previous post next post  

The Militia & The 2nd Amendment

Amendment II:
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.

To me and to most readers of this fair blog, the 2nd Amendment clearly guarantees the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. 

Still we often hear, the fallacy that this amendment only pertain to the formation of State Militias.

Let's take this asshat's view at its word and run with it.  Since the 2nd Amendment is limited only to having a well regulated militia, and since The National Guard is now-a-days "The Militia", citizens do not have an individual right to keep and bear arms.  So, why not see how Congress defines our States' Militias:

May I suggest, Title 10 Section 311 of our U.S. Code of Law:
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Oh, I see.  All able-bodied males between the ages of 17 to 45 ARE the Unorganized Militia.  And in case of need, can and will muster with our personal weapons to defend our communities against foreign invasion or lawless marauders.

As far as I know, this fact is never pointed-out to the liberals, every time they trot-out their "militia" canard.  Learn it - Internalize it - And smack their faces with this fact.

We ARE The Militia.



That, and the fact the "regulated" back in the day referred to "equipped and trained..."
And those of us over 45 are the Unorganized Militia Reserve.
I prefer CAuPh - Crotchety Auld Pharts.  Not as lean, twice as mean; we may not be a good as we once were, but we're better than "they" will ever be.
As a CAuPH, if we can be ordered to buy health insurance, why can't we be ordered to buy guns? I would love to see someone introduce a Bill in Congress requiring all members of the Unorganized Militia to buy and maintain an approved weapon (something mean looking like an "assault rifle"), and be required to take it to a range at least annually to put 100 rounds down range. The Bill wouldn't get far, but it would put the fox among the Brady chickens.
I always thought it was worded that way because "A well regulated militia"= a military kept in check; Armed Citizenry discourages Coups, and/or Tyrannical Gubmint.  It's worked for US for well over 200 years. What part of "Shall not be infringed" confuses our congresscritters? Oh, right...defining 'is' confuses politicians.
When these types argue that way, I ask about the purpose clause limiting the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the last mentioned is joined with an "and" operation, not an "or."  So obviously, Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech AND petitioning the Government for redres of grievances.  Nor can it abridge the freedom of the press if it is used to petiton the government for redress of grievances. Nor abridge the right to peaceably assemble AND petition the government. 

To be consistant, if the militia clause limits the RKBA to only the militia, then the single stated purpose in the 1st must likewise limit those rights.   Also, if "people" as used in the 2nd applies only to the collective (state), then all other rights of the people must also refer to only the collective.  Which then leads to confusion in the 10th Amendment, since it says that there are powers reserved to the States (collective) or the people (collective).

Kinda fun listening to them sputter about that as they try to argue around it.

Now wait. I just read all that and what I understand is that womins are not members of the militia and can't own guns? Does that other Amendment that declares no discrimination due to sex come into play on this. Is SKK going to shoot my butt off or what?

"...womins are not members of the militia and can't own guns.."

They can *try* to take my guns away.  I'll even wish them good luck, cause I'd hate for the last words they hear to be harsh.  But that's just because I'm *nice* like that.

Maybe we can persuade the National Guard to institute a "Ladies Auxilary Militia" for those of the female persuasion (such as myself) who don't have a spare weekend per month?  A weekend a year, maybe.  If I get to shoot off some crew-served weapons, tanks, demo my Death Ray ... etc.  I would even bring cookies.  (Lasagna is reserved for the demolition squad)
BCR, if women get to vote, they should be required to serve in the militia, whose purpose is primarily defensive. Females are famously ferocious in defense of their offspring and others about whom they have suchlike protective feelings.  Now, we boys, well, we can be tempted to join up, go Foreign and Get Some.

I think that in this case, as in so many others, The Founders got it right the first time.
That is, show up for militia drill with piece, ammo, boots and rucksack, or you don't get to vote, and volunteers only when it comes to foreign wars.

