PDA

View Full Version : Regulating the Militia


Libertarian71
12-28-2012, 2:09 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson?pg=1

Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions."

Liberals are forever asking: “Why would anybody need a gun like that?” And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.

katokahn99
12-28-2012, 2:33 AM
From Joshpe's article to which Williamson is responding:
"However, gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes. That was a weak argument before Sandy Hook. Now it is simply untenable."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Republicans-in-need-of-sensible-gun-laws-4147638.php#ixzz2GLDhphdp

In my opinion, this statement makes Joshpe a complete sell-out who obviously has either not studied the history of the 2A or has conveniently forgotten.

phrogg111
12-28-2012, 3:05 AM
A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Well-regulated means well-trained in old english.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This right exists because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. However, because it exists, and because it shall not be infringed, any reason to exercise this right is a valid one.

The right exists for justifiable homicide. All other reasons to use the right are secondary, and illegitimate - but acceptable, because the right exists, and shall not be infringed.

Militias don't really matter now that the right exists, and shall not be infringed.

speedrrracer
12-28-2012, 7:20 AM
They are NOT assault weapons. Do not even respond to someone using that verbiage -- you are playing by their rules.

NotEnufGarage
12-28-2012, 7:38 AM
They are NOT assault weapons. Do not even respond to someone using that verbiage -- you are playing by their rules.

This!!!

We need to start taking back the language on these issues.

A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault weapon. Assault weapon is a term made up by the anti's to make a normal, everyday item seem scarier.

When an immigrant from a communist country tries to impose bans similar to what exist in the country his parent took him from so he could live under freedom, that is not racist and we can't let them call us that.

Stop buying into their bastardization of our language.

El Toro
12-28-2012, 7:49 AM
According to the Constitution there are 17 enumerated powers of Congress. The 16th power is to organize and Arm the militias.

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;


In 1903, Congress made a law, the Militia Act, which split the definition into the "organized" and "un-organized" militias. Later in 1916, the organized Militia was federalized into our current National Guard. The Act of 1916, in effect put the National Guard directly under control of the army. The un-organized militia is defined as every able-bodied man between certain ages. The 14th amendment would probably correct that to include women and seniors.

Nowhere in either of these acts was Congress released from its obligation to organize and arm said militias. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not know of another act or law which changes the meaning of the original Constitutional power.

If the above is valid, then Congress should be arming both the organized and un-organized militias with military grade weapons. Something to think about.

dustoff31
12-28-2012, 8:09 AM
Nowhere in either of these acts was Congress released from its obligation to organize and arm said militias. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not know of another act or law which changes the meaning of the original Constitutional power.

If the above is valid, then Congress should be arming both the organized and un-organized militias with military grade weapons. Something to think about.

I won't say you are wrong per se, but it is clear by virtue of the fact that congress has not prescribed any standards or discipline for the unorganized militia, that their intent is for it to remain unorganized, untrained, and not particularly well armed.



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;

El Toro
12-28-2012, 8:36 AM
You missed the part "reserving to the states". This is to ensure "uniformity" in the training among the various states from which the militias belong.

But your point is understood. Congress has clearly neglected to exercise their power to ensure a "well regulated militia", at least the un-organized militia. I also dont expect my state representatives, and Governor to demand anytime soon, the arming of all eligible members with military grade weapons. But again, there is clearly a precedent for all eligible citizens to be armed so. This doesnt mean armories with rifles ready for distribution. It means more along the Swiss model or rather, the American Minuteman model.

So, I want my M4 ;)

Actually, Im more the M14 DMR type :hooray:

Mulay El Raisuli
12-28-2012, 8:42 AM
They are NOT assault weapons. Do not even respond to someone using that verbiage -- you are playing by their rules.


Agree completely. But, this is the term that the public sees & recognizes. Also, when I dispute the argument, its real helpful if I use the same term (so that he I argue with & those reading along know that I'm referring to the same thing).

Still, I'm not married to the term & would greatly prefer another. I've been using the term "assault rifle" (with quotes) but I'm not real happy about that either. Can you suggest a term that is just as "recognizable" but more accurate & just as easy to use?

The Raisuli

Mottmcfly
12-28-2012, 8:42 AM
Very well written.

thank you for sharing this.

CoastRyder
12-28-2012, 9:28 AM
Still, I'm not married to the term & would greatly prefer another. I've been using the term "assault rifle" (with quotes) but I'm not real happy about that either. Can you suggest a term that is just as "recognizable" but more accurate & just as easy to use?

