What if "Regulated" and "Militia" were the emphasis

This is a discussion on What if "Regulated" and "Militia" were the emphasis within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So let's start out by saying "shall not be infringed" is a given. Sans violent mental illness and a criminal record, every man, woman and ...

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 160
Like Tree418Likes

Thread: What if "Regulated" and "Militia" were the emphasis

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array DetChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,625

    What if "Regulated" and "Militia" were the emphasis

    So let's start out by saying "shall not be infringed" is a given. Sans violent mental illness and a criminal record, every man, woman and even child is allowed to keep and bear arms.

    But there's a caveat to shall not be infringed: the "a well regulated militia" portion is the prerequisite. Let me explain:

    Guns owned by citizens would be the exact same grade and function as today's regular army. The state gives or subsidizes you military issue weapons (usually a main battle rifle, and a service pistol. If you're a specialist they would issue you heavy machine guns, stingers, LAWs and even HMMWV or even a main battle tank as long as you are qualified and trained in their use) and mandatory training is a monthly requirement. This is a right granted to every citizen.

    The catch is you are required by law to be a conscripted soldier of your State's militia. You are required to serve a law enforcement role daily, just like the militia of old. So basically every law abiding household is a police department! You have to respond to any natural disaster in the state like our national guard does. You have to respond to your State's call to arms or when the State commits troops to Washington for foreign campaigns. If you're able bodied and between the ages of 18 and 45 you're conscripted. No way out of it.

    Your ammo is tracked and inventoried by the state and you're required to train as many as 100 rounds per gun each month.

    You can own and equip yourself with any other weapon but they are civilianized versions similar to today's neutered semi autos. Those are not regulated as far as training or ammo count but are also not subsidized in any way.

    What would you say about such a system?

    Note: yes I realize I'm borrowing from the Swiss army setup and also many books written about the purpose of the 2A. I'm a firm believer in the militia portion of the 2A. A well armed and trained citizen army belonging to each state is IMO critical to true liberty. Today's citizens stand a snowball's chance in hell of rebelling against Washington's standing army. Apache attack helo against an untrained civilian with an AR-15? Yeah right. But I don't believe today's society would support conscription or mandatory service. We seem to only emphasize "shall not be infringed" portion but ignore the first 80% of the 2A.

    Am I stirring the pot? Maybe. You tell me if there's no semblance of truth in this viewpoint.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Logic and gatorbait51 like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,487
    The "militia" is the unorganized militia that would be formed by the citizens when the need arises. "Regulated" means properly trained and equipped. I'm not sure who you think is ignoring the first bit of the 2A…

    The question comes in when people claim that the "militia" is the National Guard - so individuals not in the Nat'l Guard have no right to own guns - and that "regulated" means restricted by federal/state law.
    Brad426, Patti, Exacto and 16 others like this.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by pittypat21 View Post
    The "militia" is the unorganized militia that would be formed by the citizens when the need arises. "Regulated" means properly trained and equipped. I'm not sure who you think is ignoring the first bit of the 2A…

    The question comes in when people claim that the "militia" is the National Guard - so individuals not in the Nat'l Guard have no right to own guns - and that "regulated" means restricted by federal/state law.
    This. Really can't be said any better, so I won't even try.
    Exacto, Aceoky, Badey and 4 others like this.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  5. #4
    Member Array Dougb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Minn
    Posts
    163
    When the 2A was written, by law every able bodied man was a member of the militia entitled to be armed. Regulated meant that the man was trained and proficient with the gun.
    The Supreme Court of the US has defined the 2A as an individual right so that argument is moot until the court decides otherwise. As for effectiveness of "militia" against a modern army, look at Afghanistan, where the untrained and poorly armed stood off the Russians and mount a credible resistance to our soldiers. The object is not so much to defeat the better equipped and trained army, as to bleed it to death over time until it loses the will to fight.

  6. #5
    Ex Member Array DetChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,625
    Quote Originally Posted by pittypat21 View Post
    The "militia" is the unorganized militia that would be formed by the citizens when the need arises. "Regulated" means properly trained and equipped. I'm not sure who you think is ignoring the first bit of the 2A

    The question comes in when people claim that the "militia" is the National Guard - so individuals not in the Nat'l Guard have no right to own guns - and that "regulated" means restricted by federal/state law.
    Unorganized militia? One that doesn't exist today in any state? And where's the conscription?

    And regulated? I don't see any national or state level training.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    gatorbait51 and dangerranger like this.

