People use words...

Night Stalker

... and words mattter.

I was reading the Constitution and the subsequent amendments. Was it a mere 'oversight' that the founding father's made the distinction between these two words in these specific amendments? [;)]

NS

---

II.Right to keep and bear arms

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.

III.Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Your thoughts?

rossowmn

I'd like to think the Founding Fathers meant that "militia" referred to ordinary people -- the public -- and "soldiers" referred to, well, "soldiers" -- actual enlisted military types. But I know it's a disputed area. Heaven help the Second Amendment if there's even a slight shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Horse Plains Drifter

I am confident the founders knew full well those two things were, and are different

searcher5

quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
I am confident the founders knew full well those two things were, and are different


Absolutely.

rhythm_guy

quote:Originally posted by searcher5
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
I am confident the founders knew full well those two things were, and are different


Absolutely.

+2

ChrisInTempe

One is a group of civilians from numerous occupations who organize and train together under the laws where they live. Small Arms are normally personal property, though some may be provided by the local government when it is the only way to meet the need.

The other is a standing army of professional fighters, always ready, always equipped by the nation-state they protect. Rarely are small arms personally owned, and when they are it is under unique circumstances.

torosapo

quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
One is a group of civilians from numerous occupations who organize and train together under the laws where they live. Small Arms are normally personal property, though some may be provided by the local government when it is the only way to meet the need.

The other is a standing army of professional fighters, always ready, always equipped by the nation-state they protect. Rarely are small arms personally owned, and when they are it is under unique circumstances.


Did you even read what you posted?

ithaca4me

You know it makes you wonder how many of the opponents passed high school english. I may not have the best grammer but I know what a comma is for. The comma's in the second amendment should have put this to bed years ago. But many people like to have what can be plainly read interpreted for them over and over again until the whole thing is a convoluted mess of personal opinion. (sorry for spelling I type it like it sounds "fier"[:)])

shilowar

Oh it's just an antiquated piece of paper, like the Bible they have no bearing on a modern progressive society such as today. We have Uncle Sugar and free healthcare, there is no need to fear Kings anymore. [;)]

ChrisInTempe

quote:Originally posted by torosapo
quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
One is a group of civilians from numerous occupations who organize and train together under the laws where they live. Small Arms are normally personal property, though some may be provided by the local government when it is the only way to meet the need.

The other is a standing army of professional fighters, always ready, always equipped by the nation-state they protect. Rarely are small arms personally owned, and when they are it is under unique circumstances.

Did you even read what you posted?


Do you know the differences between a militia and a standing army? There are more than I wrote, so there's room for you to add.

Rack Ops

If someone wants to know what the founders meant by "militia", they only need to look at the first Militia Act.

The Second Amendment served a very practical purpose, from the perspective of the founders.


It's not about hunting...
It's not about sport shooting...
It's not even about protecting yourself from crime...

All of those are wonderful individual benefits of an armed society, but the reason for the Second Amendment is in it's collective benefit....The ability for a community to turn out a body of well-armed and disciplined men at a moment's notice as a bulwark of protection from threats both external and internal.

ChrisInTempe

quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
If someone wants to know what the founders meant by "militia", they only need to look at the first Militia Act.

SG

Ive always wondered why the 2nd Amendment is the only Constitutional right that I need a permit to exercise..

Mr. Perfect

quote:Originally posted by searcher5
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
I am confident the founders knew full well those two things were, and are different


Absolutely.
Amen.

kimi

Most of our soldiers just prior to and during the Revolutionary War were militia men, not men of the Continental Line, i.e. regular Army soldiers. Nevertheless, the typical man who lived on or near the frontier had their own rifles, hunting/scalping knives, tomahawks, etc. Obviously, had this not been the case we would have never defeated the British, and hostile Indians would have had no one to answer to for murdering settlers who had encroached on their land. As it was, when these sort of attacks would happen the settlers would sometimes fort up at the nearest station and fight off the Indians, or the men would give chase and take revenge, if possible, or the state governor might have his militia officers called into service, and the service of the typical farmer/frontier man might be for one day or maybe three months, dependent upon the individual or unit mission(s), at which time they would be discharged from that period of service, until needed again, which was usually during the spring and summer when hostilities were at their height. These militia men, regardless of rank, were looked upon as soldiers, and they might be dispatched individually as a spy/scout for the commander to recon the countryside and provide an early warning and thus protection for their neighbors, be they near or distant, or they might be dispatched as a small detail of ten or twelve men, or as a full company that might be roughly fifty men. Settlers on the frontier most always welcomed strangers or militia men to their home or station during these dangerous times.

All of that said, I believe that both statements should be viewed literally as written and as intended to be understood. Keep in mind that the state paid the militia men for their service, and it reimbursed the soldiers or settlers for any money or goods that they might have provided for the cause, which is where I believe that the "law" comes into play, aside from it being a policy that "all" soldiers should understand as well.

machine gun moran

The Army and Navy were chartered to defend the State against foreign aggressors, and the Militia, against internal aggressors. Internal aggressors are often just street dirtbags who discover the value of three-piece suits and public office.