Fanatical Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote: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.

Yes.

When was the last time a well-regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state?

I'm sure there are many countries fighting a war with their militia all over the world. It is a big place. It seems as if a well-regulated militia would help in Iraq. However, I am not going to get into an argument with you as I have a feeling it will turn towards the semantics of "free state".

The United States hasn't had militias in many, many decades.

Follow me?

As for gun laws -- Kerry's pledge to vigorously enforce federal gun laws is straight out of the NRA play book. Essentially, that's an endorsement of Project Exile, which the NRA supports.

Schadenfreude Wrote:The United States hasn't had militias in many, many decades.

Follow me?

Actually, the United States has never been without the militia. 10 USC Chapter 13:

Quote:    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
      (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.

-SOURCE-
    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
    Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div.  A, title V,
    Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

sherman&grant Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:The United States hasn't had militias in many, many decades.

Follow me?

Actually, the United States has never been without the militia. 10 USC Chapter 13:

Quote:    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
      (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.

-SOURCE-
    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
    Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div.  A, title V,
    Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

And it may be that in your hometown, the mayor issues an alert ordering every able bodied man age 17 and over to assemble at the town square, rifle in hand.

That doesn't happen in my hometown.

Schadenfreude Wrote:And it may be that in your hometown, the mayor issues an alert ordering every able bodied man age 17 and over to assemble at the town square, rifle in hand.

That doesn't happen in my hometown.

Mayor? Town square, rifle in hand? I don't think that's how the National Guard is typically called up, in my town or your's, but go ahead and try to redeem yourself after claiming the US hadn't had militias "...in many, many decades."

You were wrong. Follow me?

sherman&grant Wrote:Mayor? Town square, rifle in hand? I don't think that's how the National Guard is typically called up, in my town or your's, but go ahead and try to redeem yourself after claiming the US hadn't had militias "...in many, many decades."

You were wrong. Follow me?

I don't think I'm wrong here.

As a practical matter, the mayor is never going to insist that every able-bodied man in town meet at the town square to run through some drills.

That was the scenario the Founders seem to have been referencing when they wrote:

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.

I would submit a militia is no longr necessary to the security of a free state. We have professional soldiers for that now.

You can see the implication.

Schadenfreude Wrote:I don't think I'm wrong here.

As a practical matter, the mayor is never going to insist that every able-bodied man in town meet at the town square to run through some drills.

That was the scenario the Founders seem to have been referencing when they wrote:

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.

I would submit a militia is no longr necessary to the security of a free state. We have professional soldiers for that now.

You can see the implication.

Honestly, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Your repetitive references to the mayor and town square suggest you misperceive the history and function of the militia, as that term is used in the second amendment.

You said the US hadn't had militias in many decades. That is simply false, and it has nothing to do with mayors and town squares. You also suggested that a well-regulated militia has not been necessary for the security of a free state for some indeterminate period of time. You might want to read a history of the National Guard (maybe MAKO has a reading list for you to consider), and its role in preserving the security of this country.

Your attempt to place the "mayors and squares" within the Founders' original intent is fascinating; maybe you can direct me to some historical reference in support of this interpretation? I'd love to read it.

I'm just going to give SF what he wants. :D

When I was living in Perryport, OH we were invaded by the Russians. Paratroopers dropped in over our heads. The MAYOR got his bullhorn out and called for all able-bodied men to grab a weapon and head to TOWN SQUARE where we made our stand. We were able to drive the Russians out into the ocean where they were eaten by sharks and alligators. The president gave us all special Second Amendment medals.

That's my first hand experience with the MILITIA.

You could have ignored this post. :roflol:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:When I was living in Perryport, OH we were invaded by the Russians. Paratroopers dropped in over our heads. The MAYOR got his bullhorn out and called for all able-bodied men to grab a weapon and head to TOWN SQUARE where we made our stand. We were able to drive the Russians out into the ocean where they were eaten by sharks and alligators. The president gave us all special Second Amendment medals.

That's my first hand experience with the MILITIA.

br you are a true american hero for fightin thos dem russians

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I'm just going to give SF what he wants. :D

When I was living in Perryport, OH we were invaded by the Russians. Paratroopers dropped in over our heads. The MAYOR got his bullhorn out and called for all able-bodied men to grab a weapon and head to TOWN SQUARE where we made our stand. We were able to drive the Russians out into the ocean where they were eaten by sharks and alligators. The president gave us all special Second Amendment medals.

That's my first hand experience with the MILITIA.

You could have ignored this post. :roflol:

Dude, you were in Red Dawn??

No cause then I would have yell, "Go Wolverines!"

Red Dawn was Patrick Swayze's best work, hands down. :D

Only part I didn't like was they called themselves "wolverines". It should have been the "BUCKEYES"

Trying to say what is not needed at the present time is borderline insanity. We may not always be as free as we are now. We were also not given weapons just for the protection of this country from a foreign force, but a tyrannical government in this country as well. Final thought, it's a right granted by the US Constitution. It doesn't matter what any anti-gun person thinks. It's not their business.

I stand behind my point about militas.

During our early days, most of our colonies required all able-bodied men train in a local militia and some insisted that all able-bodied men own a gun for that purpose. Each town of consequence had a militia, and the citizen soldiers who participated were an important defense against Indian raiding parties or whatever other threats might come along.

About half of General Washington's soldiers were militia (and he constantly had trouble with them. Many would disappear so they could go back to their farm and get some work done).