The Raisuli

When I showed my AR to the kids, they said "Whoa Dad, you have a machine gun!" I said no, this is just a rifle. I explained the difference between the two. Now they correct their friends and family if they use the term machine gun or assault rifle. Most alll, privately owned AR or AK type weapons are just rifles, nothing more or less.

spamsucker
12-28-2012, 9:46 AM
Agree completely. But, this is the term that the public sees & recognizes. Also, when I dispute the argument, its real helpful if I use the same term (so that he I argue with & those reading along know that I'm referring to the same thing).

Still, I'm not married to the term & would greatly prefer another. I've been using the term "assault rifle" (with quotes) but I'm not real happy about that either. Can you suggest a term that is just as "recognizable" but more accurate & just as easy to use?

The Raisuli
Modern Sporting Rifle seems to be the PC synonym I see used most often. I don't particularly like it as it could equally well refer to a Remington 770 as an AR-15 or AK.

Evil Black Rifle is popular among us shooter types but probably won't help our case.

We could do well at making up a name. Might though probably be better to keep using AW to refer to AW's and when you hear someone use it wrong instantly correct them, refusing to resume discussion until that's done and make sure to use the phrase "buzzword for the ignorant and weak minded" in your refutation. People hate being told they're ignorant and hate being proven to be it even more. They're so keen to not be ignorant dolts that they'll quite willingly have to take a quick learning step which should start the ball rolling in their head about how silly and wasteful their previous statements on the matter were. If not, at least you got to show them that they are in fact ignorant simpletons who've taken a fashionable position based on buzzwords and hyperbole because they're otherwise too weak minded to analyze their own thoughts on the matter and draw opinions after having carefully done so.

Might also realize that this is nothing short of a religious debate and those never really end well for anyone involved.

jrwhitt
12-28-2012, 11:09 AM
The rifle I carried in the Army was referred to as the SLR - Self Loading Rifle (an L1A1 if anyone is curious). I think that term has its positives in todays PC environment

snobord99
12-28-2012, 11:23 AM
We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.

The problem with this is that only some of us feel this way. Others have no problem with, and often welcome, the notion of being ruled so long as the ruling class sufficiently makes them believe they are safe, no matter how unsafe they really are.

pbreed
12-28-2012, 11:25 AM
I saw this post on another blog and stole it verbatim.. I think its perfect...

You want reasonable gun laws? Here’s a reasonable gun law:
Congress exercises its Article I, section 8 power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia by instituting high school militia classes, patterned after Drivers’ Ed. It would be a regular elective in the Civics curriculum, not PE. It would cover history, law, first aid, fire suppression, search and rescue, light drill, and range time for pistol, shot gun, and AR-15 pattern rifle. Pass the course, keep the rifle and 1200 rounds ammo (One hundred rounds a month for a year’s practice). Annual training musters for four years, then once every five until you are 45.
Your militia ID, renewed at muster, serves as your concealed carry permit and your NICS clearance.
Use of your issue weapon, or any weapon purchased with your card, to commit a violent crime, earns you a place in front of a firing squad composed of your fellow militia members.
The idea is to make the militia as inclusive as possible, in keeping with the Second Amendment.

damoni
12-28-2012, 12:32 PM
If the term "assault weapon" is to be used, it should only be LOOSLY reserved for automatic weapons, in which SEMI-automatics are not! Pardon my lack of the quote,(I'm on my phone right now), so whoever stated that the term was coined by liberal politicians to frighten the American populace, was correct. (IMO)

Nick Justice
12-28-2012, 1:25 PM
It's so I can shoot back when the tyrants order their minions to shoot at me and my family.

I'll say it again: It is so I will be as well armed as any government footsoilder.

So I can have a fighting chance.

SKSer
12-28-2012, 2:04 PM
They are NOT assault weapons. Do not even respond to someone using that verbiage -- you are playing by their rules.

Eff this! Lets stop ***** footing around, let them call them assault rifles, hell im gonna start calling them assault rifles because by our GOD given right we are allowed to own them. Eff the government trying to meddle in our GOD given rights and acting like they are privilegedes. Instead of trying to ***** foot around the terminology we need to be pressing the truth that according to the constitution we are allowed to keep and bear small arms that are the equivalent of what our men in women in uniform are. So instead of trying to negotiate for our GOD given right with a bunch of infringing tyrants, we should be fighting for why we are not allowed what the constitution, which is above these people, guarantee's us.

calixt0
12-28-2012, 2:06 PM
I'm glad someone has finally hit this as a reason to Keep and bear arms. Often the answer is because we can. I like that we can but it doesn't do anything to explain why the provisions are there like this article does.

ipser
12-28-2012, 3:04 PM
Another great article from NR:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336573/laws-are-little-people-mark-steyn

Tarn_Helm
12-28-2012, 3:07 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson?pg=1

Thanks for posting.

