Militia?

[copenhagen]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I was talking about this today with a co-worker, and we came to the conclusion that rather than saying that people are only allowed to keep weapons of the constitutional era, that common sense would dictate that we the people have the right to maintain all standard armaments of an up to date Infantry Battalion.

We figured that the purpose of this was actually dual: To keep a foriegn threat at bay from well armed free men&women, and to keep a potentially totalitarian government at bay from a well armed citizenry as well.

We also came to the conclusion that a ban or regulation of any type of automatic weapons or assault rifles which are in common use by infantry men and are acceptable for our men and women in the Armed Service would be down-right un-Constitutional.

I'm sure people have posted threads along this line before, however, I'm rather new, and am curious to see if anyone else shares the same view of what a well regulated militia would entail?

 

[rgitzlaff]

I agree with you 100%! We should be able to have grenades, rocket launchers, machine guns, and all that stuff. Do we NEED it? No. But I'm sure we could have a heck of a lot of fun with them at specified ranges! But if we are law abiding citizens, then there is no reason we should not be able to own them. Constitutionally, we should be able to have them, how else are we to fend off a tyranical government when they have access to far superior weapons than the subjects do?

 

[Buzzcook]

A militia system would include mandatory service.
That service would include an accounting of every suitable weapon owned by the citizens.
It also implies a problem of inequality. Do you want to be a ground pounder because you can only afford a rifle, while the rich guy down the street can afford a howitzer and serve miles behind the front line?

 

[rbrgs]

The American tradition is that the Militia (which is essentially everyone who isn't already in the Gov't sponsored military) is expected to own their own weapons, and elect their own officers.

In 1941, Hawaii was a territory, not a State, and common people (mostly 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who came to work) weren't trusted with guns.

This didn't work out too well; as the sun set on Dec. 7, there was 1 infantryman every 200yds on Oahu's beaches with 5rds of WW1 era .30-06 each; all the spare Springfields (200 of them) were issued to Honolulu cops. Most of the plantation overseers were armed with pistols, and a few rich people had hunting rifles...good thing the Japanese didn't plan to invade until after Midway.

After the war, the second amendment got copied word for word (minus 2 commas) into our state constitution.

 

[hogdogs]

As far as being a part of a "well regulated militia" I will rather be considered a NO SHOW! But I am well ready to take to the ditches and woods and shoot at who is shooting at me! if them "black helos" come to storming they gonna face at least one gun they did not prepare for! Otherwise I am just a common guy with common arms willing to feed my family or defend them at the drop of a hat!
I recently watched "Gods and Generals" and while it is all hollywood I was thinking the gathering of soldiers on both sides was probably well portrayed with mismatched uniforms or none at all and the variety of arms brought to the fronts! I am gonna stock up on .22LR and 20ga ammo cuz we got a much more diverse arms selection today and I will never point an empty gun!
Brent

 

[Pat H]

The militia is still listed in the US Code, Title 10.

Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The Second Amendment doesn't address "the militia" directly, it's "a militia", a general reference to the body of the people who could defend America. The use of the definite article "the" in the main body of the Constitution references those people listed in the US Code above, the indefinite article "a" does not. Two tiny words, huge differences in meaning.

 

[copenhagen]

I really appreciate that attention to detail, Pat.

 

[LightningJoe]

The eighteenth century saw the development of weapons that allowed citizens to fight soldiers. You didn't have to own stuff that only aristocrats could afford (chain mail, a horse). The muzzle-loading flintlock ended the divine right of kings and made democracy possible.


This was not lost on the Founders. The 2nd Amendment is the victor's determination to maintain the means of his victory, weaponry that makes a citizen the equal of a soldier on the battlefield.

 

[shield20]

"Militia" as used in the constitution means exactly the same thing every time it is used; that is "the Militia of the several States". It is a plural noun. The "a" in the 2nd still refers to what the Militia is/was in the Union at that time - the State Militia, an entity long established and well defined & understood. The 2nd declares WHAT TYPE of Militia - a well regulated one - is necessary for the freedom of that state. It also re-iterates that well trained Militia is necessary, IS REQUIRED - they better be because they have very specific very important very permanent roles to fill when employed by the federal govt to protect our liberties (A1S8C15): to suppress insurrections, repel invasions, & execute the laws. Besides, w/o a militia, the recourse is a larger standing army.

The Militia in US Code is NOT the constitutional Militia, because it is OF THE "United States", NOT the several "States". The Congress did NOT get powers to redefine or reorganize, nor create or recreate THE Militia, only to come up with general regulations with regards to arming, organizing and disciplining them, and to provide for calling parts of the Militia of the several States forth.

There should be 50 Militias in the US. They should be made up from the body of the people. The people's right to arms is secured not only by the 2nd, but by Article 1 Section 8 C16 too. All the people should arm themselves according to some regulation as called out by Congress - i.e. with 5.56NATO, 7.62NATO military rifles & machine guns, 9mm & .45 pistols, plus magazines, bayonets, ammo and other accoutrements. There is NO provision or intent for the Congress or the State to register or in any other way control these arms - they should be tax free too. When you muster, you bring your arms. Otherwise you keep and bear them without infringment.

The Militia were intended to be the best-armed military force in this nation. The people were never supposed to be 2nd rate with regards to arms - because to render the militia ineffective lays the groundwork for a larger standing army, and so to tyranny. How to come to grips these days with the huge expense of advanced military hardware re: the people would be tough. But that is what the intent was of the framers.

 

[rbrgs]

shield20

+1

Freedom has some responsibility attached; it's not license.

When my left-wing acquaintances complain about Bush/Iraq/whatever, I tell them were not supposed to have a standing army. We wouldn't have this problem with a militia; so either buy a military-type rifle and learn how to use it, or quit complaining. So far, no one has done either.