  7. #6
    Ex Member Array DetChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,625

    What if "Regulated" and "Militia" were the emphasis

    Quote Originally Posted by Dougb View Post
    When the 2A was written, by law every able bodied man was a member of the militia entitled to be armed. Regulated meant that the man was trained and proficient with the gun.
    The Supreme Court of the US has defined the 2A as an individual right so that argument is moot until the court decides otherwise. As for effectiveness of "militia" against a modern army, look at Afghanistan, where the untrained and poorly armed stood off the Russians and mount a credible resistance to our soldiers. The object is not so much to defeat the better equipped and trained army, as to bleed it to death over time until it loses the will to fight.
    How come some rulings of SCOTUS are hailed as "the word of the founders" but others, when leaning towards any sort of regulation is lambasted as "infringement"? We can't have our cake and eat it too. Nothing about the preservation of liberty has changed since the amendment took affect in 1791 compared to today. In fact the citizens of our country today have close to zero chance to defeating our central government army that is infinitely better equipped and trained.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,487
    Quote Originally Posted by DetChris View Post
    Unorganized militia? One that doesn't exist today in any state? And where's the conscription?
    Every able bodied man (and I suppose in today's society, woman) is part of the unorganized militia. If there comes a time and a need, those who have weapons and who have trained with them can join forces and create the militia. The militia exists. The only way it will not exist is when private ownership of firearms is outlawed.


    And regulated? I don't see any national or state level training.
    Who said it had to be national or state level? Everytime you go to the range, you're getting your militia training in. YOU are training and equipping yourself, and so are millions of others. The militia is being trained and equipped on an individual and voluntary basis.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  9. #8
    Ex Member Array DetChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,625
    Quote Originally Posted by pittypat21 View Post
    Every able bodied man (and I suppose in today's society, woman) is part of the unorganized militia. If there comes a time and a need, those who have weapons and who have trained with them can join forces and create the militia. The militia exists. The only way it will not exist is when private ownership of firearms is outlawed.




    Who said it had to be national or state level? Everytime you go to the range, you're getting your militia training in. YOU are training and equipping yourself, and so are millions of others. The militia is being trained and equipped on an individual and voluntary basis.
    The voluntary and optional part is ironically what's eroding the 2A. The antis simply elect to voluntarily ignore their amendment responsibilities.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,487
    Quote Originally Posted by DetChris View Post
    The voluntary and optional part is ironically what's eroding the 2A. The antis simply elect to voluntarily ignore their amendment responsibilities.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I know its easy to think that the 2A is "eroding" if you constantly read about all the stupid bills that lawmakers attempt to pass, and other regulations they want to see implemented, but take a look at how far it has actually come in the last couple years. More states have increased the rights of gun owners, antis basically failed to pass anything after even Sandy Hook, Obama has mostly halted his attempt to see guns banned and confiscated, most people are starting to see that Bloomberg is just a rich idiot, Illinois is being forced to allow its people to carry, despite the best efforts of the lawmakers in that state, and I could go on with more.

    Rights are improving more than they are eroding.

    The 2A has always been voluntary. If you don't want to own a gun, fine. The 2A affirms the right - not the requirement to keep and bear arms.
    DetChris, Dabster, Aceoky and 7 others like this.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  11. #10
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    In fact the citizen of our country have close to zero chance to defeating a central government army that is infinitely better equipped and trained.
    You are making a very big assumption that most of the employees of a "central government" would choose to fire on their own people.

    Assumptions lose wars.





    The Brits assumed that because they had the most powerful Army and Navy in the world at the time that they would be able to invade the Colonies and it would be nothing more than a minor excursion. After all, there was nothing more than some rag tagged state and town Militias to oppose them, and they simply could not field the numbers of troops that Britain had.

    They also thought that marching an Army in to Concord would allow them to seize the weapons of a local Militia and that would pretty much be the end of a war that never really started.

    At that time, no sane man could argue that the Militia had a snowballs chance of winning any engagement of the Brits. They had the guns, the manpower, the leadership and the will to do it. They had every single factor on their side required to win, but they forgot one thing.

    They forgot that when you back an enemy into a corner, the only way out... is over the top of you.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,204
    Quote Originally Posted by DetChris View Post
    Unorganized militia? One that doesn't exist today in any state? And where's the conscription?

    And regulated? I don't see any national or state level training.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The unorganized militia doesn't exist until need arises. The presumption is that state authorities would organize an armed populace into a militia in an emergency.

    As for fighting the central government, that wasn't the primary focus of the Second, but regardless, I think you underestimate the odds of the citizens in that SHTF scenario.