+1.
:hurray:

Mulay El Raisuli
12-29-2012, 7:51 AM
Eff this! Lets stop ***** footing around, let them call them assault rifles, hell im gonna start calling them assault rifles because by our GOD given right we are allowed to own them. Eff the government trying to meddle in our GOD given rights and acting like they are privilegedes. Instead of trying to ***** foot around the terminology we need to be pressing the truth that according to the constitution we are allowed to keep and bear small arms that are the equivalent of what our men in women in uniform are. So instead of trying to negotiate for our GOD given right with a bunch of infringing tyrants, we should be fighting for why we are not allowed what the constitution, which is above these people, guarantee's us.


This IS good. I don't get surprised a lot here, but you have STUNNED me. Be cause I think you might be onto something.

Yes, the term "assault rifle" is inaccurate. So, what? "Gun" is inaccurate too (a gun is a crewed-served weapon). We don't let that stop us. Besides, the term is already out there. In VERY common use. Using the Heller standard (because I can) I think there's a much chance of eliminating the term as there is of eliminating pistols.

Given that, maybe we should embrace the term? So we can shove it down their throats?


The Raisuli

choprzrul
12-29-2012, 8:03 AM
I saw this post on another blog and stole it verbatim.. I think its perfect...

You want reasonable gun laws? Here’s a reasonable gun law:
Congress exercises its Article I, section 8 power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia by instituting high school militia classes, patterned after Drivers’ Ed. It would be a regular elective in the Civics curriculum, not PE. It would cover history, law, first aid, fire suppression, search and rescue, light drill, and range time for pistol, shot gun, and AR-15 pattern rifle. Pass the course, keep the rifle and 1200 rounds ammo (One hundred rounds a month for a year’s practice). Annual training musters for four years, then once every five until you are 45.
Your militia ID, renewed at muster, serves as your concealed carry permit and your NICS clearance.
Use of your issue weapon, or any weapon purchased with your card, to commit a violent crime, earns you a place in front of a firing squad composed of your fellow militia members.
The idea is to make the militia as inclusive as possible, in keeping with the Second Amendment.

^^ THIS ^^

Kinda like Switzerland and Israel.

We could stop being the world's policemen, have amazing self defense forces, reduce active military spending by 1/2, instill discipline in today's youth, instill a healthy respect for firearms, and ultimately fulfill congress's duties.

.

CitaDeL
12-29-2012, 8:12 AM
They are NOT assault weapons. Do not even respond to someone using that verbiage -- you are playing by their rules.

This!!!

We need to start taking back the language on these issues.

A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault weapon. Assault weapon is a term made up by the anti's to make a normal, everyday item seem scarier.

When an immigrant from a communist country tries to impose bans similar to what exist in the country his parent took him from so he could live under freedom, that is not racist and we can't let them call us that.

Stop buying into their bastardization of our language.

Agree completely. But, this is the term that the public sees & recognizes. Also, when I dispute the argument, its real helpful if I use the same term (so that he I argue with & those reading along know that I'm referring to the same thing).

Still, I'm not married to the term & would greatly prefer another. I've been using the term "assault rifle" (with quotes) but I'm not real happy about that either. Can you suggest a term that is just as "recognizable" but more accurate & just as easy to use?

The Raisuli

If the term "assault weapon" is to be used, it should only be LOOSLY reserved for automatic weapons, in which SEMI-automatics are not! Pardon my lack of the quote,(I'm on my phone right now), so whoever stated that the term was coined by liberal politicians to frighten the American populace, was correct. (IMO)

I think if we want to assert ourselves properly in respect to language and what terms you use to describe semi-automatic, self-loading, sporting, military or assault rifles--- is to dispose of all that terminology in favor of what the text refers to.

"Arms" are what the Constitution refers to, and likewise, we ought to be calling them that, and only that. We should be failing to discriminate between a revolver and a Squad Automatic Weapon with the intention to difuse this attempt to classify firearms into progressive specificity that makes some arms more (or less) acceptable to own and use. The reason why there is no difference between them is that they all can be used for the same purpose of defending a free state against tyranny.

choprzrul
12-29-2012, 8:16 AM
"Arms" are what the Constitution refers to, and likewise, we ought to be calling them that, and only that. We should be failing to discriminate between a revolver and a Squad Automatic Weapon with the intention to difuse this attempt to classify firearms into progressive specificity that makes some arms more (or less) acceptable to own and use. The reason why there is no difference between them is that they all can be used for the same purpose of defending a free state against tyranny.


^^ THIS ^^

Simple, elegant, and to the point. Why didn't I think of this before. EVERYTHING should be referred to as 'Arms' because they ARE arms.

Excellent work Citadel.

.