What Is A Militia? Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

http://www.awrm.org/mission.htm, http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 ^ | 3-23-06

[Jo Nuvark]

Amendment II Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

* ** ***

INFRINGE: vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE

* ** ***

The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society, and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.

Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm.

Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.

Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).

This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.

In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms - the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting - it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan -- it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction.

The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time to the turn of the millennium in 1999. Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, 2001, when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army. But while each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the coordination needed is much more on a national scale, and special units of the regular army or border patrol are better suited for such duty than the Guard.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html#context

* ** ***

What is the militia?

Go look in the mirror and you will have the answer. The militia, contrary to the insistence of the media, is not an "anti-government hate group." It is not a group of uneducated, backwoods, inbred, hicks who date their sisters. It is not made up of malcontents bent on destroying America. Militiamen are not misfits, they are not psychologically damaged mental defectives.

http://www.awrm.org/mission.htm

[Outland]

I think the more important question here is, "What is the U.S. Constitution?"

Throughout the history of the U.S., the states, Congress, presidents and judges have rewritten nearly all of it, despite the idea that it was intended to be the final word unless altered by amendment.

Since the meaning of the Constitution and everything it contains is subject to the whims and fancies of the aforementioned entities, it has become little more than a doormat smudged with the dirty footprints of those who have twisted it over time.

[MrEdd]

The modern term for Militia is "Draft pool".

[Jo Nuvark]

You speak truth. Glad you enjoyed revisiting the "intent" of the Constitution in regard to the Second Ammendment.

[Outland]

I'm working on a plan to harness the energy of this country's Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

[hadit2here]

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.- 2nd Amendment

It is at best a fool's errand and at worst abject subversion to try to decipher the nuances and emanations hidden in the wording of the Second Amendment. The words are clear. The Founders' intent is precise and clear. If anyone doesn't believe that, all they need to do is actually read the Founding Fathers written words regarding arms, the populace's God given rights and the government:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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."
--Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed."
--George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our 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?"
--Patrick Henry

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in 'Jefferson, On Democracy' (1939), p. 20

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
--Thomas Jefferson

These gentlemen knew exactly what they were doing and saying, and used quite precise, clear words to create a foundation of our Constitutional Republic - not a democracy or mutual admiration society. It is exquisitely clear that their meaning and intent was that each and every single person- not militia, gun club, titled land owner or government officer- had the right to own, possess and carry arms as they saw fit, and was not to be "interpreted", regulated or "permitted" by some government bureaucrat. It's there in their own words. Anyone who can't read and understand their plain meaning should go back to skool and get some remedial reading tutoring- it's not written in a foreign language.

And your wonderful, prized CCW is an infringement, no matter how you cut it. After all, it's called a "permit" isn't it? God given rights need no government "permits".

[Supernatural]

According to the U.S. government, and the governments of many states, mine included (PA), the militia is all able-bodied citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 (18 to 44 inclusive). Subject to be called upon at anytime by the Sheriff or other "proper authorities".

[Jo Nuvark]

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

-- THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in 'Jefferson, On Democracy' (1939), p. 20

THANK YOU for this awesome post.
The above is one of my favorite
quotes from the founders.

[noobiangod]

Under federal law the militia is: US Code Title 10 Sec. 311. 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.

[El Gato]

he Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms -

But the current day, and probably much earlier, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia does.

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Article 1, Section 13. Virginia Constitution.

[El Gato]

Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law

I dunno, they elected the 'toon, twice.

At the risk of terminating the thread, I'd only point out that Hitler was elected, in what was one of the most sophisticate countries s in the world.

[Lurker]

You have too many commas in your 2nd Amendment. There should be only one.

L

[El Gato]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed."
--George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790

Bogus quote.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our 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?"
--Patrick Henry

True quote.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Probably Bogus

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in 'Jefferson, On Democracy' (1939), p. 20

True quote and the best of the lot, IMHO.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
--Thomas Jefferson

Unverified, likely bogus.

[El Gato]

You have too many commas in your 2nd Amendment. There should be only one.

While it reads better and more logically with only the one comma, ther are official versions from the 1790s that are shown both ways.

However the meaning is the same, one comma or three.

[hadit2here]

I just cut'n'pasted it from the article that was posted, as a summary/reminder of what I was replying to.

However, findlaw.com shows the two commas in its "Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America" page, as does www.law.cornell.edu.

Additionally, while it is very hard to read unless magnified 3 or 4 times, the original parchment of "Engrossed Bill of Rights, September 25, 1789; General Records of the United States Government" shown at the National Archives website has "Article the Fourth" - which became the 2nd when the ten were ratified- shows the line with the two commas. Unless the National Archives has a bogus copy of the 1789 original, I would suspect that there can be no more definitive authority than that self-same parchment.

So while I was only quoting the article posted, it seems that it has it correct, according to the best authority.

But thanks for playing...

[Vanders9]

Hmm...the problem with "definitive" proclamations, like the constitution of the United States, is that the world doesn't stand still. Attitudes change, situations change, certainly technology advances. The US implicitly recognises this, otherwise there wouldnt be all those amendments to the "inalienable rights".

My point, and I submit it humbly for your consideration, is that a well armed militia may very well have been quite a credible military force a hundred plus years ago, but the increasing sophistication of modern armies - artillery, missiles, tanks etc...probably means that a company of good citizens and true armed with an assortment of dodgy firearms is going to be considerably less effective relatively than their forebears would be pitched against a regiment of redcoats or whatever. You could even argue it might be morally wrong to pitch them into such a conflict.

Have I explained that well? Its difficult to make it very clear.

[OneWingedShark]

A similar argument appeared in Starship Troopers (A near mindlessly-fun movie, but it had some points) when the Drill Instructor was asked a question along the lines of 'In modern warfare all it takes is the push of a button to end the battle. what good is learning how to throw a knife?' To which, the DI instructs the trainee to place his hand on the wall, and when he complies, throws his knife so as to pin the trainee's hand to the wall. A clear demonstration that it is not the technology, but the will to victory and the training to use what you _DO_ have that determines the final outcome.

Besides that, given the wholesale uprisal of the population, I would find it _very_ difficult to fire upon my fellow countrymen. That's why I thank God that the New Orleans aftermath went as bloodlessly as it did... Although, if fired upon I'm going to return fire.

[Vanders9]

Hmm...good point.

[GrandEagle]

Very true. That is the question.
The Constitution is the document listing the authority that we the people grant our Federal Government. We would have the right to free speech even if it were not called out in the BOR because we did not grant the Federal Government authority to hamper it. The same is true of the right to keep and bear arms. We have that right because all rights originate with the people and are granted by our creator. As the possessor of those rights, we did not choose to grant the Feds the authority to tamper with it. Second amendment or not.

Cordially,
GE

[warner.boru]

A well regulated militia means the standing army or the state militia (or local police). As they are needed for the defense of the state and/or can be used to supress the freedom of the people the 2nd amendment gives each individual the right to keep and bear arms so the people may rise up in revolution if need be. Remember this was written and approved by people who had just done that.