Did you read the Constitution and study the colonial and early State militias? Its true the Federal government can raise an army but they also can call forth the militias and incorporate them into the military command as needed during time of war to repel invasion and fight insurrections. In fact they can do the militia call up in lieu of raising an army if they wished to. And Congress could always set the standards and regulations of the militias in any form they wish. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for 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, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; So if they decide to not use the army they could call up all fit men and women for combat duties, organize, arm, discipline and govern them in lieu of their other options and you would need to comply or it would be treason in violation of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment when this is considered intertwines to make sure the Militia is armed and ready for service until they can get added training and weapons. So yes I did get it wrong but so are you its never completely free of the control of the Congress and the Federal government.
I did not know that either. Every now and then, some poster gets banned. I do check to try to find offending posts. I never locate any of them. Seems we should be told X is banned and why. At least it could be used to help us all out.
No one claimed otherwise, The Militia however is just not the National Guard or any paid regular force, it is composed of unpaid Volunteers, and well regulated means just that.
Yeah, you tell villagers that someone got executed so the rest of the Village would take fear and cringe and becrapelbub themselves.
I knew we would get down to the personal insults. A well regulated militia is a well trained militia and we have neither. Now for more personal attacks....
Ok, I'll add something to the discussion. The second amendment supporters have added plenty over the past 11 pages. Just because you are alone on your island of opinion with your alter ego, (and make no mistake.... you are alone), doesn't mean pro second amendment hasn't been represented here. Not only have they represented, they have crushed your repeated and stale argument.
Then the militia is very well organized. If you doubt me then report to your national guard recruiter and find out just how organized the militia is. Congress controls the organization of the miltiia, and Congress has decreed the national guard is the militia. Period. This is, I believe, and incorrect reading of history. The issue was how to defend the new nation from external threats, and the argument was whether to rely on a standing army or the militia for that purpose—pure and simple. Everyone—federalist and antifederalist alike—agreed with the principle that “standing armies are dangerous to liberty” and ought not to be maintained absent an emergency. Everyone agreed (or at least paid lip service to) the principle that a militia was the best way to ensure the security of a free state—because a federal tyrant would be less capable of subverting the militia than a standing army. The anti-federalists in particular feared a standing army as the very “engine of despotism,” and they argued the nation needed to rely on the militia for defense whenever possible. The federalist response was to argue the only way to rely upon the militia was to unify its standards under federal control—to prevent militias from several states having incompatible arms and indifferent levels of training. This, they felt, would make the militia an effective fighting force and lessen the call for a standing army. Their plan, which won the day and became the Constitutional model, unified nearly all the militia power under Congress. Congress was given all power to control militia arms, militia organization, and militia training and discipline. To counter fears that this would become a federal standing army in all but name the federalists conceded the power of officer appointment would remain with the states—thereby making the militia leadership dependent on state officials for appointment and advancement. This, it was thought, would make it impossible for a federal tyrant to control the militia leadership and subvert the militia to his oppressive ends. But make no mistake about the control of the militia—the state may have command of its own militia but Congress controls the arms, the organization, the discipline, and Congress orders the states to train the militia according to its wishes. If you will read Article I Section 8 you will understand this. In addition, if you read Article I Section 8 you will see how the Congress can “federalize” the militia at any time and place it under the direct command of the president. Remember desegregation in Arkansas and the “little rock nine”? The Governor orders the militia—the national guard—to prevent integration. In response, President Eisenhower takes command of the entire Arkansas militia and requires it to assist the 101st Airborne Division enforce integration against the Governor’s will. The simple answer is you are wrong. The militia is ultimately controlled by the federal government. The RKBA was created to ensure the broader individual RKBA was not also dominated by the government. And the goal of rendering my individual RKBA dependent on preparation for militia use is nothing more than an attempt to extend the control of government over a right our founders have already deemed beyond its control. My private arms are not militia arms. They are held by me because it is a right—one independent of potential militia service. The fact that it is referred to as a “right” at all means it is not under the control of Congress. Simply put, my founders already weighed this right in the balance and found it important enough to place it beyond the total domination of my government. The only test that can legally or morally be required of me before I exercise any of my rights is that of citizenship. Congress simply lacks the power to require any other precondition.
The founders and most constitutional scholars disagree with you "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788. To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788 Here is the most important point Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States: Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] Note, the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States. Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia I am referring to our unorganized militia.....and they are not well regulated
The fallacy lies with the giant comma between the well regulated militia, and the right not being infringed. They are two separate issues---not the same thing. The Founders did not have gun control measures for honest citizens. If they wanted it, they would have demanded it. Gun registration, background checks, ATF forms and so forth. The Founders didn't have a problem with fact that kids under 17, older people over 45 and women could still keep and bear arms. If it was "all about the well regulated militia"---then the Founders would have had a history of banning guns from such people. Today, by US law, there is the organized militia, and the unorganized. The organized is affiliated with Guard Units. the unorganized is everyone else. There are hundreds of militia units around. You should talk to them about your ideas, or form your own unit.
Our unorganized militia is a mess and essentially in large parts of the country is just a mob. They should be trained so they can be well regulated
I don't belong to a militia. I do belong to a mutual defense group. We have done the training. The is much more involved with militia-like units that having a gun and shooting it. https://www.amazon.com/Contact-Tact...1477348664&sr=8-3&keywords=max+velocity+books
That would depend entirely on what specific aspect of training is being discussed. That even with mandatory training being implemented, and clearing the constitutional hurdles needed for it to survive review, accidents and crimes will still continue without any abatement that would suggest said mandatory training was justified or warranted. More often than not the ones most responsible for various firearm-related offenses are those who cannot legally possess them in the first place. If they cannot own firearms they cannot be compelled to either register them, or seek training before acquiring them.
The standard of "unorganized militia" is codified into law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 10 U.S. Code § 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. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
That is the standard for who is in the unorganized militia....basically all able bodied men....not the standard for their training
And of what relevance to the discussion is such a technicality? What does it matter if private citizens are not trained to the same degree as professional military soldiers, who are given the training in how to kill others with great effectiveness? Do you want private individuals to have such skills, so that they can kill with all the effectiveness of professional soldiers, on a level that exceeds the training of police officers?
How does training make any group of individuals anything less than a mob? If the chain of command is disrupted, even in the military, it becomes every man for themselves. They are just as disorganized and subject to panic as everyone else when following orders is no longer an option, and they are left on their own. - - - Updated - - - And there is nothing in federal or state law specifying a need for training of any sort. Nor is there a recognized requirement that someone cannot legally own or use a particular firearm prior to receiving mandatory training in the safe and legal usage of a firearm.
But there is something in the constitution. The founders wanted a well regulated militia. They did not include that by mistake. We do not have one.
While I see your point, I must say that the "Domestic" part at least in the FF's eyes, probably referred to those domestically, who may want to dissolve the Union of States, which made, (Make) up our country, such as happened in our civil war. From my own Libertarian POV, I stand with you in your contention. From what reality is in our country, is where I make my observation. (On the bottle a bit tonight, sorry if I'm a bit off kilter regarding my reply)
In reality, when you compare the amount of shooting a soldier does before AIT and the average Gun enthusiast, you might be surprised who the edge goes to. Audie Murphy was one such distinguished person, rejected by the Marines for being too short, he was accepted by the Army, he proved his worth in combat. According to unofficial tradition, a Marine after shaving is supposed to look in the mirror and say his name three times and kick himself as a reminder.
Which militia would be more "well regulated"? A militia made up of people who grew up around guns and used them for hunting, home defense, or any other legal use, or a militia made up of people who have never seen a gun before? This is why the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We shouldn't have to beg mother government to protect us 24/7.
I think there is much confusion, and I am not referring to your post, about the actual Militia and the definition thereof, now I am no Lawyer, I have however, been to Court. The Founding Fathers certainly took a dim view of Standing Armies as relating to The People, the Founding Fathers wanted a balance of Power between The Government, it's Army, and The People, hence why Today's Army Reserve and other Military Reserves and today's National Guard does not qualify as The Militia, The Militia must stand apart from the GOVERNMENT, as an Arm of The People, hence after the first clause, "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.". Now in that Context, lots of things begin to make sense, The People's power and Authority to act in National Defense as "The Militia" as a balance of power juxtaposed against any actual Armed forces directly under Control or Authorized by the U.S. Government. With all due respect to the various members here that are Lawyers and Constitutional Scholars, I remind them that to define The Militia as what is currently known as The National Guard is poles apart from the intent or intentions of Our Founding Fathers, who wanted to empower the People to be able to resist a Despotic Government and maintain and equal balance of power.
