2nd Amendment validation

evince said:
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

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.



Who regulated your ass well?
Click to expand...


nope
 
Into the Night said:
No. The National Guard is the NATIONAL militia. They are not a State militia of any State.
They may be called for by a governor of a State, but they are the National militia. That's why they are called the National Guard.

Incidentally, it is the right of the federal government, as a government entity, to defend itself by calling forth a national militia, which is what the National Guard is. Unlike State militias, which must be disbanded in times of peace, the national militia can be left a standing army.
Just as it is the right of a State to defend itself by calling forth a State militia. Washington State, for example, has a 'militia' of 75 members at the moment, which are administrative personnel. None of them are troops. If activated, the State militia can be organized pretty quickly in this way.

We also have a National Guard base at our local federal fort, Fort Lewis.

See Article I, $8 and $10.
Click to expand...

The National Guard didn't exist as such prior to the end of the Spanish American war. Before that, it was called the Organized Militia, although some units called themselves National Guard. Up through at least the beginning of the Civil War militia units generally required members to purchase and own their equipment including firearms and uniforms. There was also no standard uniform and units adopted their own based generally on what the Army was using.

In addition to the Organized militia, there were units of Volunteers formed in time of war. These were scratch units formed usually by wealthy individuals and outfitted in various ways and as various types of unit but mostly infantry or cavalry. Some more famous volunteer regiments over US history include:

The Kentucky Mounted Rifles in the War of 1812. The governor of Kentucky called for men with means to provide themselves a horse, rifle (not musket), etc., and volunteer for service. The regiment reached about 1,000 men at its height and proved to be one of the best units the US had in the Great Lakes region.

Wilder's "Lighting" Brigade. John Wilder, an Illinois lawyer, using regiments of volunteers devised a means of pursuing and defeating Confederate raiders / cavalry using men riding mules as dragoons (mounted infantry). He paid for his brigade to be equipped with Spencer repeating rifles--a huge increase in firepower--as well. A Confederate curse at the time about this weapon and its fearsome firepower was That damned Yankee rifle! You load it on Sunday, and it shoots all week!

Roosevelt's Rough Riders would be another from the Spanish American War.

These are Volunteer militia rather than organized (or standing) militia like the National Guard.
 
Into the Night said:
No. The National Guard is the NATIONAL militia. They are not a State militia of any State.
They may be called for by a governor of a State, but they are the National militia. That's why they are called the National Guard.

Incidentally, it is the right of the federal government, as a government entity, to defend itself by calling forth a national militia, which is what the National Guard is. Unlike State militias, which must be disbanded in times of peace, the national militia can be left a standing army.
Just as it is the right of a State to defend itself by calling forth a State militia. Washington State, for example, has a 'militia' of 75 members at the moment, which are administrative personnel. None of them are troops. If activated, the State militia can be organized pretty quickly in this way.

We also have a National Guard base at our local federal fort, Fort Lewis.

See Article I, $8 and $10.
Click to expand...
militias exist because the federal government could not keep a standing army in times of peace.

claiming such a concept as "national militias" is bypassing the intent of why militias existed at all.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The National Guard didn't exist as such prior to the end of the Spanish American war. Before that, it was called the Organized Militia, although some units called themselves National Guard. Up through at least the beginning of the Civil War militia units generally required members to purchase and own their equipment including firearms and uniforms. There was also no standard uniform and units adopted their own based generally on what the Army was using.

In addition to the Organized militia, there were units of Volunteers formed in time of war. These were scratch units formed usually by wealthy individuals and outfitted in various ways and as various types of unit but mostly infantry or cavalry. Some more famous volunteer regiments over US history include:

The Kentucky Mounted Rifles in the War of 1812. The governor of Kentucky called for men with means to provide themselves a horse, rifle (not musket), etc., and volunteer for service. The regiment reached about 1,000 men at its height and proved to be one of the best units the US had in the Great Lakes region.

Wilder's "Lighting" Brigade. John Wilder, an Illinois lawyer, using regiments of volunteers devised a means of pursuing and defeating Confederate raiders / cavalry using men riding mules as dragoons (mounted infantry). He paid for his brigade to be equipped with Spencer repeating rifles--a huge increase in firepower--as well. A Confederate curse at the time about this weapon and its fearsome firepower was That damned Yankee rifle! You load it on Sunday, and it shoots all week!

Roosevelt's Rough Riders would be another from the Spanish American War.

These are Volunteer militia rather than organized (or standing) militia like the National Guard.
Click to expand...

he is a poser - a bullshit artist - even today - as we ignore the intent of the constitution and allow standing federal armies - the national guard is controlled by the state - even when called up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_32_of_the_United_States_Code
 
zymurgy said:
he is a poser - a bullshit artist - even today - as we ignore the intent of the constitution and allow standing federal armies - the national guard is controlled by the state - even when called up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_32_of_the_United_States_Code
Click to expand...

A standing federal army was always allowed under the Constitution. What limited it, and limits it is it can only be funded two years at a time, at most. The Navy on the other hand can be funded for as many years as Congress wants. The intent of that was to make it difficult to fund a large standing army because the founders thought it would be a threat to the nation whereas a navy would not and was necessary for defense of the nation and applying power in distant parts of the world.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
for almost a decade, on this forum, there have been arguments and debates about what entity enjoys the 2nd Amendment right.......whether it was the national guard or the people of each state.......

the right has always believed it to be a right of the people in order to defend against a tyrannical government..............

now, the left has always sided with the idea that it's only a right of a 'well regulated militia', which would be the states national guard.

the left has never wanted to look at the founders arguments and beliefs in what the militia is, though.........mainly because it destroys their narrative...............well, it was factually destroyed today

https://kfor.com/news/local/oklahoma-bid-for-national-guard-exception-to-vaccine-mandate-denied/

because, IF, a states national guard can be co-opted by the federal government at any time, then it's most certainly not the militia that guarantees the security of a free state.
Click to expand...

you live in a fantasy world if you think a bunch of pussy gun nuts armed with every assault weapon they have could somehow stop the US from becoming a dictatorship IF THE MILITARY AND THE POLICE WERE IN ON IT. you are so out in left field. if the army did not care about civilian casualties, about collateral damage, if they received any fire from some yahoo, or bunch of yahoos, they would just level the neighborhood. and move on. get that "stop tyranny" bullshit out of your tiny little mind.
 
for some reason, a lot of folks think the founding fathers just threw in that "well regulated militia" part for shits and grins. that is was not german to WHAT FOLLOWS, AS FAR AS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, MEANING ARMS OF WAR, NOT JUST FIREARMS. they were literate. they knew what words meant. too bad so many gun nuts do not.
 
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939).

Case closed.
 
The Brits were attacking America with some regularity in the beginning. We had citizen soldiers. . They fought to save the country. That is why they needed to be armed and REGULATED. They needed to be trained. Therefore in a militia. Things have changed. We are not fighting the Brits on our home turf. Guns are slaughtering Americans, about 100 a day. The 2nd should be removed and guns should only be in the hands of people who can prove a need.
 
Nordberg said:
The Brits were attacking America with some regularity in the beginning. We had citizen soldiers. . They fought to save the country. That is why they needed to be armed and REGULATED. They needed to be trained. Therefore in a militia. Things have changed. We are not fighting the Brits on our home turf. Guns are slaughtering Americans, about 100 a day. The 2nd should be removed and guns should only be in the hands of people who can prove a need.
Click to expand...

Here is the most anti-American post of the day. The “END GAME.” European style, very restrictive and very repressive gun control gun control.
 
Into the Night said:
The National Guard is not a state militia. It is the national militia.

Nothing prevents Texas or any other State from organizing a State militia to repel invaders, put down a rebellion, or defend against a rogue federal government.
Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 10, paragraph 3...to wit; "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace"
 
SmarterthanYou said:
for almost a decade, on this forum, there have been arguments and debates about what entity enjoys the 2nd Amendment right.......whether it was the national guard or the people of each state.......

the right has always believed it to be a right of the people in order to defend against a tyrannical government..............

now, the left has always sided with the idea that it's only a right of a 'well regulated militia', which would be the states national guard.

the left has never wanted to look at the founders arguments and beliefs in what the militia is, though.........mainly because it destroys their narrative...............well, it was factually destroyed today

https://kfor.com/news/local/oklahoma-bid-for-national-guard-exception-to-vaccine-mandate-denied/

because, IF, a states national guard can be co-opted by the federal government at any time, then it's most certainly not the militia that guarantees the security of a free state.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
evince said:
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

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.

Who regulated your ass well?
Click to expand...

As a once active duty US Marine, I am 'well regulated' according to the founders belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top