Another 2nd Ammendment offshoot

H

hummelsander

New member
I see two things in there:

#1 The necessity of a well regulated millitia
#2 The right of the people to keep and bear arms

I'm thinking this "millitia" was not what we call the National Guard. I'm thinking it was a group of men who are organized volunteers banned together for the purpose of protect there families and towns. I'm thinking it is more like the "Neighborhood Watch" programs but with the addition of being armed. This millitia idea was not regular Army but organized volunteers.

It is these two things that shall not be infringed upon.
 
This "militia" was essentially all able bodied men; it was also not a "qualifier' for the Second, but an explanation of its importance. The right is an individual one, plain and simple.

Much research and writing can be found on this at TFL. Virtually nothing of scholarly respect has ever refuted the individual right theory. So, I'm going to have to ask you to clarify your point beyond simply asserting that the Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
Rich
 
Well, the National Guard wasn't created until the 1910's, so that's pretty much debunked...also, under federal law, the militia means all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 42.
 
I'm thinking it is more like the "Neighborhood Watch" programs but with the addition of being armed.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. In writing the federal constitution, including the BoR, the Founders were concerned with possible restrictions on the RKBA as they would affect things at the national level. Their intent in refering to the militia was probably to remind the people that they are, ultimately, the nation's defense.

The Founders probably did not suspect that anyone would later interpret the federal constitution to allow restrictions on private ownership of weapons. The inclusion of a statement that the people have the right to keep and bear arms was, IMO, a lucky fluke. Without it, we might be where Australia or England is... with our government trying to ban knives.

Neighborhood watch groups are, similarly, wholly outside the federal constitution's scope. I think the founders would have considered any explicit mention of neighborhood watch groups in a federal constitution to be absurd.
 
I believe, based on supporting evidence and the times, our forefathers wanted to ensure that all men were individually armed so that that fact alone would deter any foreign or domestic aggressors from attacking America. Give the ultimate power of firearms to the people (meaning individuals who can become collectives at a moments notice) and they can fend off any aggressors.
 
Give the ultimate power of firearms to the people (meaning individuals who can become collectives at a moments notice) and they can fend off any aggressors.
Click to expand...
Surely they weren't so radical?????

And if they were, then, why listen to the words of people who spoke more than two centuries ago. After all, we've evolved since then. ;)
Rich
 
I didn't put militia in quotations to redefine the term in 21century language. I just wanted to quote the word for the sake of discussing the original concept.

That said, on another forum, someone was adamant that "militia" was supposed to be the national guard or the cavalry or something official and governmental.

I don't think the intent was for the militia to be government funded. I think it was to be a privately funded organization of volunteers. That's with no research on my part...so I may just be writing out of ignorance.
 
That's with no research on my part...so I may just be writing out of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Nope it's not ignorance; it's simple lack of knowledge. No sin there. Ignorance would be to ask the question and then refuse to seek or read the answer.

The answer has been provided in posts here and is expounded upon in numerous texts. One need only read.
Rich
 
In the colonial days militias consisted of all able bodied men who were required to have a rifle, powder, musket ball.. ect. to provide for the common defense. The British maintained a small military prescense in some areas of Colonial America so it was up to some places to establish a milita for defense. Militia laws required all able bodied men to participate and to furnish thier own arms. The British attemted to disarm the American people around 1774. That is when some militias became independent from the royal governors in the colonies. Many American colonials experienced first hand the abuses on person and liberties from the British army and its hired mercenaries. This gave way to a distrust of standing armies on the part of some Americans because the power was concentrated in few hands. While most militias were local organizations and controlled by local government.

the militas provided for local and national defense as needed. Could be used by the states for emergencies without calling in federal troops. Congress could levy the militia in the event of a national emergency.The intent was that there would be no need of a standing army. Most standing armies of that era were conscripts and mercenaries, not the profesional volunteer army we have today. Most folks of that era viewed conscripts and mercenaries just a step or two above criminals.

A comprimise betwee the Federalists and Anti Federalists over control of the miltia was reached. The Militias would be given federal recogniton and could be called up by Congress. However, the leaders would be appointed by the local and state government.

The original vison was that these standing militias would provide for the nation's defense without the need for a standing army.

Which means that if an able body male was required to purchase his own firearm for the milita, then he as an individual should not have that right restricted in any form or fashion.
 
So, it is the early concept of militia that later developed into what we would call the National Guard? Hmmmm. They are the ones, along with the police, that took the guns away form the Katrina people...sometimes buy force.

I need to look into the congressional control over the militia. This seems militias who were once volunteers have now become under the control of congress and thus would not be volunteers but a federal army.

Just thinking out loud.
 
It seems to me that whenever there is a State/federal conflict and the National Guard is called in, it is called in to force the federal government's will upon that State, which makes it clear to me that the NG is not the State Militia.
 
the fear of,forgien enemies,frontier troubles, and a corrupt gov't offical using a standing army to trample the citizens was the purpose of the second admendment some wanted to make george washington king george the first, others wanted to make the new country just like european countries. our founding fathers wanted the people to stand on thier own to defend liberty against ANYONE who would try to trample it under foot please read the federalist papers to start learning about the bill of rights
 
The National Guard is under State Regulations until Congress gives the President the authority to federalize it or he uses his powers under a Presidential callup to federalize it.. The federal government funds the National Guard and this is the trump card they play when the Governors get sassy. There is Presidential callup authority but he is limited in the number of Ready Reserve ( National Guard & Reserves) troops and the number of days he can call them up without further approval from Congress

further reading material:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/guardandreserve/a/reservecallup.htm
 
I looked up the definition of "militia" in a digital Websters that I have through a program called E-Sword.:

MILI'TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
Click to expand...

I also found a link next to the above link:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/guardandreserve/l/blguardhist.htm

Kind of interesting that only a short time after the signing of the Constitution that congress took over the local militia. And, according to this artical and some informed guys on this forum, the militia evolved into our national guard. But, I'm still not sure that was what the framers originally intended. But, again, maybe it was.
 
The original intent was that there not be a standing army. That militas would provide for the defense of the nation in emegencies. Local government would control the militias in peactime and levy them for emergencies within the state. In the event of a national emergency Congress could federalize the local militias for national defense. There was a comprimise in which there would be a small standing army which would be supplemented by the militias.

The cost of maintaining a local miltia probably became prohibitive as the technology of warfare increased. Not to mention that as civilization moved westward certain threats were minimized and the dependence upon a local militia declined. So evetually it moved from a "required" thing for all able bodied males to a voluntary thing.
 
Yeah, I was reading the above article some more. Another thing it said was that the original militias were a bit disorderly in comparison to the Regular Army. But they were also fierce fighters and substantially added to the success of many battles.

They were ordered to organize and be more disciplined by congress, but it wasn't until the 1900's that they were fully assimilated into the what we now call the Army National guard. This is according to the About.com article which was provide curtisy of the US Army.

All that leads me to the federalization of the militia. I know it was necessary at the time and at the time it was a great move. But, if our government gets out of control (which we can all see coming) the National Guard will be there, not to protect us, but to aid in disarming all of us. So, the original intent of the Framers is now lost in the federalization of the militia.

So, can we, constitutionally, form again, volunteer, not for profit, militias?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top