In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A well regulated militia
calrugerfan
Member Posts: 18,209 ✭
Why is that phrase in the second amendment. A coworker tried to tell me that that meant that for the second to guarantee your right to bear arms, there needed to be a militia and it needed to be regulated by non other than the government. I think he could tell that that didn't make sense even in his own head but I didn't have the time to educate him. I just asked him if he thinks the government is more trust worthy now than when the second amendment was written.
Comments
Hand your co-worker a copy of the local phone book. Tell him that's the "militia".
I think of it this way: Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry firearms (up to and including those used by the military in defense of the state) shall not be infringed. [lesser included rights: arms for self defense, recreation, and hunting]
quote:Why is that phrase in the second amendmentBecause a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Hand your co-worker a copy of the local phone book. Tell him that's the "militia".
But he says that it has to be regulated.
To me, it reads more like "to keep the regulated militia (read government and its armies) in check, the PEOPLE get to have weapons too."
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
quote:Why is that phrase in the second amendmentBecause a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Hand your co-worker a copy of the local phone book. Tell him that's the "militia".
But he says that it has to be regulated.
To me, it reads more like "to keep the regulated militia (read government and its armies) in check, the PEOPLE get to have weapons too."
If you read the rest of the Constitution, you will see references to
the "Army" and "Navy", which is the government.
The "militia" Is referring to the People, NOT in the federal services. Well regulated means well
supplied or organized.
You must remember the time frame of the writings, The founding fathers knew what an over-powering government could do to the freedoms of the people, so they made the second most important thing written into the Bill of Rights, The right of the PEOPLE to own guns to stop tyrants from ruling like the British did. { and what is happening in today's America}
Copied from another forum............
Something to think about_________________________________________*A Well Regulated Militia?*
From and by: Ken?kiger@northstate.net
?
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.?
In this Light:?
"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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"??
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)?
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States??
First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:?
"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:?
"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:?
"To provide for the 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, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution??
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:?
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!?
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:?
"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."?
For those still overcome by propaganda:?
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."?
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."__________________
But he says that it has to be regulated.
To me, it reads more like "to keep the regulated militia (read government and its armies) in check, the PEOPLE get to have weapons too."
"A well regulated militia" does not mean a militia encumbered by rules and/or laws. "Regulated" in this context means equipped and/or supplied.
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
But he says that it has to be regulated.
To me, it reads more like "to keep the regulated militia (read government and its armies) in check, the PEOPLE get to have weapons too."
"A well regulated militia" does not mean a militia encumbered by rules and/or laws. "Regulated" in this context means equipped and/or supplied.
I knew that regulated didn't mean ruled by the government but I wasn't sure exactly what it DOES mean. I was simply saying how it SEEMS to read now.
But I like all this info.
"Regular" was a term used to described professional soldiers....and indicated their training and equipment.
A "well regulated militia" is a well-trained, equipped and armed militia....
Why is that phrase in the second amendment. A coworker tried to tell me that that meant that for the second to guarantee your right to bear arms, there needed to be a militia and it needed to be regulated by non other than the government. I think he could tell that that didn't make sense even in his own head but I didn't have the time to educate him. I just asked him if he thinks the government is more trust worthy now than when the second amendment was written.
I think that makes perfectly good sense in that were it not for such militias the Revolutionary War would have been lost, since the militias within the colonies were, indeed, organized, and the only thing that enabled these units to become effective fighting forces was the fact that people of that day and time owned their own firearms, and other weapons of war.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a God given, or natural right that has always been with mankind. The addition of organizing the local population to assist the state, by using their privately owned firearms, and organized units is America's last line of defense, and must not be infringed under any circumstances.
The problem that we have here is that anti-Americans, the enemy of free people and liberty are now deeply entrenched in our governments, and they fully intend to enslave the masses.