryear, and you cant do that. at the time the phrase well regulated meant in good working order.
Does a well functioning militia have within their ranks:
- Mentally ill people
- Drug addicts
- Habitual dunkards
- Violent criminals
- People who have no idea how to operate a firearm
- Children
The obvious answer is NO. A military which is in good working consists of able bodied people with a clear mind who have received some training on handling of firearms and discipline. It is common sense, and everyone knows it, but you reject it because NRA says so.
Well, I will let you define in your own words what a well functioning militia looks like. The floor is yours.
If you read the The 29th Federalist Paper, you will see it is in complete disagreement with the NRA stance.
"Well regulated", at the time it was used meant well-maintained, orderly, functional.
And Nikolas Cruz would have been a prime example of a member of an orderly militia?
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.
