Are you part of a well regulated militia? (for all the second amendment fans)

Posted by: reece

Comments would be great.

  • Yes

  • No

0% No votes
100% 7 votes
  • No one has voted yet. Be the first!
  • No, though I have thought of joining the Guard to help pay for college.

  • No, but I can join a well regulated (trained) militia. Are we part of the "people" that have the right to bear arms? Yes.

  • Yeah, TeaParty guy, except no. The second amendment actually says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed for a well regulated militia" Nowhere does it say all people.

    Posted by: Stefy
  • I would prefer to own guns myself instead of working for the government and getting a gun.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TBR says2015-07-13T09:30:36.2506145-05:00
@reece - As silly as it sounds to me, someone made a very convincing argument that ALL military aged men ARE part of the "well regulated militia". I know, its silly to me too, but his points were well presented, and well received by this "anti-gun" guy.
reece says2015-07-13T09:43:31.9599380-05:00
What do you mean by "military aged" ?
TBR says2015-07-13T09:51:15.3648556-05:00
Well, again using his argument as best as I can recall, that would be ~15 - mid 40's
TBR says2015-07-13T09:52:40.0980857-05:00
The premiums of the argument is, the militia is all Americans, therefor all Americans can have guns.
Texas14 says2015-07-13T11:52:14.9250137-05:00
The founders made the second amendment for the people. And if the people choose to form a militia, they have to have guns.
TBR says2015-07-13T11:55:06.8359117-05:00
@Texas14 - That is closer to how I would read it, but it does not follow that the guns MUST be available BEFORE the militia is formed. It reads the other-way-around. The argument I relayed above switched that back around.
reece says2015-07-13T12:02:51.7470531-05:00
@TBR Doesn't make sense?
reece says2015-07-13T12:04:52.5833778-05:00
Anyway the north and south had militias for different reasons. The south had them to keep their slaves in check.
TBR says2015-07-13T12:25:17.1416920-05:00
What reece? I'm not saying I buy either, but respect the former. It is more reasonable than just ignoring the words are in the constitution - that seems to be the tact most take.
triangle.128k says2015-07-13T12:45:48.0028830-05:00
Mao Tse-tung, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-il, Pol pot and Vladimir Lenin all stood against gun rights.
Texas14 says2015-07-13T12:47:06.1839871-05:00
@TBR, the problem there is that government is inherently corrupt and the people and the private sector must have guns first.
PetersSmith says2015-07-13T12:48:55.6622933-05:00
My mom has a gun, does that count?
58539672 says2015-07-13T12:49:49.7328561-05:00
@reece I think you are a bit misinformed about our militia forces. A militia is just a civilian force that can be armed and used as soldiers in a time of war. A militias main goal, both now and in the past and in all regions, is the defense of their state, disaster relief, and maintaining order in the state. None were used as slave overseers, not even in the south. That was a private industry. In modern day times when people say the word militia, they often refer to the Army and Air National Guards, though about 22 states have additional militia forces on top of that.
TBR says2015-07-13T13:29:05.9540743-05:00
@Texas14 - All that has nothing to do with that words are in the constitution.
TBR says2015-07-13T13:30:05.6468227-05:00
@58539672 - It is a reasonable argument that the "orderly militia" ONLY means guard.
58539672 says2015-07-13T14:01:03.9127940-05:00
@TBR The Guard is the largest of the militia forces, but it is not the only "orderly one". The Guard is co-owned by the federal government, so they follow the orders of both the president and the governor of the state. Those 22 other main militia groups are completely owned by their states (as is their right to have one if they so choose) and have their own recruitment policy, funding, and armament. All of which is provided by the state. They are not as large and powerful as the Guard, but they are organized, regulated, and orderly forces.
TBR says2015-07-13T14:08:06.5746795-05:00
@58539672 - Just to be clear, are you arguing that these militia forces are what the constitution intends?
Texas14 says2015-07-13T14:08:54.7773747-05:00
@TBR right and how do we interpret the constitution? It doesn't say everyone gets guns all the time and it also doesn't say that a government run militia only has gun rights. If you read Jefferson and Madison, it's clear that they believed in citizens having gun rights and not the government.
TBR says2015-07-13T14:11:49.9998001-05:00
@Texas14 - The only point we are attempting to hone right now is what part "well regulated militia" plays, right? As I said in my first post, the argument that ALL citizens are part of a "militia" works. That states HAVE militia that is regulated aside from that detracts from that interpretation.
reece says2015-07-13T14:36:24.0418983-05:00
@58539672 The militias in the south were also called slave patrols, they were regulated by the state.
reece says2015-07-13T14:38:08.4345067-05:00
They were tasked to keep an eye on uprisings by the slaves.
reece says2015-07-13T14:39:34.2285572-05:00
This is all fact.
Stefy says2015-07-13T15:30:28.8427957-05:00
The militia is the National Guard guys
reece says2015-07-13T15:39:47.1330376-05:00
If you guys are interested...
Renegader says2015-07-13T16:01:09.1197732-05:00
This is clearly a control issue. What message is the state sending to its people if it only allows cops and military personal small arms. *cough* police state rising
58539672 says2015-07-13T17:09:38.2287854-05:00
@reece The slave patrollers, although state funded, were more akin to a secret police than to a militia force. Many were privately owned companies who were simply hired by the state to uphold their slave laws. Plantation owners also hired their own slave patrollers. The militia of the south were the combat forces that the Confederacy used to fight in the civil war. The Army of Northern Virginia was simply a Virginian based militia group. Each rebel state contributed their own militia groups to fighting the north. Their was no southern national army, just a conglomerate of militia groups.
58539672 says2015-07-13T17:18:27.0227586-05:00
@TBR "That states HAVE militia that is regulated aside from that detracts from that interpretation." Not really. Several states have more than one militia force. California has 4 different kinds of militia. Can it not be possible to have one militia which fits the "All citizens" category and others that are a little more exclusive and better armed/funded for more difficult jobs?
TBR says2015-07-13T17:23:06.7143455-05:00
@58539672 - I would say no. The constitution does not say "any of the varying types of militias", right?
TBR says2015-07-13T17:25:37.6564527-05:00
It could have said "militias" or "state and federal militias" or... But that's not what it says.
58539672 says2015-07-13T17:29:05.1552629-05:00
@TBR The constitution also says that their are implied powers and rules in the document that may not be stated. The second simply states "well regulated militia". If a state wants to have a militia that involves its entire populace (so long as their is some regulation, like gun laws) then they still fit the definition in the 2nd amendment. The constitution is broad, so it leaves a little wiggle room.
TBR says2015-07-13T21:49:15.5697163-05:00
@58539672 - I don't disagree with the latitude given, but the question you posed was in response to my statement that the status of organized militias weakens the argument ect.Ect. That is still true. Look, as I started with, if you interpret "militia" to be all citizens, then the statement works BETTER than "well, we have this militia, another, and I guess everyone should have a gun, just on the off chance we will form a militia from ALL available citizens".
58539672 says2015-07-13T22:48:13.5322524-05:00
@TBR I see where your coming from and it does make sense. But Ive just had a though from something you said. "well, we have this militia, another, and I guess everyone should have a gun, just on the off chance we will form a militia from ALL available citizens". Back in the early days of our nation, many militiamen were expected to bring their own rifles (be they hunting rifles or ones scavenged from previous battles) mainly because the states had trouble funding their own forces properly. So it was beneficial to the states if the people themselves were already armed enough to levitate the stress of arming a standing military force. Once the civil war came and we advanced far enough into nationalizing our military and providing modern weaponry, even a small, well armed force became stronger than a large, lightly armed populace combined in a loose militia. That is when the states started adopting a more exclusive militia force. Now to get to my point. Indiana has about 5 different militia groups, each varying in strength and funding. The smaller, well armed ones are categorized as Indiana's first line of defense. Each then goes down in categorical order until you reach the last one, which is the loosest, least funded/armed, and easiest to join of all their groups. This is Indiana's last line of defense. So I was thinking, what if a state decided to have the traditional, modern militia as it first line of defense, while having the entire self-armed population of the state as its last line of defense. Both can be categorized as militia under regulation by the state, even if they are two different kinds of militia. That way all citizens can be part of the militia with some who are part of a stronger militia.
reece says2015-07-14T00:37:37.6436784-05:00
@58539672 The first two of your sentences are the only important ones. It seems like you're trying to water it down. They are still widely called militias.
58539672 says2015-07-14T01:24:44.4255036-05:00
@reece They are not widely called anything. Few even know who the slave patrollers were, let alone what to call them. Militia are military forces. Slave Patrollers were more akin the police, debt collectors, and reposessors than military personnel. Simply restating your earlier statement does not constitute a rebuttal. Your nation of birth, inaccurate comments, and the several inaccuracies in the link you provided are leaning me to believe you know only the narrow bits of information about US history that you have been taught or chosen to believe.
reece says2015-07-14T05:58:23.5508113-05:00
I'm not disagreeing with you...
TBR says2015-07-14T11:16:00.6967903-05:00
@58539672 - If we start from the argument that all (able) members of the state ARE active or inactive militia, then the spectrum has little importance.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.