Gun Control & RKBA

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)

98. Why was it important to prevent the federal government from disarming militias?

Wed Mar 21, 2012, 11:31 AM

Mar 2012

The second amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from disarming militias.

Why was this important to the founders?

Why did they consider standing armies "dangerous to liberty"?

At the time, questions about standing armies versus militias were a significant issue, and that's why the purpose of the second amendment was stated quite clearly in its preamble.

Why were questions about standing armies versus militias a significant issue?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

102 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Looking for a well-regulated militia [View all] DetlefK Mar 2012 OP

..... daleanime Mar 2012 #1

Oh jeez.. shadowrider Mar 2012 #2

I don't get your point. DetlefK Mar 2012 #7

Well if this is a true post Drale Mar 2012 #3

the National Guard is not really a militia gejohnston Mar 2012 #6

Well, since you're foreign, let me help.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #4

Thanks. DetlefK Mar 2012 #9

It was never 'widened'- it was always there. X_Digger Mar 2012 #11

militias still exist gejohnston Mar 2012 #18

Yes, it's funny how the only Amendment that has COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #20

Except it isn't new, nor is that construction strange in writings of the time.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #22

It just strikes me as a little odd COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #27

That is the purpose, not the scope. X_Digger Mar 2012 #30

Semantic gibberish COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #31

aka, you got nothing. X_Digger Mar 2012 #32

Not at all COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #35

Again, purpose, not scope. X_Digger Mar 2012 #37

Again, I fail to see the logic of your premise. COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #43

'Why' does not equal 'how much'. X_Digger Mar 2012 #50

With all due respect COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #51

No, you missed the point.. you're reading it as a restriction on people, not the government. X_Digger Mar 2012 #56

No, I'm reading it for the purpose COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #57

'permits the bearing of arms' -- fundamentally wrong X_Digger Mar 2012 #61

I don't know where you get this COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #65

Err, I think you need a class on the enlightenment and our system of government... X_Digger Mar 2012 #66

A militia can be one person too. era veteran Mar 2012 #21

In 1992, a 'militia' saved entire blocks of businesses and residences in koreatown in LA AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #96

Okay... TheWraith Mar 2012 #5

Start your own Ezlivin Mar 2012 #8

Top Shot is a joke. Throwing hatchets? Grenade Launchers? And the drama and fighting. It is a.... Logical Mar 2012 #16

I just think it would be great fun to have access Ezlivin Mar 2012 #17

I 100% agree. I would love to shoot there. But I wish they could have not dropped to... Logical Mar 2012 #19

They're usually done by state chrisa Mar 2012 #10

No, that is not the SOLE purpose of the right to keep and bear arms slackmaster Mar 2012 #12

which would in turn be regulated by some authority. ?? Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2012 #13

"The text is very clear" PavePusher Mar 2012 #14

I refuse to argue with foreigners shadowrider Mar 2012 #15

Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller explains it adequately -- to gun-carrying culture's chagrin. Hoyt Mar 2012 #23

To who's chagrin? PavePusher Mar 2012 #24

If you know anything about Constitutional Law COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #28

What SCOTUS decision did gejohnston Mar 2012 #40

I was (inartfully) trying to COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #54

I see, I tend to think Citizens United will be gejohnston Mar 2012 #55

Let's hope so. COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #58

Does the fact that you're praising a Scalia decision and criticizing _ed_ Mar 2012 #36

Stevens is a Republican gejohnston Mar 2012 #39

Are you seriously suggesting that Stevens' _ed_ Mar 2012 #41

Do you support the Brady Campaign? shadowrider Mar 2012 #42

He was a Republican in 1975 gejohnston Mar 2012 #44

Since you're determined to use the genetic fallacy, what about United States v. Jones? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #45

I give you Kelo v. City of New London . PavePusher Mar 2012 #48

Our interlocutor seems to have left the building... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #70

Not really, as I don't simply accept party-line doctrine as gospel. PavePusher Mar 2012 #47

Stevens does backflips to deny what's clear as the nose on his face. X_Digger Mar 2012 #25

You're absolutely right. COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #29

As usual you come up with the "gun-carrying culture" insult rl6214 Mar 2012 #33

There are three entities in the 2nd Amendment krispos42 Mar 2012 #26

In short term, I'll accept those 45 and older leaving guns at home. Hoyt Mar 2012 #67

Why not women? krispos42 Mar 2012 #72

Women carriers are usually OK. They aren't trying to prove something to themselves or others. Hoyt Mar 2012 #73

That's a rather sexist statement... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #74

Yes it is. It does demean men who carry and use guns for things far removed from self-defense. Hoyt Mar 2012 #75

Fine. As long as you don't pretend that your personal experiences represent society at large. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #76

As are the aged. krispos42 Mar 2012 #83

Don't think I'm discriminating - women don't have the same issues as men in this context. Hoyt Mar 2012 #84

But a far greater percentage of non-white teens are violent criminals. krispos42 Mar 2012 #86

No, if Martin had been white, he'd still be alive. Try not to "play odds" with your gun. Hoyt Mar 2012 #87

good lord Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2012 #91

But that's ok shadowrider Mar 2012 #92

Four random Jurors will allow it. I bet my bottom dollar on it plus, the jurors will add insult to Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2012 #93

You are quite right. The text is clear. DanTex Mar 2012 #34

"...the intent or proper interpretation of the Second Amendment". Let's ask a Constitutional scholar friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #49

Nothing more than political pap COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #52

He's speaking as a politician there, not as a constitutional scholar. DanTex Mar 2012 #53

The 3rd Amendment has been adjucated in my lifetime krispos42 Mar 2012 #62

No, from disarming PEOPLE. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #63

It might be right of people who are in a well regulated militia, but that is it. Hoyt Mar 2012 #69

Those militias no longer exist. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #81

Finally, you got it. We don't need a bunch of armed, but unregulated toters nowadays. Hoyt Mar 2012 #85

So how do you reconcile the rest of the amendment? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #88

Read Stevens' dissent in Heller. It's clear. Hoyt Mar 2012 #90

we have gejohnston Mar 2012 #94

Perhaps you could tell me what part of it specifically you are referring to? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #97

Outstanding post. Hoyt Mar 2012 #68

Why was it important to prevent the federal government from disarming militias? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #98

Your position is at odds with EVERYTHING! Surf Fishing Guru Mar 2012 #101

If you're foreign _ed_ Mar 2012 #38

Not so much gejohnston Mar 2012 #46

Please list your "sensible gun control" proposals. PavePusher Mar 2012 #59

You don't really expect an answer do you? oneshooter Mar 2012 #78

Hey, they should be offered the chance to prove their bonafides, and engage in honest debate. PavePusher Mar 2012 #79

Still... Waiting... n/t PavePusher Mar 2012 #99

The RKBA is an individual right, and need not be connected to any militia. montanto Mar 2012 #60

Understanding the second amendment. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #64

You guys sure have to spin in all directions to get that interpretation of 2nd. Hoyt Mar 2012 #71

Quite humorous... Clames Mar 2012 #77

Yeah, opinion of 5 right wing judges. Hoyt Mar 2012 #80

All 9 judges agreed the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #102

Can you muster any specific refutation of what I wrote? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #82

Bu-bu-but.... "Militia, militia, militia....!" PavePusher Mar 2012 #89

If you don't understand, why do you make a positive claim about how the text is clear? AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #95

Your focus is perfectly backwards Surf Fishing Guru Mar 2012 #100