When will everyone be reporting for drills with the "well regulated militia "?

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 20 Aug 2019 23:04:09 -0400

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!

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2019 11:12 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Aug 2019 23:12:44 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2019 12:37 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:37:52 -0400

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 Has it since been overturned, superseded, rescinded, etc?).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.

Response by Maj Robert Thornton made Aug 21 at 2019 5:38 AM

Maj Robert Thornton — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 05:38:18 -0400

Please cite exactly where your quote above came from.

Response by SGT James Hammons made Aug 21 at 2019 9:09 AM

SGT James Hammons — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:09:28 -0400

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.

Response by COL John McClellan made Aug 21 at 2019 9:50 AM

COL John McClellan — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:50:24 -0400

Well said, SFC Hasbun! It is abundantly clear to me that our founders intended an individual right (by necessity) that was intended to secure our common defense - not by each individual alone, but collectively. It's a collective responsibility that was taken seriously in the 2d half of the 18th Century by all able-bodied male citizens in a town or community, or county. Our founders took responsible gun ownership for granted, because at that time weapons were a tool of daily life, not a sport, not a fashion statement. And, when called to drill or into service, you brought your weapon with you. Not the case anymore, and hasn't been, for decades. Except, that we of course still maintain vitally important components that carry the "spirit" of those militia - our well-regulated National Guard and Reserves. In fact, what the authors of 2A most feared, that the federal government would "own" the means of violence (more softly, that of defending our Nation) has already happened. What hasn't happened is "tyranny" over the states. (While there is still occasional flare-ups and often healthy tension between the two, their fears of states losing their sovereignty have been mostly unrealized.) So I say "amen, brother" let's see those sign-ups down at the Guard recruiting center!!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2019 10:14 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:14:39 -0400

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.

Response by CSM William Everroad made Aug 21 at 2019 10:17 AM

CSM William Everroad — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:17:46 -0400

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.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Aug 21 at 2019 10:26 AM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:26:16 -0400

COL John McClellan - SFC Bernard Walko - SFC Michael Hasbun - SGT Private RallyPoint Member - PO3 Private RallyPoint Member - SSgt Christopher Brose - SFC Private RallyPoint Member - SPC Gary Welch - Maj Robert Thornton -
I have to admit that your question got me to thinking"
They are as well regulated as their members want them to be.
Since most civilian Militias are organized around charismatic individuals, some around patriarchs, some around employers, some around retired or ex-military members.
Some Militias, like the 'group' I'm in, have Police, Firefighters, EMS, Deputy Sheriffs, Game Wardens, ex-Military members along with Businessmen, Doctors, Nurses, Hunters, Fishermen and Farmers.
The plan is to follow our County's Judge Executive, who is the highest County Official. Its called Emergency Management. We have no 'paid militia' but everyone who's a member has a job and is earning a living, but the 'Militia' is just part of our life.
How regulated do you want us to be?
What are YOUR expectations?

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Aug 21 at 2019 10:48 AM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:48:09 -0400

SSgt Christopher Brose - COL John McClellan - SGT Private RallyPoint Member - 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.

Response by SFC Robert Salmon made Aug 21 at 2019 11:28 AM

SFC Robert Salmon — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:28:41 -0400

"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.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2019 3:27 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:27:58 -0400

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!"

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2019 5:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:25:37 -0400

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.

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Nov 5 at 2019 5:09 PM

CW3 Harvey K. — Tue, 05 Nov 2019 17:09:13 -0500

What is the "militia clause" all about?
It is a nominative absolute (prefatory clause) that states a reason why the Government will not so much as "infringe" on the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

The 2nd Amendment does NOT:
-- grant a right, the "rights of the people" are preexisting and inherent in their Human nature
-- those rights are stated and guaranteed to the people, not "granted" to them by Government.

The "militia clause" does NOT:
-- state the reason the people's right to arms exists, to serve the need of the state (USA and/or "states of the Union")
-- it merely states why a Constitutional Government would not WANT to restrict the people's right to arms. Such a Government would deprive itself of its primary defense, "the militia". Since standing armies were viewed as "a danger to Liberty" the Government was dependent on the militia, drawn from the armed citizenry.

Response by Maj John Bell made Dec 10 at 2022 5:36 PM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:36:40 -0500

Alexander Hamilton: “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

Response by Maj John Bell made Dec 10 at 2022 5:37 PM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:37:20 -0500

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

Response by Maj John Bell made Dec 10 at 2022 5:37 PM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:37:57 -0500

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Response by Maj John Bell made Dec 10 at 2022 5:39 PM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:39:00 -0500

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Response by Maj John Bell made Dec 10 at 2022 5:40 PM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:40:14 -0500

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Response by Maj John Bell made Dec 10 at 2022 5:41 PM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:41:40 -0500

Sir George Tucker: “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2022 7:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 19:00:36 -0500

Why this old stuff shows up is beyond me but here goes.

Militias are covered in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is just ONE of the guaranteed "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" found in the Bill of Rights.

Response by Maj John Bell made Feb 6 at 2023 8:03 PM

Maj John Bell — Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:03:24 -0500

Can you cite cases in post-revolutionary war America where the states or federal government disarmed the population that was not part of a "free standing, well armed, well trained "well regulated militia?"

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Feb 7 at 2023 9:34 AM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Tue, 07 Feb 2023 09:34:09 -0500

As soon as the Captain comes by and enrolls me. Oh, and calls me out for drill.

You seem to completely skip over that part.

Response by SP5 Wick Humble made Jun 18 at 2023 9:06 PM

SP5 Wick Humble — Sun, 18 Jun 2023 21:06:11 -0400

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!