A well-regulated...

[Star]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Where exactly are these militias you speak of? I have yet to see any!

 

[dilloduck]

I'd much rather discuss the intent of this Constitutional right than argue semantics. Don't ya think ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Each State has the protected right to form Militias. The national Guard is considered by some to be the FEDERALIZED portion of a State's Militia. Lets assume for a moment that is true.

Each State still has the right to form militias outside Federal authority. These are controlled by each individual States Constitution and laws. A militia , formed or unformed has nothing to do with the INDIVIDUAL'S right to be armed.

The Second conveys two distinct rights, one to the State and one to the Individual. A State however can not by law or Constitution deny the Individual right. Nor can the Federal Government.

After the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments were passed a move began to be specific about incorporating the protections of the Constitution into the States. While it was not technically needed since Federal law and rights supersede State, some people are dense.

Somehow the left has claimed all along that every right of the Constitution was incorporated EXCEPT the 2nd. That everywhere the Constitution referred to the people it was an individual right EXCEPT the 2nd.

Those days are GONE. The SUPREME COURT made it clear the 2nd Amendment is an individual right separate and distinct from belonging to a Militia.

Further since 1939 the Court has stated and reaffirmed that in order for a weapon to be protected by the 2nd it must be OF USE to the military. That means previously used by the military, currently in use by the Military or similar in capabilities to what is in use by the military.

And that right can NOT BE INFRINGED.

No special taxes on ammo, magazines or weapons separate from normal general taxation. No banning of semi automatic weapons. No banning of magazines in use or of use to the military.

And no license required to buy or own normal arms protected by the 2nd.

Historically States maintained separate Militias and some still do. However the practice of private militias being signed up by the State is a Historical fact too.

The 1st Amendment prevents the Government from banning private militias that do not violate any firearms laws or act in unlawful manners.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Troll....where is the link star.....you pussy

 

[Star]

Troll....where is the link star.....you pussy

I could be wrong about you but-----but I don't think you're stupid, so I have to ask - are you link challenged or Republican?
.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Troll....where is the link star.....you pussy

I could be wrong about you but-----but I don't think you're stupid, so I have to ask - are you link challenged or Republican?
.

Sorry, i'll add "serious" link

 

[Lakhota]

Where exactly are these militias you speak of? I have yet to see any!

Are you blind?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where exactly are these militias you speak of? I have yet to see any!

Are you blind?

One could ask you the same question.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For you anti gun freaks:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL8C94E735BE457E7A&v=52R9SHnekwo&feature=player_embedded]PJTV: Assault Pressure Cooker Ban: What the Boston Marathon Attack Teaches Us about Gun Control - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lakhota]

Anti-government extremist groups reach record levels, say experts - CNN.com

 

[Steelplate]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

The militia act of 1903 established the National Guard... the reason they did this was to get rid of State Militias that were being used as private armies.

 

[Ravi]

And no license required to buy or own normal arms protected by the 2nd.

How so? If you are going to equate individual gun ownership with military ownership, in the military one must make it through boot camp (training) before they are issued a weapon.

 

[editec]

Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

If the communmity that spawns the militia has "no authority at all over the militia" then how can one image that it is anything OTHER than WARLORDISM?

Some of you 2nd amendment rightest are highly confused people.

What you are now advocating isn't a well organizationed "state" militia, but instead a GANG with guns answering to no civilian authority at all.

That is not a militia.

 

[BlindBoo]

The State Militia were still under the Commander in chief. Being that there was no standing army, the country relied on the militia's for protection while a national arm could raised.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Anti-government extremist groups reach record levels, say experts - CNN.com

Thanks, Lakhota. And let's also not forget the findings of the Southern Poverty Law Center. I don't have the time to format this list but here it is from their website:

ALABAMA (31)
Alabama Constitutional Militia C.O.C.*
Calhoun County
Clarke County
Coffee County
Elmore County
Marion County
Statewide
Alarm & Muster: The Modern Day Alarm Riders
Statewide
America Can Be Free
Newton

CONTINUED

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where exactly are these militias you speak of? I have yet to see any!

Kinda like all the DHS agents. We know they're out there but do you know any of them?
Only one of these groups is really dangerous.

 

[squeeze berry]

Anti-government extremist groups reach record levels, say experts - CNN.com

and they are the one's forming flash mobs and targeting white people?

No ,you got that one wrong once again

 

[Skull Pilot]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

The term "regulated" in the 1700s meant many things: well supplied, disciplined it did not necessarily mean government controlled.

In fact I posit that the founders didn't want militias to be beholden to the government in case the government became an agent of tyranny and therefore an enemy of the people.

 

[Star]

Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

If the communmity that spawns the militia has "no authority at all over the militia" then how can one image that it is anything OTHER than WARLORDISM?

Some of you 2nd amendment rightest are highly confused people.

What you are now advocating isn't a well organizationed "state" militia, but instead a GANG with guns answering to no civilian authority at all.

That is not a militia.

.
Bingo!
And if the Republican, link challenged, poster knew how to left click my link s/he coulda/woulda read;

4.2 What is the tradition or history that the new militias are following in embracing the term 'unorganized militia'?

A. No tradition. Little history. The unorganized militia never ever had any kind of meaningful existence. It is simply a convenient statutory construct. See the history of the term in section 3 of this FAQ.

The Anti-Federalists of the 1780's who opposed a strong Federal government spoke of an armed militia indistinguishable from all the able bodied male citizenry. This militia was to be a great source of and training ground for republican virtue. They drew upon the writings of American and British republican theorists for this view. This universal militia was to be drawn from the local community, under the leadership of men of rank and substance, and subordinate to local elected authority.

The Constitution watered down this concept when it gave the federal government power over organizing, arming and disciplining the militia and even more so, when it gave the federal government rather than the local (state) authority control over the militia when federalized. However, the 1792 Act, as much as allowed for by the Constitution, called for this universal militia. But the states granted widespread exemptions and eventually ended compulsory militia duty. Service in the militia became voluntary and few served. In large part because of the labor strikes of the late 1870's, the militia was revived once again as the National Guard. In the twentieth century, the National Guard has increasingly become part of the armed forces of the United States.
Whatever virtues the National Guard has, it cannot claim the republican virtue of an armed citizenry, because it is a small self-selected group. However, at least the National Guardsman is the citizen-soldier acting in defense of the republic and under elected civilian leadership both state and federal.

As for the new militia, they have even less claim to be acting out of some notion that they are serving republican virtue or that they somehow represent the militia ideal of the Anti-Federalists or the earlier republican theorists. They are, after all, small self-selected groups, responsible to no one, following an agenda of their own choosing.
.