2nd Amendment: The Militia Issue - A Discussion

[IGIT]

Pretty much exactly what it means. Anything I said comes from the framers of the Constitution, both federalists and anti-federalists. In the event of government tyranny, we are all responsible for the defense of this nation.

hi Tyler!90,

im not a Constitutional scholar, but i think your interpretation of the Constitution has no bearing on the actual document itself.

i ask again, my friend.

what is a "whole peoples"?

you use phrases like, The militia consists of United States citizens, as a whole. i still have no idea what that means.

- IGIT

 

[Teppodama]

hi Tyler!90,

im not a Constitutional scholar, but i think your interpretation of the Constitution has no bearing on the actual document itself.

i ask again, my friend.

what is a "whole peoples"?

you use phrases like, The militia consists of United States citizens, as a whole. i still have no idea what that means.

- IGIT

Per our existing legistation, we have an Organize and UnOrganized militia in America.

The Organized Militia is also known as the National Guard and is formalized on the same lines as our national army. It provides uniform training and equipment for citizens that have signed up so they can function either as a government led State force or auxiliary forces and replacements for our Federal government and standing military.

The UnOrganized Militia is composed of ALL able-bodies males between 18 and 46 of each State. It's wrapped up in the Draft which basically funnels UnOrganized Militia into Organized Militia into Army.

The standing Federal army is directed toward national defense from foreign threats. The National Guard is directed toward national and state defense from domestic threats. The Unorganized militia is directed toward domestic and national threats from, not to, the government at local, state and federal levels. The Organized militia could also be seen as the States defense against the Federal government.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

The Dick Act = LOL

Anyways, anything that can be comported directly to the militia argument should be taken with a grain of salt in modern constitutional interpretation.

I am swayed by the "protection against tyranny argument," albeit only on the basis that it afford a collective interest to an individual right. The idea that the federal government still needs to be able to conscript not only the persons, but the arms, of private citizens is hilariously outdated, and it does not sway me.

Um, I noticed that you new recruits didn't bring your own guns, I thought it was clear that our military has a BYOG policy.

 

[Teppodama]

Um, I noticed that you new recruits didn't bring your own guns, I thought it was clear that our military has a BYOG policy.

That's only for UnOrganized Militia and directs all able-bodies males between the designated ages of maintaining a firearm and sufficient ammunition to be able to act in the States or community defense should the need arise from either foreign or domestic threats and is outside the State or Federal control except in the circumstance of the Draft which funnels Unorganized into Organized into standing military as the State or Federal government may need or direct.

It doesn't require a standardized level of training or equipment, just that you have the tools necessary to come to the common defense. It's supported by that whole pesky 2nd amendment that keeps your Local, State or Federal government from taking those tool away from you should they be the threat you need to defend against.

You still have the option of conscientious objection to being directed to take up arms by the State or Federal government if conscripted by the Draft in which case rather than hand you a rifle they'll put in a support capacity as needed. As technically a member of the UnOrganized militia of your State, you also have the right to simply not fight regardless of the situation till such time as formal Draft procedures are undertaken at which time you can become a formal conscientious objector.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

That's only for UnOrganized Militia and directs all able-bodies males between the designated ages of maintaining a firearm and sufficient ammunition to be able to act in the States or community defense should the need arise from either foreign or domestic threats and is outside the State or Federal control except in the circumstance of the Draft which funnels Unorganized into Organized into standing military as the State or Federal government may need or direct.

It doesn't require a standardized level of training or equipment, just that you have the tools necessary to come to the common defense. It's supported by that whole pesky 2nd amendment that keeps your Local, State or Federal government from taking those tool away from you should they be the threat you need to defend against.

You still have the option of conscientious objection to being directed to take up arms by the State or Federal government if conscripted by the Draft in which case rather than hand you a rifle they'll put in a support capacity as needed. As technically a member of the UnOrganized militia of your State, you also have the right to simply not fight regardless of the situation till such time as formal Draft procedures are undertaken at which time you can become a formal conscientious objector.

And if I get drafted, I don't need to bring my own gun, hence my joke.

 

[Teppodama]

And if I get drafted, I don't need to bring my own gun, hence my joke.

Good one Broseph.

 

[Tylerl90]

Am I speaking fuckin French or something? It means that the militia is the whole people, not the military or the National Guard.

hi Tyler!90,

im not a Constitutional scholar, but i think your interpretation of the Constitution has no bearing on the actual document itself.

i ask again, my friend.

what is a "whole peoples"?

you use phrases like, The militia consists of United States citizens, as a whole. i still have no idea what that means.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Am I speaking fuckin French or something? It means that the militia is the whole people, not the military or the National Guard.

heya Tylerl90,

Teppodama's interpretation notwithstanding, you are being unclear.

you act as if the term "whole people" has some kind of broadly understood meaning.

so, what is "whole people"? you use sweeping terminology in an absolute fashion, and i have no idea what you're talking about. are you saying that if you're not a member of the US military, you are in the militia?

- IGIT

 

[EZShrimpn]

The militia, in a time of literal crisis, would be volunteer citizens armed with whatever they owned or could get ahold of and operating under a very loose chain of command that led back to the regular forces of the country.

The role of a militia leader would be to organize willing citizens to perform sabotage and guerrilla attacks.

They would not be counted on to take and hold territory, or engage in battles with regular military forces.

The chance of an activation of "The militia" in this country in our lifetimes is practically 0.

