- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are There Any "Well Regulated Militia" of a 2nd Amendment Sort
Posted on 6/4/22 at 1:04 pm to mauser
Posted on 6/4/22 at 1:04 pm to mauser
quote:
My take is that armed citizens need the ability to form one when needed.
Does the constitution allow for this? I can understand the militia up to about 1775 something perspective. And then we had the army and navy as "official" branches of the military. But the constitution was ratified after that in the late 1780s. So the founders must have seen some subtle difference between the military and the population.
I only say this because the lefties would argue the military has rights for guns and they were/are the well regulated militia. Any new militia will be investigated by the feds and deemed terrorist organizations.
My layperson take is the people have the right to keep and bear arms. The government probably will soon try to take those guns away and throw anyone in jail who opposes them. Interesting times.
I always wondered for over 25 years if there was any totalitarian bent to any group in America that could threaten freedoms? Now in my advanced years I think there definitely is in this country.
3
Posted on 6/4/22 at 1:10 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Read clauses 15 & 16.
So the founders must have seen some subtle difference between the military and the population.
The Founding Fathers never intended a large standing Army.
Eisenhower was right.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 1:14 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Does the constitution allow for this?
Yep, sure does. The Constitution doesn’t say you can’t, so the 9th and 10th Amendments apply.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 1:14 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
The Founding Fathers never intended a large standing Army.
Problem is a bunch of people in this country couldn't care less whaat the founders intended. This included politicians, lawyers and officials of the judicial and executive branches. And while we're at it through in the legislative branch.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 1:17 pm to AlwysATgr
This is already defined and answered in the Constitution, but most citizens and politicians are unaware of it, or in the case of our Congress and President, ignore it.
quote:
§246. 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.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 1:53 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
The Founding Fathers never intended a large standing Army.
And we never had one until after WW2.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 1:54 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:Correct.
And we never had one until after WW2.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 2:12 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
I can understand the militia up to about 1775 something perspective. And then we had the army and navy as "official" branches of the military. But the constitution was ratified after that in the late 1780s. So the founders must have seen some subtle difference between the military and the population.
The people were the militia, and the militia were the military. They didn’t want a standing army.
It goes back to the English Civil War and the later Glorious Revolution, but the crown used standing armies to suppress parliament.
If the king could simply use an army against parliament, at will, then the rule of law no longer existed.
Because of that experience, we concluded that a permanent standing army would inevitably be used for tyrannical purposes, it was just a matter of time, and so our national defense policy called for local militia, which would not be corruptible.
It was also thought that man defending his home would be a superior soldier, to a degree. And that citizen soldiers were more virtuous. They wouldn’t be like those Hessians.
The armed services, as they are now, would be an anathema to the founders.
This post was edited on 6/4/22 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 6/4/22 at 3:41 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
The people were the militia, and the militia were the military. They didn’t want a standing army.
There is that thin black-robed line that keeps us square with the constitution. But if they desire that it all changes, given the way the judiciary acts now, I' wouldn't be surprised if we lose one right after another. Why do three justices nearly always rule on issues as a bloc?
Posted on 6/4/22 at 4:19 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Why do three justices nearly always rule on issues as a bloc?
It’s usually more than 3, and the reason is they are all bound by ideology for the most part. They are by and large marxist socialists and will effect rule, policy, and law in that vein, in whatever capacity they can.
Their only real opposition is conservatives. Note I did not say republicans.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 4:48 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
It goes back to the English Civil War and the later Glorious Revolution, but the crown used standing armies to suppress parliament.
Got some more reading to do now
Posted on 6/4/22 at 4:58 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
I agree. I think it will fall apart in our life time
Posted on 6/4/22 at 5:17 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Few elements of a national state provoked more fear and debate among Americans between the colonial era and the mid-19th century than a standing army.
Assess the arguments for and against a professional military force.
Did opponents make their case only by overlooking powerful evidence from the battlefields of several wars?
How much did politics rather than purely military concerns shape the debate?
How did George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Winfield Scott figure in the debate? And how do you account for the ultimate success of those who favored a professional
army?
(Exam prompt from one of my college classes)
This post was edited on 6/4/22 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 6/4/22 at 5:51 pm to FlyingTiger1955
quote:
I’m not sure where I read it, but I believe the Founding Fathers envisioned all males of fighting ages to be the militia. All males were supposed to have weapons so that they could respond to a threat.
There were always two classes of militia. The organized militia and the unorganized militia.
The Swiss Army is modeled after the 2nd Amendment. Their oath says, "Never again will so few rule so many."
Posted on 6/4/22 at 6:01 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:Thanks baw
(Exam prompt from one of my college classes)
Taking a cursory look at The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution right now.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 7:28 pm to AlwysATgr
Yes, but can't talk about it here, Mr. FBI agent.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 7:48 pm to Pvt Hudson
quote:
While a well-regulated militia is mentioned in the 2nd, it is the right of the PEOPLE that shall not be infringed.
Form one and see what happens. I will bet anything that any of us got a group together and started arming the government would raid us and call us a hate group and throw us all in jail.
Posted on 6/4/22 at 8:37 pm to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
Form one and see what happens.
There's plenty out there. Nothing illegal about it. Louisiana has an official one called Louisiana State Guard. But you also have the 3% and others. I might even consider gun rights groups as a form of militia if they are not national in nature.
What would be the mission of a militia in peacetime except to advocate on gun rights and keep well regulated?
And we don't form and start arming. The point of the second is to BE armed and form.
This post was edited on 6/4/22 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 6/4/22 at 8:44 pm to Pvt Hudson
We are all the militia.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News