Skip to comments.The 2nd Amendment’s “Militia”
Posted on 01/16/2013 5:26:45 PM PST by Starman417
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 know I've been talking a lot about guns, gun control, and the 2nd Amendment (2A) a lot lately. I can't help it. Our basic rights, recognized and enshrined in our Constitution, are under attack and I feel compelled to respond.
I've been reading a lot from the Federalist Papers recently. I've also been reading the debates that took place during the adoption of that amendment so that I could understand what those 27 words mean. We hear a lot of static from all sides of the aisle. Some claim that the Founding Fathers could have never envisioned the type of weapons we have today. Others say that the 2A only applies to the military.
So, what is the truth? What is the "militia" of the Constitution referring to? I'm not going to present a grammatical argument to this issue, though one would suffice alone in coming to a realization of what "the militia" is. Instead, I'm going to talk about what our Founding Fathers intended through their own words.
Interestingly, I've never heard anyone quote the ACTUAL LAW in any argument about what constitutes the militia.
(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.
Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, § 311
What I find funny is that the definition of "militia" contains the word "militia." But, it does specifically say that even if you're not in the military, you are a part of the militia.
But, that still doesn't really answer the question as it relates to the 2A.
While we were fighting for our very existence, Samuel Adams wrote the following letter to James Warren (letters are how we communicated before text messages and Facebook).
It is certainly of the last Consequence to a free Country that the Militia, which is its natural Strength, should be kept upon the most advantageous Footing. A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. The Militia is composd of free Citizens.
Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a Body distinct from the rest of the Citizens. They have their Arms always in their hands. Their Rules and their Discipline is severe. They soon become attachd to their officers and disposd to yield implicit Obedience to their Commands. Such a Power should be watchd with a jealous Eye.
I have a good Opinion of the principal officers of our Army. I esteem them as Patriots as well as Soldiers. But if this War continues, as it may for years yet to come, we know not who may succeed them. Men who have been long subject to military Laws and inured to military Customs and Habits, may lose the Spirit and Feeling of Citizens.
And even Citizens, having been used to admire the Heroism which the Commanders of their own Army have displayd, and to look up to them as their Saviors may be prevaild upon to surrender to them those Rights for the protection of which against Invaders they had employd and paid them.
We have seen too much of this Disposition among some of our Countrymen. The Militia is composd of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.
As a Soldier, I'm sure the irony of me publishing this isn't lost. How can I support in such strong terms the words of a man who said that me and brothers and sisters in arms should be "watchd with a jealous Eye?" But, he does make a good point after he makes this statement; a point that I believe is just as applicable today.
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Pretty clear that the Fed's have NO RIGHT to limit IN ANY WAY the keeping of arms by Citizens. That, to me, sounds like no Federal Law, short of a Constitutional Amendment, should have any Effect on what Citizens can own, keep, buy, sell, or own.
Infringement means "interfere with", as far as I understand Plain Language....
The right is that of “the people”, not the militia or some other collective. The right is a natural right acknowledged in the Second Amendment but not granted by it. The prefatory phrase doesn’t mean jackshit.
Support your local militia!
The Militia is composed of free Citizens.>>>>>>
Which is why we should have the right to know how to use civilian versions ( semi automatic) of military weaponry such as the AR - 15 ( CAR - 15, c = civilian)
I live about a half mile from one of the Hutaree members.
[ in frínj ]
1. Encroach on somebody’s rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way
Synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep
You're in good company then!
Are you trying to use the law and logic? It won’t work in the 21st century, simply because it is not supported by Congress.
The Constitution also states eligibility rules for POTUS but those were conveniently ignored.
Do you now know the reason that we are in such a mess? Ignore the Constitution and you might as well not have a viable society.
Sheesh, you’re describing the demokrat mindset.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Co-author of the Second Amendment
“Pretty clear that the Fed’s have NO RIGHT to limit IN ANY WAY the keeping of arms by Citizens.”
If one needs question the intent of the founders, I can find no evidence that they even wanted to forbid private ownership of artillery
Post #15...Read the parts about citizens and arms. It’s much clearer in this writing.
I don’t believe the founders intended for the free men that make up the militia to be armed with weapons less capable than those of the military. We should be able to purchase M16s and such, even MaDuces if we so desired. And I don’t mean the ones that require an infringing “stamp” to own along with the hyper inflated price that comes with a piece that has been made almost unattainable due to said “stamp” and further banning of such pieces being availbale from current manufacture. More briefly, no NFA bull.
The British came for munitions and cannon at Lexington and Concord. Along with muskets.
NO! It is a God given right that no "amendment" can take away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.