Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Regulated Militia vs people argument

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    Regulated Militia vs people argument

    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.
    I know this has been argued by the antis ad-nauseum, and has been discussed in many forums many times.

    The antis say the 2A only applies to "militia", not individuals, even with SCOTUS's recent rulings.

    But the other day I thought about the Founding Father's & why they wrote it that way, i.e. back then all able bodied American men were considered a standing militia to be called up as necessary.

    Then I remembered (way back when) I had turned 18 and was required, by law, to register for Selective Service. This made me an "able bodied American man" who could "be called up as necessary" into "military (militia) service".

    Just a thought and an additional argument.

    Side note... now that women are being allowed "combat" roles, should they not require women to register for Selective Service as well? The argument was:

    Wiki link
    The constitutionality of excluding women was decided in 1981 by the United States Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg, with the Court holding that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution. "The existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them."
    For women to be required to register with the Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law, which currently exempts women from registration
    Just a thought.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  2. #2
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    406
    But the other day I thought about the Founding Father's & why they wrote it that way, i.e. back then all able bodied American men were considered a standing militia to be called up as necessary.

    Then I remembered (way back when) I had turned 18 and was required, by law, to register for Selective Service. This made me an "able bodied American man" who could "be called up as necessary" into "military (militia) service".
    Good Point. I've always said that "the people" should be all the argument they need. Also, if "the people" applies to all of the citizens in the Preamble, "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States", then doesn't it mean the same thing when they say, "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ? Also, why does a "well regulated militia" have to only mean a part of the government, the military? Wouldn't a well regulated militia include any group of people willing to take up arms in an organized way? We were stating our independence, why would we want the government to be the only ones with arms?
    Last edited by hjmoosejaw; 07-30-2012 at 11:58 PM.
    watch your top knot !

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915


    If the founders had meant for only the Militia to have arms they would have said so, obviously they knew the word having just used it.
    "Regulated" has more than one meaning, and even that has changed over the course of years. I have an antique wall clock in the kitchen with "Regulated" painted across the face in bold letters. I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that there are laws which apply to wall clocks.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    "Regulated" has more than one meaning, and even that has changed over the course of years. I have an antique wall clock in the kitchen with "Regulated" painted across the face in bold letters. I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that there are laws which apply to wall clocks.
    When you see a British rifle that is stamped "Regulated by Fulton", it means it has been accurized and sighted in by Fultons of Bisley, ensuring it is highly accurate.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    SNIP

    If the founders had meant for only the Militia to have arms they would have said so, obviously they knew the word having just used it.
    "Regulated" has more than one meaning, and even that has changed over the course of years. I have an antique wall clock in the kitchen with "Regulated" painted across the face in bold letters. I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that there are laws which apply to wall clocks.
    Do you really have to go that far to make this argument? Can't we just realized how stupid it is to find it necessary to pen a guaranteed "right" for a nation's militia to bear arms? What nation's militia(army) has ever had a problem being armed because their own form of government didn't allow it?

    Either the 2nd amendment protects "the people's" right or the founders were idiots.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 07-30-2012 at 11:03 PM.

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    The prologue simply states the most important reason the Second Amendment was placed into the Constitution, to secure against tyranny. The right of the PEOPLE is self explanatory, as is the thousands of documents written by the same men responsible for the Bill of Rights that say the right to arms is the most important, and absolutely an individual right. See, the problem with the far left is they can't research anything to come to a logical conclusion. The far left decides the Constitution based strictly on their opinion, and nothing more. Go listen to the dissenting opinion in the Heller v. D.C. Supreme Court case, it is rather sad. The Founders got everything right except that one amendment, go figure!
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    Then I remembered (way back when) I had turned 18 and was required, by law, to register for Selective Service. This made me an "able bodied American man" who could "be called up as necessary" into "military (militia) service".
    No. It made you eligible to be drafted into either active duty military or military reserves.

    The militia consists of all able-bodied men, women, and children who're able to bear arms. So said the Founding Fathers, including those who penned our Second Amendment, and so said the following 1982 Congressional document:

    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    REPORT
    of the
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
    of the
    UNITED STATES SENATE
    NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
    Second Session
    February 1982
    Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
    ______
    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    WASHINGTON: 1982
    88-618 0
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
    U. S. Government Printing Office
    Washington, D.C. 20402

    I agree with both our Founding Fathers as well as the contents of this document, which states: "...the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."

    The reports makes another interesting observation:

    "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.

    It continues:

    ...when Patrick Henry delivered his famed "Give me liberty or give me death" speech, he spoke in support of a proposition "that a well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and freemen, is the natural strength and only security of a free government...." Throughout the following revolution, formal and informal units of armed citizens obstructed British communication, cut off foraging parties, and harassed the thinly stretched regular forces. When seven states adopted state "bills of rights" following the Declaration of Independence, each of those bills of rights provided either for protection of the concept of a militia or for an express right to keep and bear arms.

    And concludes in the following manner:

    Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights — as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment. As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to the organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constituted, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia. That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". 65 This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a).

    The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •