Joining a Militia?

There is something that changes it. But you just... clipped it out.

ALL the people have a right to fight in defense of the country as part of a well regulated militia. You do not "bear arms" against a rabbit, you know. You bear arms against an enemy.

But you just can't "clip out" the fact that the militia will be "well regulated"

 

I'm not sure but I believe the answers to some of those questions are in the video included in the OP..

That has nothing to do with what I'm debating, though

 

Sure it does. You're debating that the militia needs to be better regulated, are you not?

And yet, you don't know how the militia should be regulated differently...

That's relevent.

 

No.

 

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

• 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
• 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
• 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
• 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
• 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
• 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

One question that occurs to me is why any right-winger would see the necessity of joining a militia. We are very soon about to have a President, who while he is rather clearly guilty of cheating on the last election and attempting to cheat on this one, will almost certainly get off scot-free and very possibly win the election a year from now. Just what do the conservatives WANT anyway that they see the need of forming incipient violent revolutionary cadres? Are they frustrated that we even HAVE elections or what? Are they going to go door to door and kill anyone who ISN"T armed and wearing a KAG hat in the shower?

 

I have no idea what your point is. Of course the term "well-regulated was common before 1789. Otherwise they wouldn't have used it in the 2nd A. And yes... it means "in good working order". It's exactly what I've been saying.

Read!

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/joining-a-militia.566186/#post-1071294688

Now, the second part of your post. The part about the government... where would I even start with such hodge-podge of nonsense.?

Start with this

"The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...."
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16
​

Militias are trained and disciplined by the States. In other words: regulated (which means: be in good working order). So once those militias are "well regulated" they can be used by the United States in case it's necessary in a military conflict.

Bottom line: the 2nd A is meant to protect the militia. Not the people. And to do so it ensures the right of the people to form part of a militia and bear arms for the purpose of becoming a well-regulated militia that can fight in military conflicts.

 

Yes, in good working order.

Not government regulated or government controlled.

 

Then the purpose of pointing out:

was what, if not to suggest the militia is not now well enough regulated?

 

Militias are not 'incipient violent revolutionary cadres.' A few probably are, but the bulk are just folks who don't think the govt will always have everything under control.

Look in to the Civil Defense program under JFK for a glimpse into what the militia should be (what most militias aspire to).

 

iirc when Hillary was promulgating her anti-gun campaign within the 1992 campaign militias were forming up and training all over the country with multiple militias forming in many states. After Waco, Baaaam!

If the governor of Virginia goes helter skelter imo this will recur by a huge increased order of magnitude. But while the country is going along normally few are interested in making such a sacrifice. People are for the most part just watching carefully at present, not wanting the rigors of soldiering if possible.

 

And not having the time and disposable income to play soldier

Oh, and I just LOVE how a major hero of the far right is a modern-day Rasputin who had a harem of underage girls he was raping on a regular basis. Want to **** illegal nymphets in America? Just shout Jesus, JESUS, JESUS and all will be delivered unto you

 

I am guilty of having never "joined" a militia. However, if sh&^ ever goes down.......I just hope they'll have me like thousands of others!

 

Civil Defense stockpiled food and medicines for all sorts of disasters. They had arms, some even trained but it was nothing like the PTRS-41's that lots of militias have nowadays or the plans for overthrowing the government that constantly occupy the thoughts of some. It was really boring, a thankless job nobody took all that seriously

I suppose anything that keeps a bunch of crazy old coots occupied is okay. OTOH a bunch of heavily armed political extremists off practicing military exercises in the woods USED to be cause for some concern. America is sure changing

 

Are you not reading? Definitely government regulated and government controlled. Mostly by the state governments, but also by the federal government.

 

To point out that our founding fathers differentiated the two.

 

No, not government regulated and not government controlled.

 

The Founders recognized that government was at best a necessary evil to be carefully checked and balanced.
The militia was intended, among other things, to be the ultimate check on a dangerous bad government.

 

Is this just more fallout from the fact that Republicans have lost power in Virginia. Oh boo hoo.

 

I used to live in the Colorado Rockies. There were plenty of militia groups, although I'm sure there are more elsewhere. Mostly they came off as being not too bright. A bunch of middle aged men full of conspiracy theories. Take their guns away and they don't have anything going for them.

 

COTUS begs to differ.

 

I'm guessing a armed 'militia' going against government would be a home terrorist group? The days are long gone when your constitution was written and times have changed vastly... what where once your civil SERVANTS - now have become your masters and any armed uprising would probably end in tears

 

Of course it is. It is impossible to get the large cities near border of DC that contain the slime that are the swamp dwellers to ever vote republican. I find it very interesting that 85 or the 95 counties in VA have sheriffs that told the governor to stick it where the sun don't shine.
Hence we have the Electoral College to mitigate the ability of a few large population cities being able to legislate as they see fit with no regard for the rest of the country. My best example and your worst nightmare. I probably should point out VA for you but I won't.

 

It is not best to parade any particular militia or one's participation therein. Assume that everything we write here will be read by everyone every where.

 

Take away the federal agents and informers and the militia movement might fit in a Mini.

"FBI informers in the Socialist Workers party managed not only to infiltrate the tiny organization but in many instances to achieve high positions. So much so that in 1975 when a federal district court judge ordered the FBI to keep its informers away from the national convention of the SWP, the government appealed the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. The FBI explained that its informants were such senior officials that if they did not attend the convention their identities would immediately become obvious."
THE LAWLESS STATE, The crimes of the U.S. Inteligence Agencies, by Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, Christine Marwick, Penguin Books, 1976.
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/Lawless_State.html