A well-regulated militia

Unless I miss my mark, in the olden days if the governor or other properly vested authority made the call all able-bodied men with a state or territory. These men were obligated to report for duty to be placed in a military formation, marched out to a field of battle ordered to confront an enemy in an exhange of hostile fire.

Failure to heed the call was grounds for imprisonment.

I'm asking because twice today I've seen the citation of the "well regulated militia" clause cited. OK, fine, let us assume this point of argument.

I have replied by citing additional clauses of the exact same amendment which read, "the right of the people ... shall not be infringed."

It seems to me (for whatever that is worth) that what is being explained is the right of the people shall not be infringed so there may be a well-regulated militia available for the governor's call. One might even infer there would be an obligation to possess military-grade arms lest the governor be reduced to fielding an unarmed force. To me this seems to be the founders telling future federal governments they cannot interfere with the authority belonging to governors to arm their individual states.

Obviously modern war renders the militia system moot. Militias have faded away, not by act of law so much as practicality.

Is that why those advocating gun control under "well-regulated militia" do so? Because they know they themselves do not have to serve at the governor's call? If there was a danger of being impressed into battle at a moment's notice would they affect their right/duty to arm themselves with military-grade guns and readily answer the call?

Perhaps this is harsh but I feel as if this position is taken only because it entails no risk on the part of the petitioner. They will never be called so they are safe and they know it so their entire argument is centered on the very thing they know will never happen.

Of course, even if modernity has rendered the intent of the amendment obsolete it remains full and intact. It has not been repealed. In a world where the internet collects all and forgets none we might even argue the 4th amendment has been rendered obsolete. But it remains nonetheless and we would be foolish to pick and choose our rights based solely on personnal comfort. It is even worse to pick and choose select clauses. It degrades into being dubious when those selections are made at the expense of others and there is no assumption of risk by the selector.

So here is my point/question to the "well regulated militia" argument.

IF the 2nd amendment remains in full effect and "a well regulated militia" is the rallying cry of gun control advocates should they not then also affirm that, even with modern military structures being what they are, a state governor has the right to call able-bodied men to military service and with that right the men of that state are obligated to maintain military-grade guns in their home?

DISCLAIMER - I am not a "gunner." I have fired a gun twice in my entire life. Once to learn for myself and once, two weeks later, with a friend as he learned for his own edification. In all honesty, I feel no motivation to ever go shooting again.

You may do so, too.

:sarcasm:

I want to know if the use of the term is as selective and (I say this apologetically) self-serving as I suspect.

Can you describe the way the right to keep and bear arms is being infringed?

that she was not ignoring it at all. On the contrary, that's what the post was about.

No sarcasm.

Cats, being necessary to keep rats and mice out of the home, the right of the people to keep pets shall not be infringed.

So if rat poison is now the main way to keep rats and mice out of the house, although some argue that cats still serve the purpose, does the first dependent clause negate the right explained in the independent clause because of the opinion of some that cats are not necessary. Does this also protect dog owners?

To me it clearly states the government shall not prohibit the ownership of pets no matter how important cats are in keeping the rats or mice out.

the Second Amendment is the only one of the Ten Rights in the Bill of Rights that has such a qualifying statement.

e.g. - Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..".

"(reason},{statement}"

specifically mentioned as being suited to militia service. See, if the militia is called up they need to show up with like and common (well regulated) weapons as the regulars.

You might should also check out Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 16 of our Constitution.

'reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.'

The Supremes said the M-16 is suited to militia service? Somehow missed that.

The citations are very important.

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Just because technology changes doesn't change the fact the amendment has not been repealed. So if the collective right is the only right then the duty to be armed co-exists.

That just goes to show how smart the SC is for them to agree with me.

:P

The 2A is still in full effect and has not been amended or repealed. Since the fed cannot interfere with a governors ability to call for the militia to assemble that militia must make itself available and prepared.

Right?

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 Congress.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the militia is called up they need to bring their own arms - of like and kind to what the regulars have (the definition of well regulated).

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."

edit for spelling.

:sarcasm:

'the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right,' but sure as hell should. Wouldn't want to confuse the Supremes with the facts.


:sarcasm:

Unless you're posting by using a moveable type press technology has done nothing to alter your 1A rights; except maybe expand them to greater usage.

have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right

Clause 16. 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 Congress;

And if tanks and jets were the end-all be-all of military warfare there would not be guerilla wars.

Technology does not abrogate rights.

I see that you do not agree with the finding but it is well sourced and citied. I've said before you need to read the whole thing and especially the citations to know why they found as they did. It was the correct finding and in accordance to what the writers of the Bill of Rights had in mind.

Judge: You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?

US Attourney: Yes.

Judge: Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?

US Attourney: Exactly

At least one former SC Judge spoke on that, as well -- confirming it --

and calling the attempt to suggest otherwise a scam.

And believe that opinion held for 60 or more years . . . ???

Been a while since I checked the previous rulings on it --

Until we had the big right wing push GOP/NRA to arm every American --

gun lobbyists and NRA targeting liberal and moderate Dems and Repugs --


Meanwhile, the many here also ask us to believe this absurdity --

it's like being asked to believe SC 2000 ruling!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The last few months have revealed some kind of unspoken gentlemen's agreement wherein we get to keep our guns , and they get to keep our fuckin money !

No more compromises , my achin' ass !

What makes you think the government is being held accountable to YOU because YOU happen to own a 9mm?

Unless you and a few hundred thousand of your friends can field tanks, attack helicopters, missiles and jets, you are not going to dissuade the government from doing any damn thing it wants from a 2nd amendment perspective. To think otherwise is the height of delusion.

And BTW, nobody is going to take your fucking guns.

I think the military would sit it out, which leaves the pols against an armed mob.

And if there is no effort to take guns what then is gun control advocacy based upon in practical terms?

I'm sorry but I don't by this "reasonable" control argument because I'm often told to accept all measures as reasonable regardless of what form they take or how many forms are piled on.

Registration, bullet finger-printing, electronic locks keyed to a indidivual, taxes, fees, waiting periods, magazine restrictions, color restrictions, handle restrictions and on and on and on. And any effort to say such things infringe or are simply not practical are labeled "unreasonable".

I would like to know how many of those are still reasonable when confronted by a rapist, gang-bangers, Klanners bent on lynching or violent stalker ex.

All handled by a 2500 person force--and not very well--as opposed to The First Marine Expeditionary Force. Ask any Marine and they'll tell their buttons all say US. They answer to the Commander in Chief, they defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. You really up to that?

That's just the height of humor . . . .

That was Janet Reno's JBTs

and remember that it was PRIVATE security guards who took guns also from

a long line of people trying to cross into safer areas --

Flat refused to confiscate weapons. The Utah National Guard is one example

confiscated weapons have to do w/ your contention that the US Military would jump right into to a conflict on the Governemnt's side?

"remember that it was PRIVATE security guards who took guns"


Yes, and lets also remember that it was uniformed law enforcement doing it also, in peoples homes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M

And police chief eddie compass who had the press conference announcing that "no one will be able to be armed, were gonna take all the weapons".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Ask any Marine and they'll tell their buttons all say US. They answer to the Commander in Chief, they defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

And if the Commander in Chief is an enemy of the Constitution who is trampling it sufficiently to inspire widespread and deep-rooted armed resistance, you expect the Marines to aid in the trampling of the standard they are sworn to defend. But your argument itself betrays you; Marines who abide by their oath will go beyond standing by--they will stand with the people and help root out the tyranny.

Yes, most of us are for the Marines defending the Constitution; you on the other hand...

The effort for "gun control" is to make the nation a safer place for all

of us - not just those under the delusion that if they have a gun they are safe!


think it would be the height of delusion to think the US military would attack US citizens

Really -- then what happened in Katrina?

Or is the thinking that they wouldn't attack "white" gun owners?

Cause they sure as hell shot at AAs with guns who were only looking to be saved or picked up!

And a long line of citizens with guns had their guns confiscated -- buy private forces, if I

recall correctly?


And if there is no effort to take guns what then is gun control advocacy based upon in practical terms?

Gun control is not about "taking guns" -- except if you're listening to the right wing --

GOPs/NRA -- gun lobby -- gun manufacturers.

Amazing that you have all this trust in what the right wing Supreme Court did for you --

but no mistrust whatsoever of GOP/NRA and gun lobbyists -- gun manufacturers.

Registration, bullet finger-printing, electronic locks keyed to a indidivual, taxes, fees, waiting periods, magazine restrictions, color restrictions, handle restrictions and on and on and on. And any effort to say such things infringe or are simply not practical are labeled "unreasonable".

I would like to know how many of those are still reasonable when confronted by a rapist, gang-bangers, Klanners bent on lynching or violent stalker ex.

Why don't we concentrate on getting rid of the people who foster violence and injustices in

our societies -- the right wing, specifically?

Canada has gun control -- and many guns!

They also have a mandate that anyone who wants a gun has to take instructions/training --

And 28 days AFTER completing that training, they will get a gun --

with one more proviso -- THEY HAVE TO HAVE A LETTER FROM THEIR WIFE OR EX-WIFE SAYING

THEM HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEIR HAVING A GUN!!

GREAT IDEA --- !!!!

Or is the law 1-sided?

recognizes male violence more than our nation does --

and seeks to protect females from the many males who abuse them --

including not only wives but ex-wives, often killed by husbands with guns!

Certainly a ruling we should have here in US where we have an ignored history

of male violence -- and husbands shooting wives and girlfriends.

The world was positively a paradise until men started eating red met 2500 years ago and overthrew the matriarchy. There wouldn't be any violence if pre-hysterical women had had turkey basters.

(yeah, the Canadian law is one-sided)

tanks, attack helicopters, missiles and jets is the Taliban fielding these days?

How much support you think you'll get from the population at large?

Admit it, it's just a wet dream gun huggers have, and one they always wake up from a few seconds too early.

don't think the SC will go for that though!!

:evilgrin:

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

No -- because if they were armed at all, Mubarak would have the right to bomb

them out of Tahrir Square!!

Try worrying about the right to freedom of assembly being gone --

and all the other rights we've lost -- while you won a right wing decision from

Scalia and Thomas!! Wow ... !!

the fact that the UNARMED Egyptian protesters in Tahrir Square chased them off --

including those who were firing real bullets at them!!

By assembling?

in Egypt?

As long as you hold a deep belief in violence as an answer, you won't see

other solutions. The Egyptian people have -- despite the fact that they're

being tortured and raped by Mubarak's machine!

What then?

The entire enterprise hangs on the decision of the military and which side they choose to back and that, as cynical as it may sound, rests on which faction scares/entices them the most. Plenty of popular movements have been brutally suppressed, i.e. Iran.

What if the Egyptian army chooses poorly because a disarmed populace has no means to counter the threats of Mubarak against reluctant generals?

One sword keeps the other in its sheath.

No one here says violence is the *only* answer. That's just silly and it is a straw man argument. Yet, I would love to hear the explanation that a thug, determined to create mischief for his personal gain, would knowingly choose an armed target over an unarmed target.

:eyes:

Any time you argue for violence, you are embracing right wing concepts --

First of all, plenty of so-called leftists advocate violence. Just look at the cheerleading at DU during the Greek riots or protests at WTO conferences.

Second, I repeat, no one is arguing FOR violence. Defense is defense, not a call to open fire. Defense is reaction, not action.

Third, claiming I am honor-bound to join the protesters if things become violent only counts if you go to Egypt to support your prefered course of action. I refer you to the precedent of Goose v Gander in the saucing case of 1873. You also might as easily claim I am required to take up arms and defend every woman resisting a rapist.

Fourth, I'm STILL curious as to how you plan to disarm people who decline to be disarmed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

maintaining militias.

so that militias may be called upon.

Just as Montana is currently contemplating.

A nation is like a lifeboat, and everyone in that lifeboat is responsible for the defense of that lifeboat when necessary.

At the time they were writing the Constitution, we did not have much of a standing army and a lot of possible unfriendlies. The Militia Acts of 1792 reveals that the Militia was part of U.S. Law and every free white male citizen between 18 and 45 was a member and required by law to purchase his own equipment. (Read the whole thing, it is fascinating.)


As I see it, this was the militia mentioned in the second amendment. That militia no longer exists. We have a standing army as well as national guard of the various states.

At some point no one came around to sign up militi members, and it ceased to exist. I suspect that happened once a more formal U.S. militar was developed. It may have been revoked in a later act.

All I'm saying, is that there once was a well regulated militia, as defined by those acts. A well regulated militia of all free white men no longer exists in practice. If that were true, every fee white man between 18 and 45 wouild be required by law to aquire...


Do you own a musket or firelock?

are you using a moveable-type printing press?

Or does the 1A accommodate advances in technology?

is it real?

The Militia act shows that there once was a well regulated militia, as in well reglated by the government. It simply no longer exists.

The Militia act shows that there once was a well regulated militia, as in well reglated by the government. It simply no longer exists.

Well-regulated in the 18th century did not mean "controlled or governed by rules or an entity". Well-regulated meant "well functioning". For example, highly accurate clocks of the era were referred to as "regulators". They were used to set the time of other less-accurate time pieces. Even today if you have bowel movements on a normal interval you are said to be "regular" - you have a "well regulated" digestive system.

You are correct, however, that the militias of the founders' day no longer exists. It was usurped under direct federal control in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. No doubt the founders foresaw this possibility and this is why the right to keep and bear arms is specifically enumerated as belonging to the People and not the militia.

and the insanities of the GOPs/NRA -- along with the gun lobbyists and the

gun manufacturing industry!

you're in a rut -- move on!

It is also sane to say society's most physically vulnerable adults have the right to defend themselves.

It is sane to say no woman should submit to rape.

It is not ratonal to claim a mere piece of paper will deter violent stalkers.

It is not rational to tell decent people to accept intruders in their home.


Ad hom attacks don't prove your argument.

You're on "ignore" --

bye --

Typical.

:P

She doesn't believe that man walked on the moon, she believes that man was a vegetarian until the rise of 'patriarchal' religions (~5k years ago), 9/11 was an inside job, etc.

She seems fairly petulant and rude but I hope you aren't just making those things up (though you've never been malicious, near as I can tell).

for her posts and found it is all true.

and ran away.

Good grief!

It's like all they want to do is bitch, moan and throw around hyperlinks to their own threads.

on DU

and the insanities of the GOPs/NRA -- along with the gun lobbyists and the

gun manufacturing industry!

It might interest you to know that the NRA endorses and gives high marks to Democrats, also. In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates except one received high marks from the NRA, and three of the Democratic candidates were endorsed by the NRA. You can see my ballot in my sig.

You are also ignoring the fact that those 4 million NRA members aren't all gun lobbyists or employed by the gun manufacturing industry.

enacting its own citizen militia for call up by the governor or local sheriff.

Even in the modern world it would be easy to see where natural disaster or civil disorder would require a call-up.

That being the case the 2A says congress cannot infringe upon that enteprise.

Perhaps not so non-existent as first presumed.

EDITED to correct to Montana.

Read and educate yourself:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

"The reserve militia<3> or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia"

I think they were well passed flintlock and musket in 1903

I own the modern equivalents.

Is that O.K.?

I also have access to several artillery pieces, and two Gatling Guns.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

the zombie apocalypse begins.

who haven't bought a "gun"?

but unless you squat to piss, when you passed your eighteenth birthday you were required to register with Selective Service at the Post Office.

In 1974 the Army of the United States ceased to exist. The United States Army is made up solely of Regulars. Never before in our history have we had a "warrior class."

And for those who think the Army would monolithically support the government overlook history. The last time soldiers were forced to make such choices one General famously turned down the President's offer of command of all Federal forces.

We are still using Robert E. Lee's front lawn as a graveyard.

I only arrived in the United States in 1954, but they did make me take a test on American history before I was naturalized as a citizen.

The argument that the military would crush any insurrection is not a certainty. In particular since the force is now all volunteer it might not align to the liking of some liberals.

Quite a number of liberals feel military service is "beneath" them. For the sake of argument, assume that over time this becomes even more so. If liberals do not volunteer for military service as a matter of course, then the professional Army becomes full of people who are by default are not liberals because liberals don't join the Army. In that event the best you can hope for is they are neutral.

If the military is full of people who do not share your values, and who believe that liberals look down on them just how willing do you think they will be to throw in with you if push comes to shove?

The difference between a rebellion and a revolution, or a mutiny and a coup is success. This month, 150 years ago, "First gallant South Carolina
Nobly made the stand..." Should the country ever again divide up in a civil war, some of the military will side with the rebels. They will bring their tanks, fighter jets and nuclear launch codes with them.

Remember, with the end of the draft came the end of the citizen Army. For the first time we have a "warrior class" hardened by 10 years of combat. Isolated and insulated from the civilian population by living in military ghettoes on posts and bases. They have loyalties to each other that only a combat veteran understands. And the success of dope smoking hippie draft dodgers in eliminating the draft skews the military demographic to favor those from a conservative background with traditional values. Underestimate the risk that entails at your peril.

A volunteer force might embolden some governments to military adventures. Total active duty military for all branches of service is 1,421,414. The Army troop strength, all ranks, is 562,400. Most of the country no one personally knows a soldier or is related with 3 degrees of kinship to one.

Go back to a militia system for national defense, quit warmongering abroad.

Switzerland has the right idea.

The whole point of having a decentralized military system was to make it hard to control to do bad things. You'd have to have a pretty compelling reason to get all the states to join together in a cooperative military endeavor.

Imagine how many wars we might have avoided over the years if it had taken a cooperative effort to indulge in them.

Especially if everyone had to serve, instead of a voluntary military.

"Isolated and insulated from the civilian population by living in military ghettoes on posts and bases."

I'd say that more than half of military people live off-post. Although that ratio may be changing due to modernizing on-post housing. The new houses here at Davis-Monthan are pretty damn nice... and they all have solar panels on the roofs.

I didn't mean the term 'military ghetto' to say the housing on post was substandard, more in the sense of insular; separate from the rest of the population. The "military community" is still, in large, isolated, even off-post. Many towns that exist just outside the main gate are full of military retirees or junior enlisted ineligible for on post family housing. You are career military, how many folks are in your social circle that are pure civilians? How many of your kinfolk have worn or are wearing the uniform of their country? As a casual observation I see more multi-generational military families now than when I was on active duty.

I've been retired from the Army almost 20 years. At work, most everyone is either a military retiree or a veteran. Only the two women in the office have never spent a day in uniform. One of them was military spouse. But then I live close enough to Fort Knox that the firing of tank guns on the ranges rocks me to sleep at night.

People here know what it means when a staff car with two soldiers carrying a telegram pulls up in front of a neighbor's house. That's what binds us. For us it's not abstract, it's not platitudes, it's not stickers on a car. 99% of the population is blithely unaware.

Been kinpeople in the service of their country for as far back as I have followed.

My middle son is currently serving in the US Army. He is a Field Medic and carries the rank of Specialist.
The entire family is proud of him.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Oops, sorry, I know you didn't mean it that way, and didn't mean to imply that I thought you did. (Did that make sense?:crazy:)

But you do have a point about the "insular" thing; even when living off-post, military folks tend to associate mostly with military affiliated people. I live in a housing development that is strongly military, A.D., retirees, and civilian employees. Luckily, my next-door neighbor is a Park Service ranger, a supervisor for Saguaro Park East. Good people.

Article I Section 8 Paragraph 16 of our Constitution?


"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia"

on the second.

That said, the militia is mentioned twice in the Constitution; Article I section 8 paragraph 16, "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 Congress;"

Then again in the second A.

Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers described the militia as a small cadre of professional soldiers who would form the core of a national army if needed and the general population as "to be gathered together from time to time for training."

In Heller the SCOTUS found something about self defense in the second. I don't know where and it doesn't matter 'cause it's the law of the land just like prohibition was for awhile.

As regards Heller, my feelings (which with $5 will get me coffee at Starbucks) are the Preamble clearly cites a right to life and common law as well as natural law recognize a right to self defense which would be found in the 10th amendment if any court had the courage to open that can of worms.

I've been told in no uncertain terms that I'm too fucking stupid to discuss the militia here so I'll defer to the self appointed experts on that topic.

does that mean a member of the 18th century militia could not use his weapon in defense of his domocile against common criminals?

law of the land. Discussion over. Bush was president in 2000. Discussion over.

So I am testing the argument in as many permutations as I may conceive.

That may sound catty and snide but it is not. I believe it is the height of respect for another person's position and right to join a debate when they are invited to explain their position as it is tested from every angle rather than allow a conversation to degenerate to name calling and recriminations.

Obviously, pro-regulation advocates cite this argument despite the Supreme Court ruling. They simply refuse to relinquish the argument and truth-be-told they are free to make it even to this day and a hundred years from now. Were Roe v Wade ever to be overturned that would not nullify pro-choice arguments; on the contrary it would make them more vital than ever.

However gun control advocates should be willing, if not excited, to answer questions to assert the validity of their case as I would be eager to defend freedom of choice even if it were overturned.

As a side note I would like to point out at one time a bench of the Supreme Court rules segregation to be constitutional but a subsequent bench said that was stupid. While it is heartening to see any body move from stupid to wise there is no guarantee there will never be an inverse flow.

And for the next 20 years they may moan and groan about not being able to deny the poor or African Americans the right to own guns by making them more expensive or making the paperwork more complicated, eventually the generation born after the heller decision will take over and they will have been born into a world where in the US the 2A is defined as an individual right to keep and bear arms. Governments will have to work on the underlying causes of violence rather than try to treat societies cough with a cough drop.

of us is qualified to make.

Far too many of the "chosen few" who monopolize this forum proceed from a premise that "we can discuss "gun" regulation IF everyone recognizes that my knowledge is so far superior to all others and all must first agree that I've WON!"

If I have a mission here it is to point out the futility of discussion with those few and to beseech the others to consider that there will be a swing of the regulation pendulum to the extreme detriment of firearms enthusiasts. A far better approach, from my point of view, is to be involved in designing regulations that will address the issues that fuel in-effective regulation that serves no end good.

There is a ground swell growing fed by almost daily shootings, suicide by cop, Mexican drug cartels and children killing children. We enthusiasts need to become involved in the regularity process. The NRA could be a force for total reform of regulation if they would. Instead all that is heard from the RKBA side is not no way not no how to anything.

Thanks for not being one of those few and thanks for the opportunity to rant.

on presenting the argument.

And present it they do.

possibility of common ground on "gun" regulation if there is input by those who have the expertise to frame the argument. The hullabaloo over magazines vs clips isn't the way to go.

"Excuse me but you're not an asshole, technically you're an anal specter."

Doesn't lend much to understanding. Neither does "the OP doesn't know what a militia is so he's too ignorant to reply to" all the while replying to the OP.

The validity of the results is dependent on the logic and the evidentiary support for the discussion, not who is making the argument, or their paper pedigree.

You really think the SC can't fuck up?

and it could be ugly for those who wish to own "guns" for any reason.

WTF, maybe someday the 2A will be seen as an anachronism. Remember 3/5th of a person? Prohibition (it was an amendment repealed)? Citizens United that overturned a hundred years of precedent?

Meanwhile discussion here needs to recognize that until a challenge is presented us amateur constitutional scholars should deal with the reality of now.

Not to say we shouldn't all work to provide that challenge.

Any pro gun control person should scrupulously avoid mentioning Dred Scott. Somebody might read it and learn more about the rationale for the decision than they did in Ninth grade.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

That's important enough to repeat and show in context. The argument against granting Scott his freedom and citizenship were it would confer to blacks rights "everyone" took for granted were the province of citizens and listed several as examples.



Clearly this gives lie to the view that the Second Amendment not being understood as protecting an individual right to arms until recently. The right to arms was clearly and unquestionably considered an INDIVIDUAL right by the 1856 court. A position held almost universally until Homer Cummings pushed gun control under the "New Deal" as FDR's Attorney General. Unfortunately, the passage clearly shows the same thinking in the Dred Scott court that gun control activists now try to conceal. The bitter fights in DC and Chicago proved it. The "what works in Cheyenne may not work in Chicago" argument is simply new speak for, "Are you nuts? You want them darkies having guns?"

I'm bookmarking this post for future rebuttals about the collective nature of the right to keep and bear arms.

just wow

That seals it for me.

It's intended to do damage to the nation -- it's a right wing decision

specifically for that purpose!

Of course they did --

No, they actually haven't many states have state authorized militias one of the most notable is the Alaska State Guard. The Militia was last called up in 1942 on both coasts in response to Pearl Harbor

http://www.dmva.alaska.gov/asdf/

The Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF) is a volunteer organization whose primary role is to augment and support the Alaska National Guard. Our soldiers are equipped and trained for various missions including communications, emergency management, medical, logistical support, chaplaincy, and shelter management. Our soldiers meet for training on a monthly basis.

During WWII, both the Maryland Defense Force (state militia) and the Maryland Minuteman (reserve militia or unorganized militia) were called to serve. MDF still serves today.

http://mddf.maryland.gov/docs/resources/01_MDDF_History.pdf

That is why there is a process included to amend it.

Just because the U.S. has embraced the standing army doesn't mean there are no more militias.

One would do well to read Perpich V. Department Of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/496/334.html

It was a nine to nothing decision by the SCOTUS about, among other things, the militia.

Finally, "well-regulated" does not mean what some believe it means.

Federalist Paper #29
Alexander Hamilton
1788

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.
...
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.

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.

And they are registered to the individual militiaman and the government knows where every one of them is all the time.

Side note: The 6.5 Swiss is one of the most accurate rifles to come from WWII. My groups are 2 MOA with stock iron sights, old eyes and no tuning. Makes sense, Switzerland is mountainous and accessible by easily defended passes. It's a sniper's paradise, a very few holding the many hostage from a thousand yards.

Should you acquire a Swiss you'll find the mechanical condition near perfect but the finish looking like it spent it's life in a pickup truck with a half load of gravel. Frankly it did; under the bed, in the garage, moved from apartment to apartment and stored under the skies and other stuff in the closet.

They don't really need a militia, they've got all the rich and powerfull's checking accounts!

as I fall within the age range yes I would answer the call as I would see it as my duty to serve. At the point it would be deemed necessary the shit would probably have hit the fan long ago. He may want to keep me in my job, but if asked to move out I would serve either way.

I imagine if it came to that point the Draft would have already been called and there wouldnt be many men left to arm.

with arms that are like and common to those that are active military (well regulated). Unfortunately I would not be able to report with an M-16 as Heller specifically mentioned, but would only have the semi-auto version AR-15.

If by modern warfare you mean WWII through Korea, I would agree.

However, contemporary warfare is, in a lot of ways, going back to the old ways in being person, rather than machine centric. The situation is more that the American military is most likely the most effective war machine on the planet...for the wrong war. Note that when I say the old ways, I don't mean Napoleonic warfare, just that giant war machines are often less useful in conflicts where the participants are other than designated, uniformed forces.

Militia warfare is groups of people fighting with man-portable and small crew-served weapons. Certainly that is not ALL that is going on in contemporary warfare, as there are still the big machines being used, but we cannot deny the effectiveness (and importance on the battlefield) of small arms fire. There is also the matter of cost (I am talking material resources, not lives). Is a thermobaric bomb a gigantic threat to the "enemy?" Yes, but it also has a gigantic cost associated with it. Contrast this with a sniper, or even a run-of-the mill good marksman with a decent rifle. One or two people with fairly basic tools create a true threat on a battlefield all out of proportion with their material cost. I have not done any time in the military, nor have I been on an active battlefield, but according to a couple of people I know who have, "SNIPER!" causes more panic than "GRENADE!" or "MORTAR!" or "MG!" Snipers are just people, granted-highly skilled people, with rifles, a technology that has been pretty much perfected since the late 1800's

Do not underestimate the importance of small arms and passable marksmanship, which is what many would bring if the need to call up a militia arose.

IF the 2nd amendment remains in full effect and "a well regulated militia" is the rallying cry of gun control advocates should they not then also affirm that, even with modern military structures being what they are, a state governor has the right to call able-bodied men to military service and with that right the men of that state are obligated to maintain military-grade guns in their home?

The well-regulated militias of old no longer exist. But there does still exist the Unorganized Militia, which is all able-boded men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia (National Guard).

If my government called forward the citizenry to respond to a thread, I would if I thought the cause was just. I am certain that it was just this caveat that the founders assumed would be in every militia man's mind, and precisely why they set up a decentralized military system as they did.

The only military-grade hardware I own is a SAR-1, a semi-automatic variant of the AK-47. I've never been able to afford an AR-15 variant.

thanks, in part, to its modular nature. Complete AR "parts kits" can be had for less than $500, combined with a stripped receiver (about $100 plus whatever transfer and registration fees are applicable in your state) means you can put together a rifle for less than $600 if you're willing to a little of the assembly work yourself (using tools that you probably already have). You can even get one chambered in the same cartridge that your SAR-1 uses, thanks to the huge variations in the AR platform. You can even buy the parts as the funds become available, putting it all together like a bunch of Legos once you have everything you need.

Every assembled AR I've seen has been $800+. Most are $1000+. I don't really know about putting them together and there are so many choices when I've looked into it that I didn't bother trying to sort it all out.

