HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "A well regulated Mi...

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:57 AM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

What is a well-regulated militia and who arms it? The part of our history and law that the NRA and their fans ignore is that the militias were an arm of the state in colonial times and arming them was a function of the role they served for the state. They were not freelance insurrectionists begging for a chance to blow someone's head off to prove a point. This site provides an excellent historical and legal perspective on militias.

http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp

15 replies, 1422 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:00 AM

1. We need a well armed and regulated militia to protect us from these gun nuts and extremists

 

just like Mr. Martin could have used a well armed militia to protect his civil and basic rights against the asssassin Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:08 AM

3. I saw a wee bit of discussion along the lines of this historical and legal perspective on one

of MSNBCs afternoon programs a couple of days ago. I would love to see a whole program dedicated to telling the history of militias and discussing them in terms of their official role for the state. I think the National Guard has supplanted that role in today's society. However, the fringe guns for everyone advocates fail to see that and the fact that these were regulated groups in their zeal to paint a picture of romantic insurrectionists rising from the brush to blow whatever they identify as a threat away with their big guns. As far as I'm concerned, any one of that type of group acting against the government is committing an act of treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:14 AM

6. Agree with you 100%.

 

I too wish someone in the MSM has the courage to talk about this aspect and not risk offending the gun lobby and fantatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:06 AM

2. I think it's like a Rorschach Test, written intentionally to be open to interpretation...

And, as such, modern attempts to explain it are prone to differentiation depending upon the explainer's point of view.

For example, modern prepper types might take this line, from the ADL article, in a very scary way:

"The militia of Massachusetts were definitely supervised by the shadow government that the colonials had set up and which would eventually become the Patriot government of Massachusetts."

They might use it to justify organizing a statewide movement to "take back their government".

I find the contemporaneous writings of the founders to be most enlightening, and they are often quoted in these discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:09 AM

4. Isn't the National Guard today's version of a well-regulated militia?

Legal Basis of the National Guard
The National Guard's charter is the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of "militia clauses," vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. These clauses and follow-on legislation have sculpted the Guard as you see it today. Here are summaries that will help you understand how the Guard came to be what it is today.



The Second Amendment
"Ö a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State," and "Öthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10 by ensuring that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, states, "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."



http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx

Why don't those NRA 2nd amendment fans join the guard? Probably to many rules for them to follow and not enough nutty theories for them to justify what they really desire. Just guessing here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:13 AM

5. The Heller decision

both the majority and minority decisions are an interesting read on this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:17 AM

7. Justice Stevens says heller decision leaves room for new gun restrictions

 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/heller_decision_leaves_room_for_new_gun_restrictions_retired_justice_steven

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens said Monday that the U.S. Supreme Courtís gun rights decisions donít preclude new laws regulating automatic weapons.

Stevens chided Congress for failing to tighten gun laws after the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, the Washington Examiner and Reuters report. "The fact that Congress doesn't address it is, I think, mind-boggling," he said in the speech broadcast by C-SPAN.

Stevens dissented in District of Columbia v. Heller when the court found the Second Amendment protects the right to keep handguns for protection within the home. A second case, McDonald v. Chicago, found that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government.

snip

Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way in his majority opinion in Heller to limit Second Amendment protections to the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, Stevens said said. A section of Scalia's opinion identified permissible regulations, including prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons, though the section was dicta, Stevens said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:24 AM

8. My take was that Scalia was saying that States have

latitude to control some of these things. I believe there are many things that the Federal government cannot do because of SCOTUS precedent and blatant constitutional issues beyond the 2nd amendment itself, which states may regulate on their own without interfering with the incorporation of the 2nd..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:46 AM

9. It would seem that

Anything involving guns that is not "well regulated" or that lessens our security would be right out, wouldn't it? When is the last time a 2nd amendment issue has even been brought to the supreme court?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:58 AM

10. Read the Constitution, just about everything you need to know is in there.

Let's see:

"The Congress shall have the power:"

"To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia..reserving to the States the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline proscribed by Congress"


And by looking at the 1st Militia Acts and the debates surrounding it to see how the Congress provided these guidelines, it is quite clear the people were to provide their own arms for militia service.


In 1 page or less:

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to secure the Militias.

Why? Our freedoms depend on it; the freedom of the States, and the existence of the Union depend on it.

US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8; The VERY VITAL Role of the Militias in securing our liberties:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia {of the several States} to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

Article 4 Section 4
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence".

Preamble:
..in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty

The newly assigned powers of Congress, over the existing Miltiias of the Several States:
Article 1 Section 8
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;

Powers taken from the States, that if usurped, or ignored, could be exploited by tyrants.

How?

In Congress 1789...
Mr Gerry: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this {religious exemtion} clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."


Mr. Scott: objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army.

The 2nd secured the Militias, it prevents them from being "destroyed".
1) it declares the Militias ARE NECESSARY.
2) it declares they must be well-regulated - well armed and well trained.
3) it keeps the governments from violating the right of the people to keep and bear arms (i.e. DISarm them)

It keeps the Congress and the States from ignoring, or disarming or otherwise leaving the Militias ineffective.

As Rep Gerry said...
Mr. Gerry: objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:22 AM

11. May I copy your summary to pass on to someone

who I have gotten to focus on this whole issue finally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:58 AM

13. Sure! No problem! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:24 AM

12. "the 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right" - Barack Obama nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:05 PM

14. Why aren't we

focussing on the "well-regulated" portion of the Amendment? Seems like that would solve all the issues. Well-regulated means well-regulated. So let's regulate gun ownership. Easy peasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:51 PM

15. Don't tell Republicans

Don't tell this to the Republican wackos, they like to stay away from the truth. They prefer what they WANT over what ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread