"A Well Regulated Militia" explained

[AMart]

The thread is just an hour old and already it's full of rightwing demagoguery and lies.

Sorry Charlie I have a right to bear arms.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Sorry Charlie I have a right to bear arms.

Is the video against the right to bear arms by individuals?

 

[AMart]

Is the video against the right to bear arms by individuals?

Did you watch it?

 

[MarathonMike]

The founders gave the Congress the right to create Militias when necessary.

People had guns since they arrived on the first on the American continent. Guns were never going to be taken away from non violent people.

There have been times when the government, or the States, had to step in about guns, which is why we saw an end to the Wild Wild West, where there were shootouts all the time between civilians.

Again, the video is about who has the right to create a Militia in the US, not about the government taking away the right to buy guns, which is not going to happen no matter what people's fears might be.

The video is a rant from a gun grabber, come on be honest. What you stated here is mostly true but that is not what the gentleman was saying at all. And then there's this:

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

 

[Flash]

What part of the video says that individuals do not have the right to bear arms? What minute and second?

The part of the video where that uneducated jackass is trying to claim that the clause "A well regulated militia" is relevant to anything. Like at the one minute mark where the shithead tries to connect a militia being controlled by the government.

The shithead is wrong. I have the right to get my arms anywhere I want and not from the fucking government.

You obviously don't understand what the dumbass is advocating, do you?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The part of the video where that uneducated jackass is trying to claim that the clause "A well regulated militia" is relevant to anything. Like at the one minute mark where the shithead tries to connect a militia being controlled by the government.

The shithead is wrong. I have the right to get my arms anywhere I want and not from the fucking government.

You obviously don't understand what the dumbass is advocating, do you?

Are you part of a Militia in the USA?
Which one?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The part of the video where that uneducated jackass is trying to claim that the clause "A well regulated militia" is relevant to anything. Like at the one minute mark where the shithead tries to connect a militia being controlled by the government.

The shithead is wrong. I have the right to get my arms anywhere I want and not from the fucking government.

You obviously don't understand what the dumbass is advocating, do you?

What is it that I or Fuentes did not understand?

------------

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * 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.

THE MILITIA CLAUSES

Calling Out the Militia

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1784 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1785 The act of February 28, 1795,1786 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1787 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.1788

Regulation of the Militia

The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”1789 Under the National Defense Act of 1916,1790 the militia, which had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the National Government. The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for “three years in service and three years in reserve,” limited the appointment of officers to those who “shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe,” and authorized the President in certain emergencies to “draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve,” who thereupon should “stand discharged from the militia.”1791

The militia clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army. The Court has approved the system of “dual enlistment,” under which persons enlisted in state militia (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, and, when called to active duty in the federal service, are relieved of their status in the state militia. Consequently, the restrictions in the first militia clause have no application to the federalized National Guard; there is no constitutional requirement that state governors hold a veto power over federal duty training conducted outside the United States or that a national emergency be declared before such training may take place.1792

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-15–16

 

[Flash]

Are you part of a Militia in the USA?
Which one?

Did you even watch the video?

The sonofabitch was saying that the Second is applicable only to some government controlled militia. The dumbass says that an individual doesn't even have the right to own a firearm like the AR unless it is provided to him by the frucking government. He even comes right out and says it.

The guy is a typical stupid uneducated Democrat that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is spewing.

You obviously didn't even watch the video you posted. Either that you are like most Moon Bats and have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[progressive hunter]

What is it that I or Fuentes did not understand?

------------

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * 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.

THE MILITIA CLAUSES

Calling Out the Militia

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1784 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1785 The act of February 28, 1795,1786 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1787 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.1788

Regulation of the Militia

The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”1789 Under the National Defense Act of 1916,1790 the militia, which had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the National Government. The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for “three years in service and three years in reserve,” limited the appointment of officers to those who “shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe,” and authorized the President in certain emergencies to “draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve,” who thereupon should “stand discharged from the militia.”1791

The militia clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army. The Court has approved the system of “dual enlistment,” under which persons enlisted in state militia (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, and, when called to active duty in the federal service, are relieved of their status in the state militia. Consequently, the restrictions in the first militia clause have no application to the federalized National Guard; there is no constitutional requirement that state governors hold a veto power over federal duty training conducted outside the United States or that a national emergency be declared before such training may take place.1792

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-15–16

the 2nd A has nothing to do with this post or the video in the OP,,

 

[Sixties Fan]

Did you even watch the video?

The sonofabitch was saying that the Second is applicable only to some government controlled militia. The dumbass says that an individual doesn't even have the right to own a firearm like the AR unless it is provided to him by the frucking government. He even comes right out and says it.

The guy is a typical stupid uneducated Democrat that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is spewing.

You obviously didn't even watch the video you posted. Either that you are like most Moon Bats and have no idea what you are talking about.

Fuentes clearly says " One gets one's MILITIA's Arms from Congress.


He says nothing about an individual's right to bear arms.

I will ask again, are you part of a Militia approved by the Congress of the United States of America? Can one create a Militia in the USA without Congress approval?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The right to bear arms is given by our creator, whether that creator was a bearded God, and or even more so if our creator was the random forces of nature that drove our evolution into creatures capable of creating weapons. The 2nd amendment was put in because the English government restricted "peasants" from bearing arms, and the framers wanted to make sure no one tried that here.

 

[progressive hunter]

Fuentes clearly says " One gets one's MILITIA's Arms from Congress.


He says nothing about an individual's right to bear arms.

I will ask again, are you part of a Militia approved by the Congress of the United States of America? Can one create a Militia in the USA without Congress approval?

saying it doesnt mean anything,,

 

[Sixties Fan]

saying it doesnt mean anything,,

Explain

 

[marvin martian]

Is the video against the right to bear arms by individuals?

Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.

 

[progressive hunter]

Explain

really?? you need an explanation of that??

if thats true then the 2nd A would say " the right of the people to be supplied with arms by congress" or something like that,,

 

[Sixties Fan]

Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.

I watched the video twice. You may want to watch it slowly and repeat as many times as necessary.

 

[Sixties Fan]

really?? you need an explanation of that??

if thats true then the 2nd A would say " the right of the people to be supplied with arms by congress" or something like that,,

It is not about the right of the People.

It is about who regulates Militias and who supplies the weapons to these Militias.

That is where the confusion comes from.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is not about the right of the People.

It is about who regulates Militias and who supplies the weapons to these Militias.

That is where the confusion comes from.

thats your confusion,, the 2nd A is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms not militias,,

 

[Sixties Fan]

thats your confusion,, the 2nd A is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms not militias,,

People have the right to bear arms under the second ammendment.

They do not have the right to create Militias. Only Congress has that right per what I posted above.

 

[Seymour Flops]

All three of those definitions applied to the 2nd Amendment as written by the framers. They wanted the population to be armed - with weapons of war - so we could repel any invasion without the wastefulness of a large standing army. They absolutely want the possibility of rebellion to exist, because the knew that good governments fear their people, not the other way around, and there was the general definition of people who can be called up. Allowing and encouraging them to bear arms was essential.