Often the citizens in these militias couldn't afford guns -- so when the town leaders or whoever ordered some training done, they would train with cornstalks or whatever else they had handy.

This was the history. And when our founding fathers set about writing our current constitution, many among them still idealistically believed America would never need standing armies of consequence. They believed our nation's defense could be accomplished mostly by putting amateurs to the task.

Obviously, that thinking has evolved a great deal during the past two centuries.

While it is true that our national guards can trace their roots back to the colonial militias, they resemble professional armies more than they do those militias. Participation is entirely voluntary. And it isn't as if Guardsmen have to supply their own guns, their own helicopters, their own helmets, etc. The state or federal government will provide them.

So, while most of us are, by law, in the American militia, the reality is that this citizens militia hasn't been called to duty in more than 100 years and there isn't a chance in hell it will be called forth in the next hundred years.

Instead, many of us (I'm a bit old) will be drafted and placed into professional armies.

I point all that out because a plain reading of the Second Amendment suggests that the right to bear arms is logically linked, to at least some degree, with the idea that well regulated militias are essential to the security of a free state.

And I would suggest a history of the last century demonstrates citizen militias are *not* essential to our national security.

Now, is any of this relevant when considering the Second Amendment?

Some of it is.

U.S. v. Miller (1939) remains the most important case in Second Amendment law. Many read the case as ruling the Second Amendment cannot be interpreted without its goals regarding state militias. This is a good American Bar Association primer:

<a href='http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html' target='_blank'>http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html</a>

A good quote from that page:

Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment.

I recognize a lot of people do not agree with that interpretation of Miller-- but if the ABA is putting that out there as fact, it is hardly a fringe position.

Also, this is a fantastic quote from former Chief Justice Warren Burger on the Second Amendment:

(The Second Amendment) has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated?
. . .
I don't want to get sued for slander, but I repeat that (the NRA has) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man. I have guns. I've been a hunter ever since I was a boy.

Burger makes a lot of sense to me there.

I'm not anti gun. But it bugs the hell out of me to see people twist around the Second Amendment.

The only thing I guess I ever agreed with that "El Rushbo" said is that "the reason we have the second amendment is in case someone tries to take the first amendment away from us".

Schadenfreude Wrote:I stand behind my point about militas.
I point all that out because a plain reading of the Second Amendment suggests that the right to bear arms is logically linked, to at least some degree, with the idea that well regulated militias are essential to the security of a free state.

And I would suggest a history of the last century demonstrates citizen militias are *not* essential to our national security.

How do you know that the potential for a militia hasn't deterred some of those threats on national security?

Frankly, I don't want an exclusively private army that can be used for the whims of someone in the executive office. Make the Bush jokes now...it cuts both ways.

Finally, the *complacency* of (and government efforts to squelch) a citizens militia may give the appearance that it's not needed. Maybe a citizens' militia would have changed People's Park, Kent and Jackson State...maybe for good, maybe for ill.

Schadenfreude Wrote:I stand behind my point about militas.


This was the history. And when our founding fathers set about writing our current constitution, many among them still idealistically believed America would never need standing armies of consequence. They believed our nation's defense could be accomplished mostly by putting amateurs to the task.

Geez. When we were colonies of Britain, we weren't the United States. When we became the United States, we had this whole "Constitution" thing develop. Here's a couple of portions of that document:

Quote:Article I Section 8 Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: 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;

....


Article II Section 2 Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Congress enacted laws re: the militia. You might recall that I already posted the most recent version of the statute way back when you claimed the US had no militia, and had had none for decades. Focusing on the plain language of the Constitution itself, please note the absence of reference to "mayors and town squares." Please note the absence of the qualifying adjective "citizens," as a precedent to "militia." Please note that since the Constitution, the militia was the province, uniquely, of the State and Federal governments.

You were wrong about the militia when you began this. You are still wrong, and no amount of revisionist, and inaccurate, history will change that.

Quote:... And it isn't as if Guardsmen have to supply their own guns, their own helicopters, their own helmets, etc. The state or federal government will provide them.

Well, thank goodness the National Guardsmen aren't supposed to bring their own helicopters. That might thin the ranks a little, don't you think?

sherman&amp;grant Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:I stand behind my point about militas.


This was the history. And when our founding fathers set about writing our current constitution, many among them still idealistically believed America would never need standing armies of consequence. They believed our nation's defense could be accomplished mostly by putting amateurs to the task.

Geez. When we were colonies of Britain, we weren't the United States. When we became the United States, we had this whole "Constitution" thing develop. Here's a couple of portions of that document:

Quote:Article I Section 8 Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: 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;

....


Article II Section 2 Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Congress enacted laws re: the militia. You might recall that I already posted the most recent version of the statute way back when you claimed the US had no militia, and had had none for decades. Focusing on the plain language of the Constitution itself, please note the absence of reference to "mayors and town squares." Please note the absence of the qualifying adjective "citizens," as a precedent to "militia." Please note that since the Constitution, the militia was the province, uniquely, of the State and Federal governments.

You were wrong about the militia when you began this. You are still wrong, and no amount of revisionist, and inaccurate, history will change that.

Quote:... And it isn't as if Guardsmen have to supply their own guns, their own helicopters, their own helmets, etc. The state or federal government will provide them.

Well, thank goodness the National Guardsmen aren't supposed to bring their own helicopters. That might thin the ranks a little, don't you think?

:ownd: