The need for a civilian militia....

What is the simple fact about what the founders said about automatic weapons? RPGs? Shoulder fired SAMs?

 

False assumptions.

The "militia" is based upon the Right of Self-Defense of the Person against acts of aggression. It is based upon the Right to defend one's own person. A person has a Right to Defend themself as well as a Right to Defend their Home (Castle). As individuals persons they can organizes to "Defend their Street.. Groups defending their street can organize to defend their local community. Communities can organize to defend their town. Towns can organiza to defend their County. Counties can organize to defend their State. And finally States can organize to Defend all of the States (which is where the US Constitution delegates the role and responsibility of National Defense to the US government).

The Right of Self-Defense originates with the Person and even national defense is created from the Bottom Up and not the Top Down. The US Military can fail, the National Guard can fail and still the People, now left defenseless by government, are responsible for their own Self-Defense either individually or by organizing into local militias that are independent of government.

By analogy the argument is that "Because we have the police department there is no need for us to defend ourselves from others" and that is an absurd proposition because the "police" cannot defend us from all acts of aggression by others.

Ultimately the "militia" is required because it is the last line of defense for a community, no matter how small, from acts of aggression by others. It is not dependent upon government and instead is based upon the Person and their Inalienable Right of Self-Defense.

 

This may come as a surprise but constitutionally, towns were legally able to curb the use of firearms. As written and codified, the Second Amendment, as well as all of the Bill of Rights, are declaratory and restrictive against the federal government. It prohibits the general government from imposing any restriction or infringement on the citizens. The incorporation of the Bill of Rights has actually been a construct of men usurping the powers allotted unto them. Most states have their own bills of rights that codify statewide their laws.

When George Mason published the Virginia Bill of Rights in June of 1776, it was for the state of Virginia. The other states ( colonies ) copied almost verbatim Mason's thoughts. Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts. The same Bill of Rights were later incorporated into the federal Bill of Rights we know today.

 

Pretty well said. States could form militias and fight against the Federal Government if the Federal Government got out of control. The power was to be left for the States in that regard. Of course, it would have to be pretty unanimous to be effective. Mostly the militias were for defense of the State, not necessarily against the Federal Government. In regard to that, the people were allowed to be armed in case of any such need, freeing the State from the expense and maintenance of State armories and freeing the people to use arms as needed for their own defense and sustenance.

 

What is the simple fact about what the founders said about radio? Television? Internet?

What you don't understand is the philosophy behind the Constitution and how it evolves with technology. They don't say anything about what you ask because the simple and brilliant concept is enough.

 

What is it about "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Where's the mystery?

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant along with being a strawman.

 

There are about 22 million US Military veterans that are "civilians" today and we know all about tactics, strategy, chains of command, co-ordination and liaison with other groups. If the US Military fails to prevent an invasion, if the National Guard is defeated or can't come to our defense, we are capable of mounting an insurmountable defense of our nation. We are far more capable than the Mujahideen in Afghanistan that defeated the USSR.

This is not an endorsment of the "Patriot Militias" of course as they tend to be anti-government White Supremacy hate groups but instead is an endorsement of the average American as a member of their "local militia" should need ever dictate a call to arms for them. In virtually every location there are those with the military experience to provide the necessary leadership for a guerrilla force capable of defeating an invading military force.

 

^_- The National Guard aren't professional soldiers? Really? They go through months of combat training, then go to military schools for further training based on their specialty, get deployed, drill monthly, and go on annual extended training missions. They're not professional? They got the same training and equipment as our professionals, they get called up to do the same thing. They're not a militia, they're an extension. The idea that they are a militia is just laughable.

And there is still a need for a militia. "We have some guys" was NEVER sufficient to get permanently scrap any defense mechanism. If you consider them militia, fine: they're not all that will ever be needed in any circumstance.

That, and it's a fundamental right, not only of a free people against tyranny, but of individuals to self-defense.

On a Constitutional note, the Constitution days, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The need for a citizen militia was recognized, and they weren't idiots. If they meant "the right of the uniformed militia trained and armed by the National government for national purposes, shall not be infringed" they would have said it. But it's just so far off base to suggest that's remotely like what they meant.

