Posted on Aug 20, 2019
When will everyone be reporting for drills with the "well regulated militia "?
6.49K
112
71
13
13
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: 23
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?
(2)
(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)
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)
4
4
0
This is a post aimed at shaming people into accepting gun control. Everyone has a right to own a weapon. Period. The idea that gun owners should compromise is a joke. We compromised in the 80s when carrying a weapon was suddenly a crime. We compromised with the sportsman protection act that banned sale of weapons manufactured after 1986. Carrying a pistol became a crime almost every where and the gun control side wanted to ban them. Instead, We compromised with the “assault weapon (scary attachment thingy) ban in the 90s. Then the conversation shifted back to out right banning hand guns. Again. The scary thingy ban sunset under President GW Bush. Now we are back to talking about “assault weapon “ bans again.
Gun owners have given up too much. It has never been a compromise because the gun control side isn’t actually losing anything.
I do agree with you that law abiding people should get together to train for the unthinkable even though it is irrelevant to being able to own weapons. As for people obsessing over rights, they need to. Our bill of rights is being eroded constantly, as evidenced by people wanting to ban amendments 1-10, especially the 2A.
Gun owners have given up too much. It has never been a compromise because the gun control side isn’t actually losing anything.
I do agree with you that law abiding people should get together to train for the unthinkable even though it is irrelevant to being able to own weapons. As for people obsessing over rights, they need to. Our bill of rights is being eroded constantly, as evidenced by people wanting to ban amendments 1-10, especially the 2A.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
A typo. The sportsman’s act banned the sale of AUTOMATIC or select fire weapons manufactured after 1986.
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see)
Well said, SFC.
It also bears mentioning that the scary attachment thingy (assault weapons) ban of 1994 had absolutely zero impact on crime according to the DOJ and the FBI.
Well said, SFC.
It also bears mentioning that the scary attachment thingy (assault weapons) ban of 1994 had absolutely zero impact on crime according to the DOJ and the FBI.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
A militia is formed of what? Citizens. Conscripts. Therefore, in order to maintain such a militia, the citizens that could be conscripted must be allowed to own the firearms that said militia would need. Taking the words that you highlighted "...Shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...", this would mean everyone that signed up for Selective Service must own a firearm that would be fit for use for the military if conscripted.
If the draft is ever re-instituted, then those signed up for Selective Service would, effectively, be called to "appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise..."
So, by those words, EVERYONE signed up for Selective Service is a member of the militia defined by the Amendment. That means that EVERY male, at age 18, must make sure they have the same weapon(s) & equipment that an individual soldier would carry in to battle. That would mean not an AR15, but an M16, M4, M240, etc, capable of putting rounds down range at such an effective rate as to repel/resist an enemy force.
If the draft is ever re-instituted, then those signed up for Selective Service would, effectively, be called to "appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise..."
So, by those words, EVERYONE signed up for Selective Service is a member of the militia defined by the Amendment. That means that EVERY male, at age 18, must make sure they have the same weapon(s) & equipment that an individual soldier would carry in to battle. That would mean not an AR15, but an M16, M4, M240, etc, capable of putting rounds down range at such an effective rate as to repel/resist an enemy force.
(4)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
SSgt (Join to see) - - I like the way you think. May I use your analogy?
Carrying that further (this is kinda a joke), think I could convince (I know several that would be okay with it) three of my friends to buy a used tank?
Carrying that further (this is kinda a joke), think I could convince (I know several that would be okay with it) three of my friends to buy a used tank?
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
SSgt (Join to see) - I agree, the 2nd Amendment solves a logistics issue that is no longer valid, but whether or not the Amendment is still needed for it's stated purpose is an argument for another time...
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Considering that 95%+ of the population can't meet the requirements to volunteer for service, I think if the fecal matter were to strike the oscillating blades, then conscription from the Select Service would almost HAVE to occur.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Michael Hasbun - well that provides a helpful bit of reference. What you’ve cited is from The second Militia Act of 1792. I’d like to politely point out that this was drafted after the first 10 amendments were ratified.
Additionally, the first militia act of 1792, which is about a week older than the second begins, “Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion...”.
