Well regulated militia

[Open Bolt]

We all get the vision of what a militia is from stories of the revolution. Men in bars and churches created a private armed group, and protected their country. They didn’t ask governor Winthrop “hey you mind if I get some friends together to protect our community?”

Actually the militias were official military bodies organized by the colonial governments.

 

[IamZ]

Actually the militias were official military bodies organized by the colonial governments.

Noooo they were men in bars that Sam Adams rallied and other patriots rallied .

 

[2aguy]

And your point?
Maybe radical citizens are better taking an oath to follow the guy that buys the most beer?

No point, just clarifying the issue.

 

[White 6]

Since there are no government-organized militias today, you are probably talking about some private group that calls themselves a militia.

I think an actual government-organized militia would be careful about safety.

Absolutely, You are aversed to the National Guard viewed as the militia, no matter it's roots, heritage, state and local service, etc. I was just relating my experience with local manifestation, organized by more local politicos, people with large marginal income reserves etc. You have be careful who you get in bed with, what their unstated long term goals are and so on, lest you are tied (though innocent in original intent) inextricably to their organization and possible activities. One day a local group looking to help keep their community safe, next day unknown to rank and file, plotting to kidnap governors. It is the same with protests and anti-protest group, but with an off brand citizens militia, you start with weapons in the mix. Remember protests since 2019, where they turned violent or even anti-government, know many had no intention before things got out of hand, they would be party to outright proactive attacks, ending up in jail as youtube stars of insurrection.
I prefer the National Guard for the militia function, or the State's defense force (which is made up of retired Guard) and grounded with the state.

 

[Flash]

Except, that isn't what "well regulated" meant back in the day. That is only one part part of what "well regulated" meant.

"Well regulated" also meant that the militia had trained to a sufficient degree that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Overall, "well regulated" meant that the militia was an effective fighting force that could kick ass. And a militia needed both supplies and training to achieve that.

Since the Supreme Court determined that the Second was an individual right then any disagreement of the meaning of "well regulated" is moot. It is not a qualifier. If you aren't "well regulated" then that doesn't prevent you from enjoying the right. Scalia pretty well put that issue to bed.

The right to keep and bear arms afforded to me is not dependent upon some government weenie's determination of if I am well regulated or not (whatever the government thinks that is) nor is it dependent upon me using my arms solely for the purpose of the security of the free state. I am protected by the Bill of Rights to use the firearm for recreational purposes or self defense or anything I want to. That right shall not be infringed.

 

[Open Bolt]

You are aversed to the National Guard viewed as the militia, no matter it's roots, heritage, state and local service, etc.

If the law was changed to separate them from the US Army, they only served inside US borders, and they were allowed to keep their weapons at home, I'd be happy to start counting the National Guard as the militia.

the State's defense force (which is made up of retired Guard) and grounded with the state.

State guards would count as militia if states actually armed them with military weapons.

You can join a state guard without having been in the National Guard or in any other military. It is likely however that ex National Guardsmen are the people most interested in joining their state guard.

 

[Open Bolt]

Since the Supreme Court determined that the Second was an individual right then any disagreement of the meaning of "well regulated" is moot. It is not a qualifier. If you aren't "well regulated" then that doesn't prevent you from enjoying the right. Scalia pretty well put that issue to bed.

The right to keep and bear arms afforded to me is not dependent upon some government weenie's determination of if I am well regulated or not (whatever the government thinks that is) nor is it dependent upon me using my arms solely for the purpose of the security of the free state. I am protected by the Bill of Rights to use the firearm for recreational purposes or self defense or anything I want to. That right shall not be infringed.

Agreed.

 

[Soupnazi630]

This is clearly an unconstitutional decision. Competence must be questioned.

It was clearly correct and constitutional

 

[Open Bolt]

It was clearly correct and constitutional

I think rupol2000 is disappointed that the Heller decision didn't go further and start enforcing the militia aspects of the Second Amendment.

It is certainly good that the Supreme Court recognized that the right to keep and bear arms includes private self defense.

But that doesn't do anything for the people who want to bring back the militia.

 

[White 6]

If the law was changed to separate them from the US Army, they only served inside US borders, and they were allowed to keep their weapons at home, I'd be happy to start counting the National Guard as the militia.



State guards would count as militia if states actually armed them with military weapons.

You can join a state guard without having been in the National Guard or in any other military. It is likely however that ex National Guardsmen are the people most interested in joining their state guard.

Entirely too dangerous, not to control the weaponry in even the smallest not combat arms unit, locked in their vaults.
Very true, about your assessment on state guards.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, according to the way the amendment is written, as long as some "arm" were available, the conditions would be satisfied. Nothing says "any and every".

 

[2aguy]

So, according to the way the amendment is written, as long as some "arm" were available, the conditions would be satisfied. Nothing says "any and every".

Nope...that would be like saying as long as you can write on your cell wall the 1st amendment is satisfied.....

 

[Grumblenuts]

The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago. Americans have a right to defend their homes, and nothing should undermine this right; nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting anymore than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing. Neither does anyone question the right of citizens to keep and own an automobile. Yet there is no strong interest by the citizenry in questioning the power of the State to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. It is even more desirable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage.

 

[Open Bolt]

Entirely too dangerous, not to control the weaponry in even the smallest not combat arms unit, locked in their vaults.

The Swiss have a militia that seems quite a bit like what the Founding Fathers wanted America to have.

Their militiamen have kept their automatic rifles at home without too much trouble.

 

[Open Bolt]

So, according to the way the amendment is written, as long as some "arm" were available, the conditions would be satisfied. Nothing says "any and every".

Militiamen have the job of repelling foreign invasions. That means militiamen have the right to have enough firepower to repel a foreign invasion.

Also, even under the limited scope of the Supreme Court's Heller ruling, restrictions on guns are allowed only if those restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

That means that if there is no compelling government interest in restricting access to a given type of gun, people have the right to have that type of gun.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.
The constitution says that the creation of a militia is necessary.
View attachment 594923

nope that was not the purpose of the second amendment

 

[westwall]

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.
The constitution says that the creation of a militia is necessary.
View attachment 594923

Well regulated means in good working order.

It has zero to do with laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I said what I said. Nation.

If China were to try and invade CA, armed citizens would be there. Not just CA residents, but from every state.

fuck'em let those in california fix the mess they created.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only people against militias have a history of being against the United States of America

a lot of blue staters hate America

 

[WinterBorn]

fuck'em let those in california fix the mess they created.

I would not let any American state fall to invaders. CA may be completely fucked up, but I don't want an enemy on our continent.