- - - Updated - - -

Join the revolution? Of the people you want to disarm?

 

why does no liberal know what a well regulated militia meant in 1789? Is it because such knowledge is inconvenient?

 

I think it was Jefferson who said in a letter to Madison, "the right to bear arms should not be infringed.... unless said arms are really cooooool and shiny!"

 

The part about a person having a Right to Own an object as no actual Right exists. The 2nd Amendment is misunderstood because it is actually about the Freedom to Exercise the "Right of Self-Defense against Acts of Aggression" by others. That is the actual Inalienable Right of the Person. The "Freedom to Exercise" that Right related to the fact that a person cannot be denied the ownership of a (fire)arm which provides the best possible means of Self-Defense agianst Acts of Aggression.

What many "2nd Amendment" advocates tend to forget is that the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right can be limited based upon compelling arguments. We have, for example, the Freedom of Religion but that is a limited Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Thought/Opinion of the Person. The Freedom of Religion can only be exercised if it doesn't violate the Inalienable Rights of Another Person though it's actions.

 

Yeah, it's through the 13-15th incorporation that extended it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" only referred to Congress, but through the 14th it was extended to the states so now Wyoming can't declare itself a Protestant state. But that also extends and basically universalizes things like the 1st amendment. Liberals are sure to remind states rights conservatives of that, but are loathe to recognize that what nationalized the rights of the 1st amendment also nationalized the rights of the 2nd amendment.

 

Why do conservatives misrepresent what the 2nd Amendment is actually about? There is no difference between saying a person has a Right to Own a Gun and saying a person has a Right to Own a Car. A person doesn't actually have a Right to Own a Commodity. They do have a Right of Self-Defense against Acts of Aggression though.

 

Yay for criticizing what I didn't say!

I was talking about "well regulated" and what it meant when written. Our understanding of the phrase "well regulated" that at face value the amendment has a different meaning if you don't know the original intent.

 

All official militia duties on the federal level werew merged with the National Guard in 1903. They are the only federally recognized miltia left. All other organized militia which served on the federal level were abolished at that time. I never meant that they were not soldiers. But they are militia as well.

 

That they're the only federally recognized militia doesn't mean diddly. We haven't had a serious need for years, and in the absence of a need people get complacent and assume that it no longer I'd nor will be a need. We did have militias in ww2, but there was only a limited need and they were only needed in certain areas (there was a fuss five years ago about the 26 surviving members of a 6600 man mostly Alaska native militia losing their retirement pay).

 

Why? There is no need to touch it in any way...........

This 2008 Supreme Court decision defined gun ownership has nothing to do with being in any militia. Any further questions?

 

Well when we are at war, the NG still serve as full time soldiers. Really, it's really rare that they are actually used as armed militia. I think the last time they were called in regularly was the civil rights movement when the southern states were using them to keep intregration from being enforced. Really the only use domestically is their engineering and emergancy response groups now days.

 

You seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that the Supreme Court has already affirmed the constitutional right for a individual to own a firearm.

 

that's mostly right, but you've got to remember that there just hasn't been a need for a while - that doesn't mean that there will not be a need.

 

And they also affirmed the government's right to regulate firearms in any way that does not infringe on law abiding citizens owning firearms in a general sense.

The government can ban accessories such as silencers, and ban specific types of firearms, such as machine guns, but they are not allowed to ban guns in general. That is the only real limitation put on the government by the second amendment.

 

That's not the entire second amendment.

Completely relevant to projecting what those who ratified the 2A would think about modern weapons.

 

Why do you suppose that? Are you saying the National Guard wouldn't qualify as "well regulated"?

If you have an issue with the National Guard being a militia, take it up with Herckdriver who asserted it.

 

That is true. In one of the most amazing acts of Judicial activism by someone who claims to abhor such things, Scalia completely wrote out the "militia" language of the 2A and invented an entirely new meaning not found in the language of the statute.

I guess for folks like Scalia judicial activism is only an issue when liberals do it.