Your best bet is to keep it simple with something like this kit for $485, which gives you everything you need except for the lower receiver. this company has stripped lower receivers for $60, which adds up to a grand total of $555 + shipping for everything you need to have a functional AR. The upper is already assembled, so the only thing you need to do is put the lower parts kit into the lower, which can be done with a pair of vise grips and a spanner wrench (and maybe some needle nose pliers). It's pretty straight forward, and there are plenty of youtube videos to help you through the process. Once done, you just put the upper on the lower, snap the two pins closed, and you're done.

Well, thanks for the links!

I took the plunge and ordered the stripped receiver. I'll have to wait on the rest of the parts for a while, though.

I ordered the lower receiver, but just realized that that is considered a firearm and so must go to an FFL. My local FFL wants forty-five dollars for a transfer. That makes that receiver $100, plus I have to go to the hassle of going to pick it up at the store.

I think I'll just let them cancel the order.

Found a guy here in town that will do FFL transfers for $25. One place wanted $45, another $50! Crazy.

Makes me want to go and get an FFL license for myself.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 established the federal licensing system for firearms dealers. Many folks got an FFL for just the reason you state. They could buy wholesale for themselves. Maybe do a transfer now and again for family and friends. As a result, the number of FFLs increased, reaching a peak of more than 284,000 in 1992.

But in the early Nineties all of a sudden the news media swelled with reports of "there are more FFL's in the country than gas stations." All the usual suspects like Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Paul Helmke, etc were on it. Everything possible was done to portray a casual dealer as nefarious and intimating they were all illicit arms merchants arming gangs, militias, and terrorists. The "kitchen table gun dealers" as they were termed, were targeted for elimination.

So the Clinton Administration changed regulations to make the application process more cumbersome and tripled the fees with the avowed purpose of reducing the number of FFL's. Making the process more onerous and costly had the desired effect, by the end of the first renewal cycle the number of Type 1 FFLs dropped to 50,630.

How many transfers will you have to do and how much will you have to charge to amortize the cost of the license? The answer to that question will tell you why since 1994 a quarter million FFL's decided to not renew.

It true that getting an 01 FFL has become more expensive and cumbersome, but you can still get a C&R FFL easily. You won't be able to get modern arms, but the C&R will let you receive older stuff and qualify you for discounts from a lot of vendors. :thumbsup:

In principle, you're correct about the modern part, but check out the VZ-82 pistol. Made by CZ, it was the last military and police sidearm of Czechoslovakia. It's a 12-round double-stack SA/DA semi-auto, chambered in 9x18 Makarov caliber: modern enough for all practical purposes. It was in service from 1982 to 1993 but has been designated "Curio & Relic," due in part to the fact that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist in 1993.

The VZ-82 (sometimes called the CZ-82) is the most "modern" C&R pistol available, much more so than the surplus Tokarevs and Makarovs that are more commonly associated with the break-up of the Eastern Bloc. The VZ-82 is still pretty widely available through the usual surplus retailers. My state, New York, does not allow direct handgun sales to C&R licensees, but most states do.

By two august Constituional scholars. (OK maybe not but it's the best damn definition I''ve ever heard) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

was giving the power to decide how the Militia (of the Several States) was to be armed (for commonality = effectiveness). The right of the people, because they are(were) the Milita, was already secured because the existing Milita of the Several States was recognized in several sections of the Constitution and given very specific very important functions in protecting all the very reasons for coming up with the Contitution in the 1st place..."establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence". They were to be armed, and organized and well-trained/disciplined - by law, according to guidlines established by congress. The Militia pre-existed - there was no reason to define them or create them, and the importance of arms (and the people supplying them themselves) was well-understood for the people indivdually and for their role in the Militia.

Many people saw that the new power given to the govt could be used to disarm the people, and render the Militia useless, the States powerless, and increase the need for that bane of liberty and arm of tyrants - a large standing army, and so the 2nd amendment was added. This is also THE reason why the people, as stated in the 1st Militia Act of 1792, were to arm themselves, so a tryannical govt could not control the flow of arms.

The people, via their role as the Militia, had the right to arms secured in the body of the Constitution, the 2nd made it explicitly personal.

Vice Presidents, members of Congress, numerous public servants, etc. were (are) all exempt from Miltia duty...you want to tell me they lost the right to arms? Bullshit. Try telling the likes of Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry they lost the right to possess arms because they were not in the Milita. Denied that right to themselves??? The right is personal.

Wolverines!