Well Regulated Militia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the US, the de facto definition of well-regulated militia appears to be anyone with at least one finger with which to pull the trigger.
 
Cite me a dictionary from the time showing the word regulated had a different meaning then than now.

It’s not even relevant to the debate. The constitution explicitly states that it is the right of the people to bear the arms, not the militia.

And yes, Penn and Teller are fantastic. They make very good logical arguments and debunk a lot of misconceptions.
 
Penn’s reasoning is wrong but his conclusion is right. The people ARE the militia. That’s how the militia works. The people need to be armed in order for the militia to be well-regulated. Otherwise the militia would be called and everyone would show up without weapons. And that’s no good to anyone.

I agree, that due to the wording the right to bear arms does not depends upon the militia. Rather the militia depends on the right to bear arms. Which puts us in a strange sort of limbo as we don’t use militias anymore. So we have a disconnect between our arms and the purpose of keeping them.
 
Last edited:
Regardless, any further gun control endeavors need to be done by amending the constitution if the debate is to be settled.
 
I don’t know if that’s true. We’ve plenty of precedent that shows Bill of Rights rights can be limited in certain circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but the rabid polarization of this particular issue would be well served by an amendment. I personally think the existing background check system and limits on full auto, suppressors, SBR’s, etc. to all be gross violations of the right to bear arms. Others disagree, by passing the amendment to state that the federal government can make any rules they want, it would bypass any argument of constitutionality of the law and I don’t think you’d be able to get people to abide otherwise.
 
The theory behind the People being armed is that the Poeple are soverign, the government. Government, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty is naked force.

The colonists of the 13 colonies used armed force to convince the British king (soverign) that his government was no longer their government. The new country then wrote and approved a constitution that would control how they were governed in the future. The second amendment of the bill of rights was their way of insuring the burocracy of the new government could not take power from the (sovereign) people willy-nilly.

People who are disarmed are subjects, not citizens. Every dictator in recent times (last 150 years) has started by disarming the people.

Back at the time of the American revolution (50 years either direction) there were 2 types of malitia. The organized malitia which has since morphed into the National Guard (controled by the state governor; and the unorganized malitia which, at that time, was every abled body male 16-60 years of age.

Unorganized malitia was called up by local leaders up to the state governor and most states had laws limiting how long they had to serve but it was usually a short period (days to a couple weeks). Their equipment and training ranged from limited to non-existant. Even the organized malitia was of marginal use in times of was. Read about malitial performance in the war of 1812.

Having said that, both organized and unorganized militia had a very rapid response time. Remember the minute men.

I hate the current culture where if someone wants to get attention, they grab a firearm and make newsies sit up and notice. I do not know how to stop it but I know that restricting my ability to be armed is not the way.

Patrick
AMDG
 
There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the Federal Government
from regulating the people (outside of the bill of rights).
 
Last edited:
To the contrary, the Constitution is a list of the powers the Federal government has. Not a definitive list of the rights of the people. Any powers not specifically delegated to the Feds or the States are reserved for the people.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Your last sentence is the 10th Ammendment.

And your statement is not contrary to mine.
 
Maybe I misinterpreted your meaning then. I don’t really see how the government can regulate people outside of the powers granted to it when the people retain everything else.
 
I know for a fact I spend more time training to shoot than the vast majority of police officers do.
 
Rhubarb said:
Which puts us in a strange sort of limbo as we don’t use militias anymore. So we have a disconnect between our arms and the purpose of keeping them.
Click to expand...
It’s not surprising that after so many years the context the constitution assumed is not the modern context.
 
Lol. My best friends are ex LEOs and Marines. I have learned a great deal from them and used to practice wit them often. It’s a shame some LEOs feel it’s only necessary to hit the range a few times a year.
 
Good friend of mine that I shoot with a lot was on a SWAT team for a bit before he transferred departments. He said even most of those guys would do anything they could to get out of extra training. It is sad.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
We need fire superiority!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top