These militias were sort of dependent upon the US being invaded or in imminent danger. The Acts were born as a result of a pretty awful beating the Army took during a battle with Native Americans. Militia was then called up under this statute during the Whiskey rebellion a few years later. And then the legislation ...it expired.
And Congress passed the militia act of 1795. A few decades later, that was amended by the militia act of 1862. Then, the Militia Act of 1903 was passed and superseded any previous acts. That one is important, as it created the National Guard. You won’t find mandatory muster for all whites with muskets and powder horns.
Of course, in the last century, there have been a few more laws passed. But unfortunately, the 2nd militia act of 1792, written after the 2nd amendment was ratified, and long since expired superseded by other legislation, isn’t relevant in today’s climate.
Best of luck.
Additionally, the first militia act of 1792, which is about a week older than the second begins, “Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion...”.
These militias were sort of dependent upon the US being invaded or in imminent danger. The Acts were born as a result of a pretty awful beating the Army took during a battle with Native Americans. Militia was then called up under this statute during the Whiskey rebellion a few years later. And then the legislation ...it expired.
And Congress passed the militia act of 1795. A few decades later, that was amended by the militia act of 1862. Then, the Militia Act of 1903 was passed and superseded any previous acts. That one is important, as it created the National Guard. You won’t find mandatory muster for all whites with muskets and powder horns.
Of course, in the last century, there have been a few more laws passed. But unfortunately, the 2nd militia act of 1792, written after the 2nd amendment was ratified, and long since expired superseded by other legislation, isn’t relevant in today’s climate.
Best of luck.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Since the congress or president hasn't called on the militia, aka we the people, it states we need to provide our own weapons and ammo. In other words possess and maintain personal weapons, (which we practice with regularly) in the event we will be called to be the militia. Also, a "Machine Gun" did exist during the writing of the 2nd amendment, even if it wasn't put into service. The "puckle gun" was was prototyped in 1722.
The argument that an Armalite sport rifle didn't exist at the founding is disingenuousness considering a real assault weapon had been invented. Also, if we are to be called up as a militia, it would be prudent we had the ability to own weapons of war to push out an invading force or to push back from a tyrannical government as spelled out in the founding document known as the Declaration of Independence. As long as their is a Second Amendment, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.
Lastly, there is only one reason a group of people would want to disarm we the people and to them I say, "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!"
The argument that an Armalite sport rifle didn't exist at the founding is disingenuousness considering a real assault weapon had been invented. Also, if we are to be called up as a militia, it would be prudent we had the ability to own weapons of war to push out an invading force or to push back from a tyrannical government as spelled out in the founding document known as the Declaration of Independence. As long as their is a Second Amendment, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.
Lastly, there is only one reason a group of people would want to disarm we the people and to them I say, "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!"
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
SFC Michael Hasbun I love this topic. The public can debate what the founders intended with the 2A and if it is an individual right or collective state right (militia), but where we stand now the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is an individual right to self-defense (District of Columbia v. Heller). Since the Supreme Court (minus the dissent opinion) has utterly ignored the militia statement, it is now inconsequential. We often forget that there was no federal army for a while and state militias were the only means of fighting wars, and we gave that up when they were incorporated into the national military.
The only way to change where we are now with the 2A is to amend it. If we want it to mean that only well-regulated militia members can possess arms, we have to repeal/replace the 2A, because, according to the Supreme Court, it is now an individual right to bear arms for self-defense. Any attempt to have a debate to defend gun rights that includes talking points relating to hunting, firearms sports, or defense against tyranny is a non-starter because of that ruling.
Additionally, talking points proposing restricting ownership of firearms to individuals is in direct conflict to the ruling and have been, on at least two occasions, ruled unconstitutional unless provisions for due process are followed.
The only way to change where we are now with the 2A is to amend it. If we want it to mean that only well-regulated militia members can possess arms, we have to repeal/replace the 2A, because, according to the Supreme Court, it is now an individual right to bear arms for self-defense. Any attempt to have a debate to defend gun rights that includes talking points relating to hunting, firearms sports, or defense against tyranny is a non-starter because of that ruling.
Additionally, talking points proposing restricting ownership of firearms to individuals is in direct conflict to the ruling and have been, on at least two occasions, ruled unconstitutional unless provisions for due process are followed.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
There is a seperation of the parts of the 2nd. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This is the heart of the second. The part you brought up is a purpose but not a requirement. It states the reason the right should not be abridged.
(3)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Linguisitically, it's a dependent clause relationship, one part of that statement depends on, the other. The idea that they can be separated in the manner suggested, is, well... wrong. At any rate, saying that it's a "purpose" - means we agree. The PURPOSE of the right therefore, is clearly stated, to ensure we can maintain a well-regulated militia. No OTHER PURPOSE.. was enshrined in the Constituion. Many other things that peopl claim, could have been written there. They weren't.
(0)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
COL (Join to see) - I disagree.
Comma Usage Rule 1. USE A COMMA TO SEPARATE INDEPENDENT CLAUSES.
Comma Usage Rule 1. USE A COMMA TO SEPARATE INDEPENDENT CLAUSES.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
COL (Join to see) - The militia clause presents itself as a justification (one of possible many) for the right of the people to not be infringed, not as the only justification. Regardless, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in no way dependent or conditioned on the militia.
Note the use of the passive voice in 2A, and contrast it with 1A. 1A is often thought to guarantee certain rights, but what it really is is a restriction on Congress, which is the subject of that sentence, prohibiting them from doing certain things. To use the language of 2A, Congress shall not infringe on the rights of the people -- active voice. In 2A, the subject is "right." The right of the people shall not be infringed -- passive voice. It's still a prohibition, but a prohibition on whom? The clear implication is that it's a prohibition on EVERYONE, not just Congress. If they wanted it to be a prohibition on Congress, they would have said so.
The same language is used in 4A; "The right of the people... shall not be violated..." Same implication -- it's not a restriction on Congress, it's a restriction on EVERYONE, on military, on police, on anyone in any official capacity.
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
Note the use of the passive voice in 2A, and contrast it with 1A. 1A is often thought to guarantee certain rights, but what it really is is a restriction on Congress, which is the subject of that sentence, prohibiting them from doing certain things. To use the language of 2A, Congress shall not infringe on the rights of the people -- active voice. In 2A, the subject is "right." The right of the people shall not be infringed -- passive voice. It's still a prohibition, but a prohibition on whom? The clear implication is that it's a prohibition on EVERYONE, not just Congress. If they wanted it to be a prohibition on Congress, they would have said so.
The same language is used in 4A; "The right of the people... shall not be violated..." Same implication -- it's not a restriction on Congress, it's a restriction on EVERYONE, on military, on police, on anyone in any official capacity.
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)
2
2
0
SSgt Christopher Brose - COL (Join to see) - SGT (Join to see) - They used to write documents with pen and quill - does that means all the media have to give up their cameras, videos, computers, radio/TV/internet simply because the founders didn't have them? Changing the 2A because society has evolved doesn't mean Militias have to be "state or federal".
The fact that the then Congress decided an add-to the 2A does not change the base document - They added those statutes so to determine who Congress would provide funds. They weren't going to just buy rifles and hand them out without controls. Similar to why "Pass in Review" formations were so the paymaster could count the able-bodied soldiers.
The fact that the then Congress decided an add-to the 2A does not change the base document - They added those statutes so to determine who Congress would provide funds. They weren't going to just buy rifles and hand them out without controls. Similar to why "Pass in Review" formations were so the paymaster could count the able-bodied soldiers.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Ralph E Kelley “They used to write documents with pen and quill - does that means all the media have to give up their cameras, videos, computers, radio/TV/internet simply because the founders didn't have them?” no. I haven’t stated or argued that point. However, the militia acts of 1792 didn’t, “..add-to the 2A”. They were simply acts of Congress. Ultimately, the acts were made obsolete by new legislation.
Those acts had to meet Constitutional requirements. (For the sake of this argument, the 2nd amendment). The Constitution did not have to meet the guidelines as laid out in the militia Acts of 1792. Furthermore, society today is not obliged to determine the Constitutionality of, or abide by, a 230ish year old Congressional Act that already wasn’t the rule of law about 200-ish years ago.
The best part about the Constitution is the flexibility it allows from generation to generation. It can serve the needs of each successive generation, while allowing for a stable base/continuity of government maintained throughout the generations. That’s why the media can keep their computers and stuff.
Best of luck
Those acts had to meet Constitutional requirements. (For the sake of this argument, the 2nd amendment). The Constitution did not have to meet the guidelines as laid out in the militia Acts of 1792. Furthermore, society today is not obliged to determine the Constitutionality of, or abide by, a 230ish year old Congressional Act that already wasn’t the rule of law about 200-ish years ago.
The best part about the Constitution is the flexibility it allows from generation to generation. It can serve the needs of each successive generation, while allowing for a stable base/continuity of government maintained throughout the generations. That’s why the media can keep their computers and stuff.
Best of luck
(1)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
SGT (Join to see) - It was rhetorical analogy, however your point is well taken and I agree.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Respectfully, if you’re going to ignore any part of any definition, than other folks are free to ignore other parts of the same definition.
Additionally, it would appear as though the definition cited is a bit old. (Do you have a title or Congressional reference number, so that it may be looked up in its entirety? Has it since been overturned, superseded, rescinded, etc?). That stated, it’s important to remember that all legislation is subject to Judicial Review. Ultimately, if legislation is challenged, the Supreme Court decides what is/isn’t Constitutional. Original intent, though? For sure. Judicial Review by the Courts is as original intent as it gets.
As all of the 18-45 year old whites aren’t exactly lining up for muster with muskets and powder horns, it’s safe to say that the definition might not be applicable today. And remember, the Constitution was written with the intent/desire that it would be able to utilized by successive, more developed generations. How did Congress define the press back then? Probably ‘newspaper’? Does that mean we need a frank, honest discussion about the first amendment because we’ve moved on from a 1page news paper? I like my news, but I don’t want to receive it in the way that the founders understood it to be delivered.
I get what you’re stating. I don’t necessarily disagree. However, the reality is that in theory, any legislation can be passed. And then if challenged, the Courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) determine the Constitutionality of that legislation.
Additionally, it would appear as though the definition cited is a bit old. (Do you have a title or Congressional reference number, so that it may be looked up in its entirety? Has it since been overturned, superseded, rescinded, etc?). That stated, it’s important to remember that all legislation is subject to Judicial Review. Ultimately, if legislation is challenged, the Supreme Court decides what is/isn’t Constitutional. Original intent, though? For sure. Judicial Review by the Courts is as original intent as it gets.
As all of the 18-45 year old whites aren’t exactly lining up for muster with muskets and powder horns, it’s safe to say that the definition might not be applicable today. And remember, the Constitution was written with the intent/desire that it would be able to utilized by successive, more developed generations. How did Congress define the press back then? Probably ‘newspaper’? Does that mean we need a frank, honest discussion about the first amendment because we’ve moved on from a 1page news paper? I like my news, but I don’t want to receive it in the way that the founders understood it to be delivered.
I get what you’re stating. I don’t necessarily disagree. However, the reality is that in theory, any legislation can be passed. And then if challenged, the Courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) determine the Constitutionality of that legislation.
(2)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
"A bit old"? means it's no longer valid? You understand that the 2nd Amendment is even older, right?
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Michael Hasbun - i do understand. However, do you understand that while the constitution, and the 2nd amendment, don’t have expiration dates or can’t be superseded (unless by amendment), legislation and congressional acts do and can?
Please refer to my other lengthier response, but the militia acts are long expired and superseded. Would you cite tax laws from 1792 if you were fighting the IRS?
Please refer to my other lengthier response, but the militia acts are long expired and superseded. Would you cite tax laws from 1792 if you were fighting the IRS?
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSgt Christopher Brose - And when presented with some facts and logic, folks have oddly gone a bit quiet.
However, I’m glad you realize, and please, under any circumstance...do not show up for muster next weekend with a flintlock and a satchel of hardtack for sustenance.
However, I’m glad you realize, and please, under any circumstance...do not show up for muster next weekend with a flintlock and a satchel of hardtack for sustenance.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
I think I'm developing a bone spur in my right heel... yes, it definitely is a bone spur! Big one, rilly rilly big! Tears in my eyes! Ow! Can't march, I guess, or stand formations.
If I get a note from my VA doctor, can I be excused reporting -- at age 78? One year younger than Pres Joe, on year older than Donnie; neither of whom has a DD214!
If I get a note from my VA doctor, can I be excused reporting -- at age 78? One year younger than Pres Joe, on year older than Donnie; neither of whom has a DD214!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google