    1. The "government army" is made up of citizens from every corner of the country, banded together by a common purpose. If turned against its own people, that army would splinter, and there likely be enough training and hardware ending up on the side of the rebels to challenge the government. I believe this happened before, sometime around 1860, maybe?
    2. History has proven that well-equipped guerillas can make territories ungovernable for extended periods of time. Look at the meat-grinder for Russians and British known as Afghanistan. The only reason it didn't reach that level for the US was because we let existing local factions do most of the ground fighting.
    3. The government today, more than any time in history, is dependent on a sophisticated economy and complex shell-games of money to function. All we'd have to do to defeat it is stop working and live at subsistence level for a while. Even if it went so far as forced labor, there's simply no way the central government could maintain itself for even a few years. Sometime in the next twenty years or so, debt service will exceed military spending, as is - if conflict starts within our borders, the government will collapse. It has no resources to draw on, except the future productivity of the people.
    "Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way... The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."

  13. #12
    Ex Member Array DetChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,625
    Quote Originally Posted by pittypat21 View Post
    I know its easy to think that the 2A is "eroding" if you constantly read about all the stupid bills that lawmakers attempt to pass, and other regulations they want to see implemented, but take a look at how far it has actually come in the last couple years. More states have increased the rights of gun owners, antis basically failed to pass anything after even Sandy Hook, Obama has mostly halted his attempt to see guns banned and confiscated, most people are starting to see that Bloomberg is just a rich idiot, Illinois is being forced to allow its people to carry, despite the best efforts of the lawmakers in that state, and I could go on with more.

    Rights are improving more than they are eroding.

    The 2A has always been voluntary. If you don't want to own a gun, fine. The 2A affirms the right - not the requirement to keep and bear arms.
    I like the first part of your summary.

    But I disagree that it has always been voluntary. The militia act of 1792 just one year after the framing of the 2A clearly describes the tens of militia duty. It was basically conscription:

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,487
    Quote Originally Posted by DetChris View Post
    But I disagree that it has always been voluntary. The militia act of 1792 just one year after the framing of the 2A clearly describes the tens of militia duty. It was basically conscription:

    The Militia Act of 1792
    Well, you're wrong. That is a Militia Act. Requiring people to join the militia. The 2nd Amendment isn't about the right to be in a militia, it is the right to keep and bear arms. The Militia Act doesn't say anywhere that all able bodied men that form the militia must own firearms. If anybody didn't, and they were called to service, they'd be handed a weapon.

    I said the 2nd Amendment is voluntary. A Militia Act does not disprove this.
    Aceoky, gatorbait51 and Ghost1958 like this.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  15. #14
    Ex Member Array DetChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,625
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    The unorganized militia doesn't exist until need arises. The presumption is that state authorities would organize an armed populace into a militia in an emergency.

    As for fighting the central government, that wasn't the primary focus of the Second, but regardless, I think you underestimate the odds of the citizens in that SHTF scenario.

    1. The "government army" is made up of citizens from every corner of the country, banded together by a common purpose. If turned against its own people, that army would splinter, and there likely be enough training and hardware ending up on the side of the rebels to challenge the government. I believe this happened before, sometime around 1860, maybe?
    2. History has proven that well-equipped guerillas can make territories ungovernable for extended periods of time. Look at the meat-grinder for Russians and British known as Afghanistan. The only reason it didn't reach that level for the US was because we let existing local factions do most of the ground fighting.
    3. The government today, more than any time in history, is dependent on a sophisticated economy and complex shell-games of money to function. All we'd have to do to defeat it is stop working and live at subsistence level for a while. Even if it went so far as forced labor, there's simply no way the central government could maintain itself for even a few years. Sometime in the next twenty years or so, debt service will exceed military spending, as is - if conflict starts within our borders, the government will collapse. It has no resources to draw on, except the future productivity of the people.
    ... And debt from our friends in China ;)

    Well put Mr. Maxwell. But the 2A has deep roots in the founders' distrust of central governments and their tyranny. The war against Britain was almost lost on several occasions but we won in large part because of the Brits' general stupidity and bad tactics. The founders realized they won independence almost by blind luck as much as tenacity. Their call for state run militia was to better equipped and trained than the rebels of the 1770's.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    maxwell97, gatorbait51 and baren like this.

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,257
    I believe military training and service should be mandatory, without exclusion.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Search tags for this page

first militia had to be trained before they had guns

,

militia was voluntary before militia act

,

the first test of the militia system occurred in july 1794, when a group of disaffected pennsylvania farmers rebelled ag

,

unorganized militia afghanistan

Click on a term to search for related topics.