Being older than 45, I am exempt.  I do keep a 45, though.
P.s.  The Founders envisioned a Militia of the Whole, not a select militia as invented in the aptly-named Dick Act. In a Militia of the Whole, you have to stand in ranks and drill with your neighbors, whether you like them or not,  be they richer or poorer than you.  Among other things, that is a good school for citizenship, IMHO.
 The weaspon I want to keep and bear is a Huey Cobra. I am not in favor of arming Bears, or baring arms, except in hot weather.

If we do implement a Ladies Auxiliary Militia, SKK can bake up some of he exploding Lasagna to serve to any invaders. All they have to do is swallow that very small RFID detonator. The Ladies could end teh invasion in jig time so us guys can then invade their lands and fight the rest of the war on their real estate instead of ours.
The Ancient and Honorable Regiment of Auld Pharts constitutes the Reserve to the Unorganized Militia.  We're cranky and impatient.  With the development of red dot sights, we shoot as well as we ever did, maybe better.  Hell, we'll even provide our own arms and ammunition.  I've got a claymore bag full of loaded magazines and a choice of 2 evil black rifles with EOTech sights.

What's not to like?
Ageis, and sexist, and probably other PCismists.

Now that I'm officially middle-aged (Doctor says that's a great attitude to have upon receiving my Medicare card) what am I going to do?  Ahh. Vote. Early and often.
Qm, for somebody who eschews the ethanol, your prose is amazingly amusing. I do wonder what you'd be like if a talented salesman-type somehow persuaded you to drink, say, a French 75, or some Chatham Artillery Punch. It tastes just like soda pop. You won't feel a thing. Honest!

We will, of course, have recorders running, to collect blackmail data.

I think when we get too deep into lawyerish word-picking we forget a reasonable reading of the constitution makes it quite clear that the conservative stance on gun ownership is the correct one. I think this bears out on how hard it has been for the many who don't like this position to actually outright ban them. Instead it seems mostly to be tactics of petty resistances like fees, restrictions, paperwork etc.

Now I can understand the opposing anti-gun position but frankly their only reasonable recourse is to amend the constitution or head to a different country.

I don't really think it matters if you are pro or anti-gun in this matter unlike various other hotly contested positions. The constitution is quite clear enough and needs to be accepted as it stands. People's opinion of delight or disgust isn't really important.

Except in a possible amendment and really I can see the day coming when the antis have the numbers which probably isn't a very thrilling thought for John et al.  Unless of course the petty hurdles yield the same effect first which is worse really.

One thing I do hang on conservatives quite heavily is the issue of responsibility in gun ownership. Screaming about the right to own a gun is all very nice but it's quite obvious many gun owners are not adequately responsible. These irresponsible owners are doing a great job of ensuring the day of repeal of the 2nd amendment is sooner.

Another problem I think is the constant assumption in the US power circles that all crime extends from guns. This is masking the real crime issues in the US which does have a serious crime problem. That means everyone points to guns and the real causes are not adaquately faced.

PS Fishmugger I wish to offer you all the best in recovering from your future injuries.
 Ancient and Honorable Regiment of Auld Pharts - AHRAP.

Ancient and Honorable Curmudgeonly Regiment of Auld Pharts - AHCRAP.

There, I fixed it for ya.
" Except in a possible amendment and really I can see the day coming when the antis have the numbers which probably isn't a very thrilling thought for John et al. Unless of course the petty hurdles yield the same effect first which is worse really."  [emphasis added]

At the moment, I disagree, Argent.  Concealed carry grows, and popular support for firearms grows, and more people in the US have firearms now than have in the past.  So, on a popular level, I'm not sure I agree.

Of course - it's all moot (and herein lies a problem for the Republic that needs addressing) for all the growth and support in the population, it will only take a two-person shift on the Supreme Court to toss it all under the rails.

Which is also *not* what the Founders had in mind... that nine unelected public servants would wield such power.  But that's how it's gone, with Congress after Congress (and the occasional President here and there) fecklessly passing off their power and responsibility, or worse, cynically handing it over willingly, to secure political or policy objectives in the short term, while radically changing the balance of power in the government in the long term.

 Uh...If we form an unorganized Naval Militia can we go to Subic for liberty.......
 JTG, those recorders are part of the reason I don't drink.

OFS, I don't think you'd like what Olongapo has become in our abscence. Might still be interesting, however.
It gets pointed out to them regularly - they just ignore it.
The beauty of the exploding lasagna is that it creates multiple problems for the enemy. It blinds them with molton room temperature sauce, while simultaneously piercing them with shards of shardified glass. It also leaves invisible traces of  teensy-weensie foot-embedable glassen slivers that will linger on the battlefield long after the enemy believes the danger to be passed.

And, uh, here in Virginia... females can join the militia. Just sayin'.

*innocent smile*
Me thinks that Congress makes it an obligation for us menfolk.  For wimin', it's just optional.  But for those well-versed in the art of crafting LBIED's, that's an asset that can't be passed-up.
Yanno, SKK, if you tweaked that recipe a bit and used manicotti instead of lasagna noodles, it could create a nice shaped-charge to deliver all those shardified pieces.
Just, yanno, a thought....
 And if you use Manicotti, it would hide the miniaturized RFID chip detonator and we wouldn't have to fool them into swallowing it later. I LIKE IT!

At the same time we can serve Hops punch too, for the health of the troops, of course.

Here's my take on this.

My initial thinking on the 2nd Amendment's preamble was that it was meant to ensure that if people were called up into the militia they would already know how to shoot and care for a gun.  However, my thinking has changed as I have read though statements by the Founders.

A reading of the Federalist Papers and other of the Founders' writings, with special attention to those addressing the militia, shows that the Founders of this country had a deep dislike of giving power to the Federal government to maintain a standing army.  They understood that it was in the end necessary but feared that it would be used to oppress the States.  So they forced the Federal government to fund State militias but gave the power to appoint the officers to the States, as well as the power to command these militias to the States during such times as they might not be called up into Federal service.  The concept was that in that fashion the militias would be loyal to the State over loyalty to the Federal government and would give the States the ability to resist Federal tyranny should the Feds choose to exercise such by sending in the Army.  Thus, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state means that the militia is needed to ensure the security of the State against the Feds.

But - that kicks the can down the road, doesn't it?  What's to prevent the State from then using its militia to subjugate its people?  The people need a way to combat that - literally as well as figuratively.  So, given the necessity of maintaining a well-trained militia, the answer is to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed so that they can resist tyranny of both the State and the Feds.

This also answers for the fact that we have a Militia Act that defines who's currently part of the military.  If you interpret the 2nd Amendment as defining that only those eligible to join the militia get guns, then you can just legislate the right out of practical existence.  I figure it means that the 2nd Amendment wants to make sure that everyone who is not in the militia has guns.
Ah, first sentence, last paragraph should have been "... currently part of the militia", not "currently part of the military".
When the amendment was written, the militia went up to 65 years. I think the well regulated meant like the New England militias (2 out of 3 againist regulars, Concord and Bennington, with the regulars winning a Phyrric victory on Bunker Hill)
Oh, no! Frog spam, just above. "Remember, men, wogs begin at Calais!"
Sly!  *gasp*  Hollow points?

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

*rubs hands gleefully* 
Want to watch a Lib squirm?

Ask him (or her) how they expect "the people" collectively to bear arms unless each individual comprising that "people" is carrying a weapon...
 I  live in (the Peoples Republic of )Connecticut,which had the "assault weapons" ban . I was in the Air Guard at the time and asked a friend who is a Democrat/lawyer /liberal(and on the CT Democrat State Committee)  this question. " Since I am a member of a well regulated militia,why are my rights to keep and bear arms being infringed by the state of Connectcut"? Of  course ,he had no anawet and ignored the question. I  am a  member of the retired reserve and meet any definition of militia ,but still have restrictions on what type of weapon I can buy. Since the  current administration seems to ignore theConstitution,it has given  "progressive" states the OK for to do the same.