A Well Regulated Militia - Page 2

A Well Regulated Militia

This is a discussion on A Well Regulated Militia within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by jmf552 Why do people propose and debate hypothetical, crazy-arsed proposals when we are actively fighting against actual, imminent, even more crazy-arsed proposals? ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38
Like Tree103Likes

Thread: A Well Regulated Militia

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,122
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Why do people propose and debate hypothetical, crazy-arsed proposals when we are actively fighting against actual, imminent, even more crazy-arsed proposals? This not the time for facetious intellectual exercises. This is a time for saying what we are really going to do to resolve our current, rather desperate, situation.

    And the time for saying, "2A is all we need" and chanting "shall not be infringed" is past. 2A is wonderful. But it ain't gettin' it done right now and the courts have not stepped up, so they may not do so for a while, if ever. This is a bit of a rant, I apologize, but with Lobby Day coming up, the tinfoil hat solutions are just oozing out of the woodwork. Every minute we spend worrying about stuff that will not work is a minute we are not focusing on stuff that might work. And I fully admit this post is an ironic example of what I am complaining about. But I'm getting at my wits' end...
    I suspect many of us are spending time praying for the situation there. In the meantime, we should all once again hear clearly the words of Thomas Jefferson:

    And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
    However, as for me, I'm praying for divine intervention. Who knows what form it will take?
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  2. #17
    Ex Member Array oldIthink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    I suspect many of us are spending time praying for the situation there. In the meantime, we should all once again hear clearly the words of Thomas Jefferson:



    However, as for me, I'm praying for divine intervention. Who knows what form it will take?
    The Federalist papers explain it clearly (at least to me). Especially Federalist #29 >>


    References to the Militia in The Federalist

    Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School



    The Federalist

    The Federalist, of course, is the collection of 85 articles in support of the Constitution written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius." The articles were published in 1787 in New York newspapers, and obviously didn't mention the Second Amendment, which was still four years in the future. The Bill of Rights, of course, was proposed to remedy a perceived inadequacy in the original Constitution. Still, the Federalist tells us something about contemporary understandings of the militia and its role.

    Note that the original Constitution's Militia Clauses are as follows:

    Art. I, sec. 8: The Congress shall have Power . . .

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress; . . .

    Federalist No. 29, by Alexander Hamilton (some paragraph breaks added):

    If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. . . .

    By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

    "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

    "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

    "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

    "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.

    "This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

    Federalist No. 46 (James Madison) (some paragraph breaks added):

    [Madison is explaining why the federal government will be unable to suppress state governments:]

    The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

    Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

    To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

    But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
    BBMike and Merovius like this.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array Well_Regulated's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Peoples Republic of North Virginia
    Posts
    576
    I never get tired of posting my little history lesson. Especially since Virginia is currently in the cross-hairs of the anti-2A crowd.

    Virginia's Constitution was ratified in 1776 - 12 years before the U. S. Constitution. It was written primarily by George Mason, who refused to ratify the original U. S. Constitution because it contained no Bill of Rights. This is Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. You should be able to see the influence the 2A:

    Article I. Bill of Rights
    Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
    I was have a conversation in my LGS today with a man who was even more animated about Virginia's situation today. He said that for 400 years Virginia has had the basis for constitutional freedom, and that the Left is about to undo that in seven weeks!

    If there is any government involvement with this constitutional statute, it should be that it is the government's responsibility to train the militia.
    You can't truly call yourself "peaceful" unless you are capable of great violence. If you're not capable of great violence, you're not peaceful, you're harmless.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The BAD lands
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    He campaigned on getting rid of gun free zones and hasnít mentioned it since. I donít think he has any desire to get rid of gun free zones. He just wanted the vote. Another thing is, Democrats, particularly House Democrats are not at all concerned with what we think. They are concerned with what their voters think, and if their voters are anti gun, which they are, they donít care how they appear to us.
    He has fulfilled many campaign promises. In the early days of his Presidency the Las Vegas shooting happened. If you recall it also killed the HPA and bumpstocks.
    OldChap likes this.
    Check out the CR-12 - wilkinsontactical.com

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post
    He has fulfilled many campaign promises. In the early days of his Presidency the Las Vegas shooting happened. If you recall it also killed the HPA and bumpstocks.
    Bump stocks were not banned because of the Las Vegas shooting. Bump stocks were banned because Trump signed an EO for the most draconian gun law ever. He did that on his own. Sorry, but Trumps record on gun rights isnít good. It has never been good, other than when he wanted your vote, but not before, or after that time. As far as the rest of the campaign promises...meh. In some aspects he has exceeded my expectations, in others he has fallen short. Iíll call it a wash, but that doesnít mean I will let that cloud my view of his stance on any specific subject.
    NECCdude and Merovius like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The BAD lands
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Bump stocks were not banned because of the Las Vegas shooting. Bump stocks were banned because Trump signed an EO for the most draconian gun law ever. He did that on his own. Sorry, but Trumps record on gun rights isnít good. It has never been good, other than when he wanted your vote, but not before, or after that time. As far as the rest of the campaign promises...meh. In some aspects he has exceeded my expectations, in others he has fallen short. Iíll call it a wash, but that doesnít mean I will let that cloud my view of his stance on any specific subject.
    Not clouding my views, just stating facts. I never said he was a 2nd amendment champ. The bumpstock issue WAS because of Vegas. The clown had all those rifles with bumpstocks laying around, staged that were never used........The dude was a patsy.......

