Joining a Militia?

I don't think I've ever heard a more comprehensive delineation of what militias are, what they do, how many people currently belong to them, what it takes to join one, and the implications and things to be aware of what may happen if you join one. Has she pretty well summed it all up? Or do you have any other thoughts?

 

The founding fathers defined the malita as every able bodied man.

It was assumed that the number of pansy ass liberals who wouldn't fight to defend their country would always be to small to have an effect.

 

In light of VA's governor, Ralph Blackface Northam's promise to Michael Bloomberg to sign every anti gun law the democrat controlled legislature pushes to him, well over 100 counties in that state have called themselves sanctuary 2A counties and the ELECTED Sherriff's will not enforce the governors laws, many of those sheriffs have promised to deputizie any citizen that so requests exclus=ding them from any passed laws. Others have declared all their citizens to be part of a county militia, thus sticking their finger squarely in the eye of Ralph Blackface Northam.
In other words, **** you Gov.

 

So they felt the need to differentiate between a "militia" and a "well regulated militia"

 

No, they trusted the American people to be the well regulated militia.

Clearly the word regulated means something different in that time and context.

 

"Well regulated" means "well functioning" or working in proper order.

 

As grossly as law enforcement agencies at all levels misspend funds, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of "militias" out there today were honey traps. Caveat emptor.

 

Yes. It meant not only that it was trained and disciplined by the State, and subject to militia laws and regulations of each State, but also that it had achieved a very high level of military competence through their training.

The Amicus Brief in the Heller case signed by the most prominent Linguists and Philologists in the country explains it thus...

"The use of the past participle “regulated” in that modifier suggests a militia that not only is “subject to” regulation under the militia laws, but also is in possession of the qualities that flow from participation in regular military exercises—orderliness, discipline, proficiency with arms, knowledge about maneuvers and so on."
https://www.americanbar.org/content...PetitionerAmCu3LinguisticsEnglishProfsnew.pdf​

 

Yes. But what does "well functioning" mean. I sent my response a couple of messages below yours.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/joining-a-militia.566186/#post-1071294688

 

yup and the first step to achieving that was to ensure that "the people" be already armed and proficient with their arms.

 

'A' militia can be lots of things. However 'the' militia is legally defined as all able-bodied males age 18-45, and effectively just all adults since no politician would tank their career by trying to enforce exclusion of women, the disabled or the elderly from the militia.

I could call my DnD group 'a militia', or my sports team or my book club.

What the militia is supposed to be is JFK's Civil Defense: civilians preparing and training to support their communities in disasters, both natural and man-made.

 

No. 'Regulated' had a different common usage when the C was written. According to the English Oxford dictionary, it used to mean cohesive, well supplied or in proper operation, not restricted by bureaucratic authority, as its understood to mean today.

A well-regulated militia according to the definitions of the time the C was written would compulse or at least incentivize all adult citizens to regularly attend paramilitary training and ensure they were supplied with minimum standard emergency response equipment, which would include equipment useful in national defense.

 

Which they obtained through group military exercises, learned military discipline and learned military maneuvers as established, regulated and carried out by each state.

 

Wrong.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/joining-a-militia.566186/#post-1071294688

 

Nope. It means that by owning the weapon and using it regularly to survive they are already well regulated before they are ever needed by the state.

 

not sure if you deleted part of my post or responded while I was editing, but when I said "…regularly attend paramilitary training" I don't see how that is meaningfully different from what you posted as contrary with"...participation in regular military exercises—orderliness, discipline, proficiency with arms, knowledge about maneuvers and so on."

What exactly is "wrong"? How fine can you actually split hairs?

 

That's not what "well regulated" meant in 1791.

Men in black robs today giving their interpretation means diddly squat.

 

So you say they are regulated because they are not regulated.

The nonsense is so obvious that nothing else need be said.

 

I don't know. If, as you say, you edited your post, maybe nothing. In the version I responded to it was the part about not being restricted by authority (or something to that effect)

 

No, i am saying that people who own guns and know how to use them are a great resource for the government to use should the need arise.

 

Erroneous conclusion based on no factual evidence whatsoever. In other news, the pansy ass Trump claimed deferments because he claimed his little footsy hurts.

 

I doubt it... But that has nothing to do with this debate anyway.

 

it has everything to do with the debate, a debate which is irrelevant by the way.

Nothing changes the wording the "rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

everywhere else in the constitution the words "the people" means ALL of the people, no where does it describe any subset of people it always means all of the people. meaning all of the American people, no not just the malitia

 

wrong.

 

So why is it (do you think) there isn't any 'regular military exercizes' open to 'the militia'?

For context, our Civil Defense group petitioned our Governor's Office for precisely that sort of direction: training recomendations in concert with the regular military (or NG). We recieved no response.

What sort of regulation do you think should be applied to the militia, by whom, and to what extent would you consider 'well regulated'? Because it seems to me TPTB have precisely zero interest in involving us in 'regular military exercizes.'