 

[IGIT]

The militia, in a time of literal crisis, would be volunteer citizens armed with whatever they owned or could get ahold of and operating under a very loose chain of command that led back to the regular forces of the country.

The role of a militia leader would be to organize willing citizens to perform sabotage and guerrilla attacks.

They would not be counted on to take and hold territory, or engage in battles with regular military forces.

The chance of an activation of "The militia" in this country in our lifetimes is practically 0.

hi EZ,

if you want to see what a militia might do in a time of crises, we dont have to guess.

just take a look at the how the Algiers Point Militia went about their business during Katrina.

...a mostly white enclave in a predominantly black neighborhood on the west bank of the Mississippi River, armed white militias cordoned off many of the streets.

They posted signs that boasted, “We shoot looters.” And the sound of gunfire peppered the hot days and nights like thunderclaps of a second storm.

Reginald Bell, a black resident, said in a recent interview that he was threatened at gunpoint by two white men there a few days after the storm. The men, on a balcony a few blocks from his home, yelled at him, “We don’t want your kind around here!”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html

they're all psychopaths who fetishsize "end of the world" stuff so they can finally shoot other Americans - and they're the least patriotic variety of American.

- IGIT

 

[EZShrimpn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html

they're all psychopaths who fetishsize "end of the world" stuff so they can finally shoot other Americans - and they're the least patriotic variety of American.

- IGIT

What would you prefer they do, abandon their homes to looters? Let them rape their kids and wife? Murder them?

People don't behave normally in periods of anarchy.

 

[IGIT]

What would you prefer they do, abandon their homes to looters? Let them rape their kids and wife? Murder them?

People don't behave normally in periods of anarchy.

hi again EZShrimpn,

of course not my friend! i think they'd be well within their rights to look after their loved ones and property.

that is not what happened.

the Algiers Point Ferry was a federally declared evacuation zone for shellshocked inhabitants to fleeing disaster. these weren't "Mexican invaders", and they weren't Islamofascists™. these were fellow Americans.

the way the Algiers Point Militia conducted itself in a time of crises and unrest is instructional.

and its an embarrassment.


- IGIT

 

[EZShrimpn]

hi again EZShrimpn,

of course not my friend! i think they'd be well within their rights to look after their loved ones and property.

that is not what happened.

- IGIT

Sure it is. They formed a self defense group, and defended their neighbors collectively from the hyenas coming to loot them while they were weak and without police protection. In a time in which according to the NYT "The city was awash in violence and bloodshed" they simply refused to be victims to it.

Of course that's what gets the left's panties in a not. They would like to ignore violence by one group, and focus on "Vigilantes" in a time in which there is no rule of law.

You'd be lying through your teeth if you tried to tell me that the editors of the New York Times wouldn't be masturbating furiously at the idea of southern gun owners murdered by marauding gangs of looters during a "Time of violence and bloodshed" Of course though, they'd ignore it officially.

 

[IGIT]

ahoy EZ,

Sure it is. They formed a self defense group, and defended their neighbors collectively from the hyenas coming to loot them while they were weak and without police protection. In a time in which according to the NYT "The city was awash in violence and bloodshed" they simply refused to be victims to it.

Of course that's what gets the left's panties in a not. They would like to ignore violence by one group, and focus on "Vigilantes" in a time in which there is no rule of law.

that is not what happened in Algiers Point. what the militia did was drive out their fellow Americans, by force of arms, from a Federal evacuation point during a national disaster.

it was disgraceful. utterly unAmerican, and completely at odds with even the vaguest whiff of patriotism.

- IGIT

 

[EZShrimpn]

that is not what happened in Algiers Point. what the militia did was drive out their fellow Americans, by force of arms, from a Federal evacuation point during a national disaster.

it was disgraceful. utterly unAmerican, and completely at odds with even the vaguest whiff of patriotism.

 

[IGIT]

hi once more EZ.!

i gotta head out, but lets leave the topic of militias aside for a moment.

i have a question;

why are you the way you are? like, what happened to you? i'd like to know, i'm sure you have a story to tell.

i'll be back later.

- IGIT

 

[EZShrimpn]

why are you the way you are? like, what happened to you? i'd like to know, i'm sure you have a story to tell.

 

[Tylerl90]

Yep. Not being unclear at all. This concept is easily understood by most.

So in short, yes, a militia is not a standing army. A militia is not the National Guard, or state/federal sponsored military/defense force.


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778


“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789



="IGIT, post: 139251903, member: 43764"]heya Tylerl90,

Teppodama's interpretation notwithstanding, you are being unclear.

you act as if the term "whole people" has some kind of broadly understood meaning.

so, what is "whole people"? you use sweeping terminology in an absolute fashion, and i have no idea what you're talking about. are you saying that if you're not a member of the US military, you are in the militia?

- IGIT[/QUOTE]

 

[IGIT]

ahoy EZ,

that's a great movie. i've seen it a zillion times.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

ahoy again Tyler,

Yep. Not being unclear at all. This concept is easily understood by most.

So in short, yes, a militia is not a standing army. A militia is not the National Guard, or state/federal sponsored military/defense force.

actually, probably no one knows what you mean when you say things like "the whole people are the militia".

as to the Merriam Webster definition, i got that already.

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778


“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

i don't know why you keep providing these quotes. are you saying you enjoy the historical period of post colonial America, and that informs your POV on things here in the year 2018?

- IGIT