Well regulated militia

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It's pretty much the same as what I'm talking about. Only this militia should be organized, someone should be engaged in this.

The militia that the 2A refers to is the government militia, not the people.

 

[Missourian]

Missouri State Defense Force - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

Fearing violence from rioting strikers and anti-war protesters, the state of Missouri created the Missouri Home Guard in 1917

OMG, how did Missouri ever survive without such gangs of well armed, next-door neighbor haters!
Up the fascism, yay! Liberty? Safety first! No questions allowed without first being shot then stomped upon, yay!

The Capitol Police department released a brief three-sentence statement on the continued National Guard support, thanking the Guard, but omitting any reason as to why they were needed. Acting Chief Pittman has previously acknowledged in congressional testimony that 35 Capitol Police officers were under investigation for “code of conduct” violations related to January 6, with six of those suspended for their actions. The department has not released any further information concerning the cozy relationship between the police and the pro-Trump fascists.

wsws

 

[Colin norris]

That was 245 years ago.

Justice Scalia ruled on Heller that the only relevant part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So that's where we are today. At least until the next Supreme Court decision.

But that was 245 years ago. The military take care of it now.
Try Again.

 

[woodwork201]

We have a well regulated militia. It is called the National Guard.

Wrong. The National Guard is called by the DOD to fight in global wars on foreign lands. Nothing in the Constitution permits anyone other than Congress to call up the National Guard and they only for a very limited set of assignments related to fighting insurrection, invasion, and enforcing the law. The National Guard is NOT the militia.

 

[woodwork201]

The US Constitution specifies we should have no standing military we should only have Militias

That's not true.

 

[woodwork201]

Then you need to immigrate somewhere else. California sucks, but they ARE part of America and those of us who swore an oath to defend the Constitution and this country, will do so for EVERY State in the Union.

Fighting alongside Californians would be in order to keep the enemy from getting east of California. I might fight to keep Californians from dying but only because they're helpful in defending parts East. More likely, though, California would surrender and we'd be fighting Californians along with whichever WestPac nations we were fighting.

 

[woodwork201]

Good luck with those beliefs, but the National Guard is the only official militia remaining, if any. The Militias were set up to be State sponsored and regulated, but the Guard is now a designated branch of the Air Force. Part of the military or "standing army" despite the clear intent of the Founders. The Governors of each State control their Guard's civil presence and deployments until or unless they're called to national service in which case the President assumes their command as with all branches of the military.

Of course there's a militia: every able-bodied man from 16 to 60. That the States and Congress are failing in their responsibility to provide regulation does not mean that the militia doesn't exist in exactly the way it did in 1788.

 

[White 6]

Wrong. The National Guard is called by the DOD to fight in global wars on foreign lands. Nothing in the Constitution permits anyone other than Congress to call up the National Guard and they only for a very limited set of assignments related to fighting insurrection, invasion, and enforcing the law. The National Guard is NOT the militia.

No. Their lineage goes back and is still directly connected to the citizen soldier of the revolutionary days, state and local militias that would drop what they were doing in their civilian life to support their community, state and (yes) the country when under attack and they still support their communities today. As we type, there are Texas National Guard supporting a state mission, chosen by their Governor, directed by their Adjutant General, paid by state funding on their border. I have been on a state mission in a civil disturbance situation, again, called up by the Governor on a state funded mission. They are well regulated, as they are trained for these missions, have the equipment, and unified military command structure to carry out these missions. At purely local level down to unit level, commanders have at times taken it upon themselves to call in small groups to man equipment and provide support in situations such as local flooding events, saving lives because they type of equipment (in terms of high ground clearance heavy haulers with off-road capabilities for example) they have at their command and orderly military discipline of their trained people to operate, placed them in a position to do things in support beyond the capabilities of other local agencies before state can react, in sort of a do and get authorization and funding to pay, later kind of thing, at unit commander risk until that authorization comes down, but as it happens, coordination for those arrangements are being take upstream to higher organization command at to state level. To this day, I have never see a commander hung out to dry, as support in peacetime is the core value of The Guard down through the years.

 

[BlackSand]

mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   "creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service

,

And ...

Any state or local government can write laws that form, arm and regulate a militia without violating the Constitution.
Any absence of such a law does not grant the Federal Government the power to infringe upon the citizen's Rights.

.​

 

[woodwork201]

No. Their lineage goes back and is still directly connected to the citizen soldier of the revolutionary days, state and local militias that would drop what they were doing in their civilian life to support their community, state and (yes) the country when under attack and they still support their communities today. As we type, there are Texas National Guard supporting a state mission, chosen by their Governor, directed by their Adjutant General, paid by state funding on their border. I have been on a state mission in a civil disturbance situation, again, called up by the Governor on a state funded mission. They are well regulated, as they are trained for these missions, have the equipment, and unified military command structure to carry out these missions. At purely local level down to unit level, commanders have at times taken it upon themselves to call in small groups to man equipment and provide support in situations such as local flooding events, saving lives because they type of equipment (in terms of high ground clearance heavy haulers with off-road capabilities for example) they have at their command and orderly military discipline of their trained people to operate, placed them in a position to do things in support beyond the capabilities of other local agencies before state can react, in sort of a do and get authorization and funding to pay, later kind of thing, at unit commander risk until that authorization comes down, but as it happens, coordination for those arrangements are being take upstream to higher organization command at to state level. To this day, I have never see a commander hung out to dry, as support in peacetime is the core value of The Guard down through the years.

That the National Guard is performing a State mission does not make them the constitutional militia. The "lineage" means nothing if they're used outside the constitutional purpose but you can't prove that lineage.

The militia CAN NOT be deployed on foreign soil. The militia can only be called up BY CONGRESS according to the Constitution:

​

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;​

What part of the power of Congress to use the State Militias in federal service allows them to be sent to foreign lands? Which part of the Constitution allows the Militias to be perpetually assigned to the Department of Defense for fighting foreign wars?

The National Guard is NOT the militia; it is part of the standing army.

 

[Open Bolt]

We have a well regulated militia. It is called the National Guard.

That is incorrect. The National Guard is part of a standing army. That makes them the opposite of a militia.

 

[Open Bolt]

Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.

Not a bad idea. Remember also that militiamen have the right to have things like grenades and full-auto weapons. Part of their job is repelling foreign invasions.

It is said because the possession of weapons there is mentioned strictly in the context of militia law, in one sentence. It doesn't even say anything about personal protection.

It doesn't have to say anything about it. The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes, and the Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Open Bolt]

Like Scalia, many choose to simply ignore the "well regulated" part.

The term well regulated meant that the militia had trained sufficiently enough that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

All one need do to appreciate the difference is think about who got to declare any particular militia "well regulated" or not? Certainly not the individual members. So who?

Pretty much anyone who observed them go through exercises would be able to tell if they were capable of acting as a single coherent unit or not.

Good luck with those beliefs, but the National Guard is the only official militia remaining, if any. The Militias were set up to be State sponsored and regulated, but the Guard is now a designated branch of the Air Force. Part of the military or "standing army" despite the clear intent of the Founders. The Governors of each State control their Guard's civil presence and deployments until or unless they're called to national service in which case the President assumes their command as with all branches of the military.

The fact that the National Guard are part of a standing army means that they are not the militia.

Presently there is no militia, which violates the Second Amendment's requirement that there be one.

 

[Open Bolt]

Wrong.

That is incorrect. The first part of the Second Amendment is pretty clear about saying that a militia is necessary.

Armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from the state or Federal government.

Sure they can. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Association.

Their declaration may mean nothing, just as it would mean nothing if I declared myself to be "Emperor of the Andromeda Galaxy". But they (and I) are certainly allowed to make such empty declarations.

Absent such authorization, they’re nothing but a lawless gang of armed thugs.

Not if they make sure to always follow the law.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Pretty much anyone who observed them go through exercises would be able to tell if they were capable of acting as a single coherent unit or not.

Point being someone had to do it, whereas no one need now observe Joe Blow doing anything thanks to Scalia's judicial activists.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Presently there is no militia, which violates the Second Amendment's requirement that there be one.

Really? It certainly suggests their necessity, but doesn't require them.

 

[Open Bolt]

Point being someone had to do it, whereas no one need now observe Joe Blow doing anything thanks to Scalia's judicial activists.

The reason why no one can observe militia exercises is because there is no militia presently. The Heller ruling is about private home defense, not about the militia.

Upholding the Constitution is hardly judicial activism.

Really? It certainly suggests their necessity, but doesn't require them.

Declaring that something is necessary is requiring it.

 

[White 6]

That is incorrect. The National Guard is part of a standing army. That makes them the opposite of a militia.

Not unless on title 32 activation. Other than that, under state control. That is why it takes the Governor to activate for use in riots inside the state, or in times of other state emergency.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Declaring that something is necessary is requiring it.

Fine, then the 2nd states militias are required for what purpose now? For the security of a free State. Does it say all States must be "secure" or "free"? No. Does is say all adult white, males must arm themselves in case they're needed by their State's militia? No. So what is the point? Given a well regulated State militia, given such militias are "required" for the purposes already described, then "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Point being "shall be infringed" given those two caveats (and only those two caveats). Otherwise, such as given "there is no militia presently" -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," may "be infringed."