What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

[livingston]

What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?
The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable
Gun control advocates love to hate District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. They may be protesting too much. Federal courts in the decade since have found many restrictions on the right to own and use weapons perfectly congruent with that decision. Heller merely says the government can't enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.

Courts have found that Heller does not preclude laws that prohibit anyone younger than 21 from buying guns in retail stores; laws that bar people who committed a single nonviolent felony from ever owning a gun; laws that severely restrict the ability to carry a gun outside the home; laws that ban commonly owned magazines of a certain capacity; or laws that require handguns to incorporate untested, expensive, and unreliable "microstamping" technology. The Supreme Court so far has avoided taking up any of those questions.
Still, many activists and legal scholars, along with at least two of the Supreme Court justices who dissented in Heller, believe the Second Amendment, properly construed, never guaranteed an individual right at all, or at least not one related to personal self-defense in the home

What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

Gun control advocates love to hate District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects

reason.com

 

[CaseHardened]

The Second Amendment is far more radical that most people realize.

In 1775, the year before our War for Independence, it was understood that there was a need for LOCAL MILITIA that could credibly challenge the strongest Military extant - England.

LOCAL MILITIA that had the same weaponry as the Redcoats. Local Militia - united by General Washington - fought England - and WON.

Every State has the Constitutional Right, under the 2A, to maintain a LOCAL MILITIA that can challenge ANY government. Including our own.

Now I am not talking about some dingbat militia, comprised of god knows who.

I’m talking about local, official, militia - funded and directed by each individual state.

THAT is what the Founding Fathers envisioned. And THAT would keep the Federal Deep State in line.

 

[Darth]

The 2A says nothing of the rights of the militia.

 

[CaseHardened]

The 2A says nothing of the rights of the militia.

COME ON MAN !

Amendment II
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.

 

[Darth]

COME ON MAN !

Amendment II
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.

Right. Nowhere are the rights of the militia mentioned.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well regulated means - in good working order.

"Well-Regulated"

bearingarms.com

 

[Marine Cpl]

This is why I argue with people here who think that we shouldn’t have cannons, machine guns, and grenades. They have been brainwashed into Fuddery.

 

[96coal449]

Common law....destroyers, tanks, jet fighters, bazookas, nukes, etc. are all fair game.

 

[Bananabandit]

Sounds like an armed pneumatic company.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Common law....destroyers, tanks, jet fighters, bazookas, nukes, etc. are all fair game.

People laugh but that was the way it was. The common man had muskets and crude grenades. The better off had that and cannons. The rich had all of that and ships.

 

[Acer-m14]

the militia is we the people .. the regulated part is that every person owns a gun , canon , rocket launcher , sling shot (with a wrist brace) ..ect .. the list is very long ... and know how to maintain and use them efficiently if needed ..

 

[GOPerfect]

Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined, It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.

In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

 

[FrankenCub]

Common law....destroyers, tanks, jet fighters, bazookas, nukes, etc. are all fair game.

Well, tanks and jet fighters already are in the private hands of citizens. You just need to have enough green to buy them. I know where there's an M1 Abrams that could easily put back in service. Runs great, drives well

 

[Podmonkey]

Right. Nowhere are the rights of the militia mentioned.

The Milita, as mentioned, are the people of the Nation. Every American citizen is a member of the Militia. That is why the Second Amendment exists after all, to codify into law the means of the people to carry out the duties of the Citizen's Militia. That was the intent anyway, the will of the people to prepare and provide for the common defense has withered away.

 

[Podmonkey]

The Militia and the "Armed Citizenry" are one and the same. The implications of the Second Amendment are not a privilege nor a right. It is an obligation to duty. Ownership of arms, and gaining proficiency thereof is a moral imperative. It is unethical for the able bodied and conscientious citizen to not own firearms. It is the duty of every able American citizen to provide for and be responsible for the physical security of ones' person, property and possessions. It is selfish, careless and down narcissistic to expect another person to do so. To allow another, especially an instrument of governmental authority, to perform these duties for oneself is to invite tyranny into our midst. The private and unrestricted ownership of arms is essential for the moral wellbeing of a free people.

 

[Airborneguy]

Forget what a word here or there means when taken by itself. The more important argument is the structure of the statement itself. It is clear and concise, but I’ll muck it up to make it clearer:

We recognize that the state needs access to a well-regulated militia, the people are the militia, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Due to universally known ideas of the time, it didn’t need to be written that way because it was assumed easy to understand that they weren’t requiring membership in an active militia, but rather stating that the means to ensuring a well-regulated militia when needed was to enable a well-armed populace.

 

[Airborneguy]

Except for losers and criminals which even then were disarmed regularly. A fact somehow lost in time.

 

[Podmonkey]

Except for losers and criminals which even then were disarmed regularly. A fact somehow lost in time.

Criminals amidst a universally armed and well practiced citizenry is a self correcting situation.

 

[nortatoga]

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

Contents

• 1History
• 2First Militia Act of 1792 (full text)
• 3Second Militia Act of 1792 (full text)
• 4Use and subsequent amendments
• 5See also
• 6References
• 7External links

History[edit]
The Militia Acts were passed in response to the overwhelming U.S. losses at St. Clair's Defeat in 1791.[1] The Constitution permitted Congress to provide for calling forth the militia, but it was understood at the time that the president could not do so on his own authority absent that statutory provision. There was a widespread fear that the Western Confederacy of American Indians would exploit their victory during the recess of Congress. St. Clair's defeat was blamed in part on the poor organization and equipment of his army.[2] Congress took action to remedy these problems in 1792.

First Militia Act of 1792 (full text)[edit]
The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[3] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".[4] This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years.

Second Militia Act of 1792 (full text)[edit]

Front page of a newspaper announcing the second Militia Act of 1792.
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]

Use and subsequent amendments[edit]
The authority to call forth the militia was first invoked by George Washington to put down the Whiskey rebellion in Western Pennsylvania in 1794, just before the law granting that authority expired. Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795, which by and large mirrored the provisions of the 1792 Act. The Militia Act of 1795 was in turn amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. It was superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.[9]

See also[edit]

• Militia Act of 1903
• Military Peace Establishment Act

 

[CaseHardened]

It was superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.[9]

And THAT was a mistake.

 

[CaseHardened]

The Founding Fathers understood full well that the most serious enemy would not be foreign invaders, but an over-reaching tyrannical government right here.

But when will the vanguards of the tyrants be imprisoned ?

Comney, McCabe, Brennan, Holder, Rice, Clinton - continue to ROAM FREE !

 

[Robin]

Well Regulated Militia: They all eat bran flakes and take no shit.
Robin

 

[GOPerfect]

One of the issues that arises with much of the Constitution is words and phrases have changed over time.

In order to fully understand our Rights, we need to understand the verbage of yesteryear.

 

[Exonautic]

This has been discussed ad nauseum at this point. Try and organize a militia group now and you'll probably get raided and charged for treason. So good luck. Everything has to be hush hush now and on private land. Once the government turned into what militias were supposed to defend against do you really think they'd support them.

 

[Darth]

 

[Toecutter]

Most of the issues we have in this country are 9th ammendment issues . The Constitution outlines what subjects congress is allowed to pass laws on. What we own or how we live our lives isnt one one them.

No one ever likes to talk about the 9th because alot of our laws are unconstitutional and it would strip government of most its power.

 

[GOPerfect]

This has been discussed ad nauseum at this point. Try and organize a militia group now and you'll probably get raided and charged for treason. So good luck. Everything has to be hush hush now and on private land. Once the government turned into what militias were supposed to defend against do you really think they'd support them.

This was not a conversation about starting a militia, it was about what the Founding fathers meant by the words.

There is a lot of discussion in the news today about what these, and other, words in the Constitution actually mean.

Many are going after the First amendment harder than the second because of words.

 

[Exonautic]

This was not a conversation about starting a militia, it was about what the Founding fathers meant by the words.

There is a lot of discussion in the news today about what these, and other, words in the Constitution actually mean.

Many are going after the First amendment harder than the second because of words.

My point was regardless of what they meant, the entire Constitution has been trounced on repeatedly and the only thing that will change that is a bloody civil war. Peaceful options are no longer valid because year after year the same corrupt people are in power.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You keep posting that video. Those dudes are wrong.

 

[Darth]

You keep posting that video. Those dudes are wrong.

Welp, I'm convinced.