    Aside from the constitutional issues of making previously legal personal property illegal by a simple regulation with no compensation, bump stocks had to be the most worthless accessory every made.
    PEF and OldChap like this.
    Check out the CR-12 - wilkinsontactical.com

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post
    Not clouding my views, just stating facts. I never said he was a 2nd amendment champ. The bumpstock issue WAS because of Vegas. The clown had all those rifles with bumpstocks laying around, staged that were never used........The dude was a patsy.......
    So? Trump didnít have to ban bump stocks. That was all him. Can you cite a precedent before that for a POTUS redefining a word in order to fit an anti gun(or any other) agenda? I hope I am wrong and we will see him actually support some pro gun legislation, but I highly doubt gun rights will ever be mentioned by him in anything other than a campaign speech.

    Whether you think they are worthless doesnít matter. Its the only affect he has had on gun rights during his presidency. Yet we still have people all over the internet sharing articles about him supporting national reciprocity....in 2015.
    Merovius likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The BAD lands
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    So? Trump didnít have to ban bump stocks. That was all him. Can you cite a precedent before that for a POTUS redefining a word in order to fit an anti gun(or any other) agenda? I hope I am wrong and we will see him actually support some pro gun legislation, but I highly doubt gun rights will ever be mentioned by him in anything other than a campaign speech.

    Besides Bill Clinton and the definition of "IS"? No. I can't disagree but he has certainly not been doing what Bloomberg, Northam and Insley have been doing.
    OldChap likes this.
    Check out the CR-12 - wilkinsontactical.com

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post
    Besides Bill Clinton and the definition of "IS"? No. I can't disagree but he has certainly not been doing what Bloomberg, Northam and Insley have been doing.
    He didnít campaign on doing what they are doing. People didnít vote for him to do what they are doing.
    Merovius likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    659
    First, I would submit that the use of the words "well regulated" refers to a governmental mandate, not an individual responsibility. The fact that our government has failed to properly organize, drill, or train the popular militia reflects only on a failure of our government, not a failure of any citizen.

    Second, those who wish to argue about what the militia is, or what the militia is not, should start with the Militia Clause of the United States Constitution, then the operative portions of the Militia Act contained in Title 10, United States Code. One might also read the constitution and statutes of the individual states, most of which contain comparable bedrock law.

    Once that basic research has been done, objectively there can be no argument against the fact that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied male residents over the age of 17 and under the age of 45. This has long been the underlying law supporting Selective Service (still a legal requirement for all adult males). Looking further, we find that there have been federal statutes and constitutional amendments prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, gender, or disabilities; thus the militia must consist of all adult men and women residing within the United States. The only exceptions provided by law are for certain persons of religious scruples, certain disqualifying mental conditions, those having felony convictions, etc.

    We have arrived at a clear understanding of what is known as the Popular Militia, those subject to call in times of need to defend our nation against invasion or insurrection. In addition to the Popular Militia we have the Select Militia, consisting of those who have been selected, appointed, or elected to serve in a full or part-time capacity, including state militias (National Guard, state police agencies, etc) and local law enforcement officers, as well as inactive reserve members of the armed forces.

    Standing armies are expressly forbidden by Constitution and statutes. Military appropriations may not be committed for any period longer than two years.

    Like it or not, if you are an adult resident of the United States and not excluded specifically by law you are a member of the Militia of the United States. Whether or not your government has provided an organizational effort, regular training or drills, or even bothered to notify you of your duties under the law there is no escaping these basic facts.
    OldChap, Bikenut, M1911A1 and 1 others like this.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The BAD lands
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    He didnít campaign on doing what they are doing. People didnít vote for him to do what they are doing.
    We are not getting anywhere here. Your TDS is showing. Have a nice day.
    Check out the CR-12 - wilkinsontactical.com

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post
    We are not getting anywhere here. Your TDS is showing. Have a nice day.
    Lol. The OP was talking about getting rid of gun free zones. I made a post giving my opinion of the likelihood of it passing based on our current political climate. It was not even all about Trump but also about those who would have to vote on a bill for it to get to him. The only thing you posted about his record on gun control helped prove my point. Since you canít prove me wrong, you call it TDS, and youíll ignore the things I have said that I think he did right. You think my comments are about trump because he is trump, but my comments are about gun control because I am against gun control, whether it has an R or D next to it is irrelevant to me.
    Merovius likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array Arejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    743
    Ruh Roh. A standing military in time of peace in strict subordination to the Virginia Democratic party.

  15. #29
    Ex Member Array Econ101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    The term "well regulated" at the time of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights meant "to keep and make regular" according to a judge who is best described as a Constitutionalist.
    This was just an idea to keep the mass shooting issue in the realm of public policy by giving Congress an off ramp and a way to redeem themselves without accepting any blame. But, I really believe it's a civil rights issue:

    https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...g-problem.html
    Havok likes this.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    6,142
    Well weguwated mawitia . . .
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler
    We have deep thinkers and stinkers in this group that could come up with a solution...
    welder516
    Buck the donkey

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •