Posted on Aug 20, 2019
When will everyone be reporting for drills with the "well regulated militia "?
5.84K
162
88
16
16
0
I think it's time to discuss the 2nd Amendment frankly and honestly.
I can't help but notice that people are obsessed with their "rights", but are completely silent about their responsibilities. We forget that the amendment has a purpose statement. The importance of a free standing, well armed, well trained "well regulated militia".
I'd like to politely point out that congress at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted was also kind enough to spell out precisely what the militia was composed of, and give guidance on the training and leadership requirements....
We'll ignore the racist part of it, "able bodied white males"...
But it's pretty explicit. Each and every free, able bodied white male between 18 and 45 is to be enrolled by the Captain in each state, provide their own arms and ammo, and attend regular drills and exercises, and when called upon.
So when are you all showing up for your well regulated militia drills? You want your guns, but none of the training and discipline the founding fathers expected you to have WITH those guns.
I expect to see a lot more of you at formation from here on out!
I can't help but notice that people are obsessed with their "rights", but are completely silent about their responsibilities. We forget that the amendment has a purpose statement. The importance of a free standing, well armed, well trained "well regulated militia".
I'd like to politely point out that congress at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted was also kind enough to spell out precisely what the militia was composed of, and give guidance on the training and leadership requirements....
We'll ignore the racist part of it, "able bodied white males"...
But it's pretty explicit. Each and every free, able bodied white male between 18 and 45 is to be enrolled by the Captain in each state, provide their own arms and ammo, and attend regular drills and exercises, and when called upon.
So when are you all showing up for your well regulated militia drills? You want your guns, but none of the training and discipline the founding fathers expected you to have WITH those guns.
I expect to see a lot more of you at formation from here on out!
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns 2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 25
12
12
0
There are groups that organize and practice. The Media hounds them and shames them. People do not risk their employment. Lets correct how they are looked at by Media.
(12)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I like the way it says that you "Shall" have a gun and ammunition. That's not a suggestion of maybe it would be a good idea, but a mandated requirement.
(5)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
"Keep their jobs" while serving? You mean like the Servicemens Civil Relief Act already covers?
(4)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SFC Michael Hasbun - The Media hounds them and shames them. Lets correct how they are looked at by Media.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
I don’t agree with your premise that militia and bearing arms go together; to the contrary it is established they are two separate subjects. If you want to change the law, pass another constitutional amendment taking the right away. That’s the only way to do it. Playing with words in sentences isn’t the “honest” way to take away a persons right to defend themselves.
(10)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
SFC Michael Hasbun - You posted the statutes. There's a comma in the 2A between the two clauses.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SFC Michael Hasbun - Is English your first language? Because if it isn't, your argument makes a lot more sense. If it is your first language, though, you need some refresher classes or something.
Q: The 2nd Amendment was written out as one long sentence. What is the subject of the sentence? Hint: it's not "militia."
The militia clause is presented in 2A as a justification (one of possible many) for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, NOT as the only justification. Self defense, hunting, and target shooting, were all activities for which the people had a right to keep and bear arms. If the Framers had any inkling that so many people today would be as stupid as they are, they might have taken the effort to put those other justifications in the 2nd Amendment, but they didn't think it was necessary.
A: The subject of the sentence is "right." Everything in that sentence is about the right. Not about the militia.
The militia clause it just as relevant today as it was when it was written, even if the majority of people don't actively drill. My favorite modern example of a militia happened during the Rodney King riots. When entire neighborhoods were being looted and torched and people were getting assaulted, the police cordoned off sections of the city and did not go in, effectively trapping the people inside. A bunch of Koreans decided they were not going to be victims, so they gathered their guns (including some "assault weapons" which turned out to be idea for the purpose), set up a perimeter around their shops, and protected themselves from the looters and arsonists.
The fact that they had not drilled together before was completely irrelevant. When needed, they were able to come together and effectively act in concert for their own common defense. All that was necessary was the will, the arms and ammo, proficiency with their guns, and the ability to communicate. On that day, the security of their free state was completely dependent on their ability to act as a well regulated militia, and that was only possible because their right to keep and bear arms hadn't yet been infringed enough to prevent it.
CPT Jack Durish, Sgt (Join to see), SMSgt Lawrence McCarter, PO1 H Gene Lawrence, SGT Steve McFarland, SFC Melvin Brandenburg, SGT Gregory Lawritson, Lt Col Charlie Brown, SP5 Mark Kuzinski, COL Mikel J. Burroughs
Q: The 2nd Amendment was written out as one long sentence. What is the subject of the sentence? Hint: it's not "militia."
The militia clause is presented in 2A as a justification (one of possible many) for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, NOT as the only justification. Self defense, hunting, and target shooting, were all activities for which the people had a right to keep and bear arms. If the Framers had any inkling that so many people today would be as stupid as they are, they might have taken the effort to put those other justifications in the 2nd Amendment, but they didn't think it was necessary.
A: The subject of the sentence is "right." Everything in that sentence is about the right. Not about the militia.
The militia clause it just as relevant today as it was when it was written, even if the majority of people don't actively drill. My favorite modern example of a militia happened during the Rodney King riots. When entire neighborhoods were being looted and torched and people were getting assaulted, the police cordoned off sections of the city and did not go in, effectively trapping the people inside. A bunch of Koreans decided they were not going to be victims, so they gathered their guns (including some "assault weapons" which turned out to be idea for the purpose), set up a perimeter around their shops, and protected themselves from the looters and arsonists.
The fact that they had not drilled together before was completely irrelevant. When needed, they were able to come together and effectively act in concert for their own common defense. All that was necessary was the will, the arms and ammo, proficiency with their guns, and the ability to communicate. On that day, the security of their free state was completely dependent on their ability to act as a well regulated militia, and that was only possible because their right to keep and bear arms hadn't yet been infringed enough to prevent it.
CPT Jack Durish, Sgt (Join to see), SMSgt Lawrence McCarter, PO1 H Gene Lawrence, SGT Steve McFarland, SFC Melvin Brandenburg, SGT Gregory Lawritson, Lt Col Charlie Brown, SP5 Mark Kuzinski, COL Mikel J. Burroughs
(3)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
SSgt Christopher Brose - Hear! Hear! Bravo! Your last paragraph reminded me of an old Police Officer in the late 1950s that knew my father. In response to my father's question about why our small town only had 5 Police Officers and a Chief.
He said, "Cause we know that if we had a problem then every man in the town would show up to be our posse. They're our Militia."
He said, "Cause we know that if we had a problem then every man in the town would show up to be our posse. They're our Militia."
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SFC Ralph E Kelley - A posse is actually a really great example of the militia in action.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
"So when are you all showing up for your well regulated militia drills? You want your guns, but none of the training and discipline the founding fathers expected you to have WITH those guns."
Who exactly is "you all"? Since you are referring to gun owners, I would say you are talking about all gun owners, myself included. I would say the majority of my gun-owning friends take the 2nd amendment very seriously, and none in my circle view it as a right or privilege, but more of a responsibility. Yes, many of those are veterans, but not all. The civilians in my circle have the same viewpoint. The ones who carry concealed for example, also view training and weapon proficiency as a responsibility and none of them view carrying a firearm alone as "good enough", even if we are talking about personal defense or PP. I know beyond a doubt that this mentality is not everyone's mentality. There are plenty of Fudds everywhere. That said, taking the 2nd Amendment and toying with words, is just a more subtle approach than those who overtly want to abolish the 2nd Amendment altogether. If that occurs, the precedence that sets will lay each and every amendment on the chopping block. Only the naive would think otherwise, and I believe we can already see some chipping away occurring on the 1st and 4th.
Who exactly is "you all"? Since you are referring to gun owners, I would say you are talking about all gun owners, myself included. I would say the majority of my gun-owning friends take the 2nd amendment very seriously, and none in my circle view it as a right or privilege, but more of a responsibility. Yes, many of those are veterans, but not all. The civilians in my circle have the same viewpoint. The ones who carry concealed for example, also view training and weapon proficiency as a responsibility and none of them view carrying a firearm alone as "good enough", even if we are talking about personal defense or PP. I know beyond a doubt that this mentality is not everyone's mentality. There are plenty of Fudds everywhere. That said, taking the 2nd Amendment and toying with words, is just a more subtle approach than those who overtly want to abolish the 2nd Amendment altogether. If that occurs, the precedence that sets will lay each and every amendment on the chopping block. Only the naive would think otherwise, and I believe we can already see some chipping away occurring on the 1st and 4th.
(7)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
SFC Salmon - Likewise my non-military rifle and gun owners are quite proficient with their weapons. Most are avid hunters and are certainly capable of conducting Asymmetrical Warfare. They know their terrain, routes/trails, hiding spots and how to live off the land. They may not have the 'look', but many are volunteers of our police, firefighters, EMS. Others are foresters or Game Wardens.
(3)
(0)
SFC Robert Salmon
Unfortunately, I believe people like us are the minority. Most people rarely have time to do everything they want to do, but unless they prioritize training as a "need" and treat it as such, then they just end up being once a year paper punchers. I refuse to fall into that category.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google