The meaning of "militia" in the Second Amendment

Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months ago to Politics
38 comments | Share | Flag

A damning argument to the gun grabbers contention. Consistent with the Framers vision, Man is the supreme authority and guiding force in his/her life.
SOURCE URL: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/04/06/the-meaning-of-militia-in-the-second-amendment/?fbclid=IwAR0-uG140Asoy9Hc6zehkD-z8Vqfaory2SpqJHNFbeI-tsK0cdRJFRKBEdk


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months ago
    I think the defining words are 'of the people'. They need to consider this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by craigerb 1 month, 4 weeks ago
      Right. It does NOT say "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months ago
      They trouble is the "they". Then it becomes who are 'they' to 'consider' for me, you and anyone else, no? They certainly do not pause to 'consider' in any event.

      The Magna Carta, not to mention the Constitution, is certainly ignored these days, and the decline of the West makes it evident.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 1 month, 4 weeks ago
    Today is the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord. There is a statue of Col. Parker standing on the Lexington green with his musket. I wonder how long he will be allowed to stand there before The Boss, Pocahontas, Spartacus, and their ilkl demand that it be taken down.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  dukem 1 month, 4 weeks ago
      Well, it's obvious he was a right wing racist. Off with his head (and shoulder, etc.)
      Now I feel better.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 1 month, 4 weeks ago
        Yep, a right wing racist who was brave enough to stand up against the most powerful empire in the world, so that he could be free to own a rifle and use it to protect himself and his family. If that's a right wind racist, then I'm happy to be called one, too..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  dukem 1 month, 4 weeks ago
          Sorry, sometimes my obtuse humor and weird take on things is misunderstood. I'm making fun of all the times "racist" is used by the left to define the concept of freedom.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 1 month, 4 weeks ago
            Oh, absolutely no need to apologize. I knew exactly what you meant. The word, racist, is so over used by the Regressives to define anything that they don't like that it has become trite.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 1 month, 4 weeks ago
              Yep, they use the word "racist" so often to describe anyone who respects the actual constitution, I often think its time to accept it and "embrace" my own "inner racist." To REALLY offend a liberal, just go up to them, extend your right arm, and give them a good, healthy "HEIL TRUMP!" (and watch their heads explode). Hey, if their heads do explode, they won't be around in the next election to vote. (but then again, many dead democrats do vote...)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month, 4 weeks ago
    We can hope that Donald Trump continues to succeed in appointing constitutionalist judges at all levels of the federal judiciary. Even the 9th Circuit court, not known for conservative opinion, is now balanced enough to rule against California's magazine limits as unconstitutional. A caution on this decision, however, as the rule had little to do with the 2nd amendment, and more to do with the unlawfulness of ex post facto law. The way the restriction was written automatically labeled any current owner of large capacity magazines a criminal, even though the purchase prior to the law was legal.

    It will be interesting to see if the federal bump stock ban meets a similar challenge, as it essentially makes all owners of such stocks criminals. The phrasing, however, implies that no turn in of the items is required, but the use of them to mimic automatic fire is unlawful.

    We're not out of the woods yet, but a Trump 2020 victory will make it hard for opponents of the 2nd amendment to make much headway for decades.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months ago
    Thank you AJ, saving that one...but do you really think a liberal's thick headedness could possibly understand that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months ago
      It's less that they are thick and more that they are sick, mentally. They have a serf mentality. They believe others can take care of them and differ the safety and prosperity of their existence to others. The morons scarcely deserve to exist let alone live in a nation intended for individualists.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  edweaver 2 months ago
    There was no standing army (other than the British) at the time so in my opinion, that only leaves the people as a whole to be the militia.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months ago
      I think, and it's entirely my opinion, that regulated and militia were adjectives to convey how citizens must conduct themselves to legitimately enact force.Without regulation and structure you simply have a mob.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months ago
        "regulated" in terms of the Second Amendment referred to "in good working order", meaning that the members of the militia were to properly maintain and know how to use their individual weaponry so that they could be effective if an event arose. It had nothing to do with "government" passing laws or "regulations".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I whole heartily agree with the writer of the article. Unfortunately, the Dimms don't see it that way nor do they understand the beginning history of our nation. It seems that the older ones forgot and the younger ones were never taught that in school. I wonder when the Dimms Congressional Reps and Senators took the oath of office understood when they repeated the phrase of upholding the Constitution of the United States knew what they were saying.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bill54 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Today a visit to these historical places we will find a quiet green surrounded by modernized historical homes. There is a simple wooden bridge that has been repaired and rebuilt over the last two centuries plus. Those who took part returned home or died that day. The few defeated the many because we are one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
    Militia means a group prepared for armed conflict, so it would be tautological for them to say a militia has a right to arms. They were talking about individual citizens.

    I suspect they put it in there because they didn't want a standing army or armaments industry to become so large it influences politics. I imagine they didn't want anything that remotely looked like a knight class granted special privileges from royalty. I suspect they would not approve of the size of our armaments industries or the use of paramilitary style policing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by andrewtroy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
    April 19 Patriot's Day.
    See an excellent article Here
    https://patriotpost.us/pages/320?mail...

    The article outlines the roots of the first American Revolution, and argues...
    ""What a glorious morning this is!" declared Samuel Adams to fellow Patriot John Hancock upon hearing those first shots of what would be an eight-year struggle for American independence. Notably, those shots were fired not in response to the British government’s oppressive taxation but rather its attempt to disarm the people."

    I also like this quote from the article, which I think demonstrates how history is repeating and that we face the same issues today that our founders faced then.

    "[In March of 1775] Dr. Joseph Warren delivered a fiery oration in Boston, warning of complacency and instilling courage among his fellow Patriots: "The man who meanly will submit to wear a shackle, contemns the noblest gift of heaven, and impiously affronts the God that made him free. ... Ease and prosperity (though pleasing for a day) have often sunk a people into effeminacy and sloth. ... Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.""
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 4 weeks ago
    Me dino again ponders why I got a 9mm carbine with two 30-ound clips that I named The Evil Hag very shortly after Candidate Cackles said, "My dream is open borders."
    Thought that witch was gonna win so what she said scared the hell outta me.
    Got two bandoliers that's now heavy for being completely filled with shotgun shells also.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=gadsd...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DanGriffing 1 month, 4 weeks ago
    The stated premise of the Second Amendment is “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. The factual validity of this premise deserves to be more carefully examined.

    During the late ninth century, the Anglo Saxon states used the fyrd, an early type of Anglo-Saxon army that was mobilised from freemen to defend their shire against the marauding attacks of the Danish Vikings. Whenever an attack occurred a shire would “raise the fyrd“, and appeal to other shires to do the same thing.
    This whole strategy of defense was totally ineffective, because the Vikings would have attacked, destroyed, and left before adequate forces were mobilized to repel them.

    Three of the four Saxon States were invaded and occupied by the Danes, and only Wessex remained Saxon before Alfred the Great was able to devise a defensive strategy that was more effective than “raising the fyrd”. Had Alfred not abandoned this strategy, there would have never been a country of England, and we would now be be speaking Danish instead.

    So the main “necessary” premise of the Second Amendment was disproven over 1000 years ago.

    I’m a gun owner, shooter, hunter, and I respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, but the factual basis for the premise of the Second Amendment has clearly been refuted by historical facts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 1 month, 4 weeks ago
      There is much to disagree with your post, but let's just say that William the Conqueror would likely have still invaded England in 1066, and English today would still be the same (English with a lot of Norman and some Latin (especially in scientific or technical English) thrown in). Also, if small arms are of no consequence in a foreign invasion, how come we haven't conquered Afghanistan yet?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo