2A question

[x11]

"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."

It is generally agreed that one of the purposes of a state run "Militia" is to defend against a tyrannical federal government, for example the beginnings of the revolution that bore our country.

When a leader unilaterally deploys federal military against american citizens, that sounds something like tyranny. Regardless of your taste for Trump's or anyone else's cool-aid. does this not raise your 2A alarm bells? It does mine and I've been surprised that this hasn't been discussed. Maybe I missed it.

[bellavite1]

In before the lock...[Pop]

[UncleDave]

A provacatour or a troll?

[x11]

Not a troll, an honest question. Hoping for some thoughtful answers. But you don't have to answer if it makes you uncomfortable.

[TFOGGER]

Been here since 2012, 9 posts. Hard to gauge, but I'm leaning towards troll...

[x11]

Been here since 2012, 9 posts. Hard to gauge, but I'm leaning towards troll...

I see your point, which is why I started this thread.

[buffalobo]

"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."

It is generally agreed that one of the purposes of a state run "Militia" is to defend against a tyrannical federal government, for example the beginnings of the revolution that bore our country.

When a leader unilaterally deploys federal military against american citizens, that sounds something like tyranny. Regardless of your taste for Trump's or anyone else's cool-aid. does this not raise your 2A alarm bells? It does mine and I've been surprised that this hasn't been discussed. Maybe I missed it.What are the circumstances of your scenario? What reason for calling in military?

I don't want military operating on the streets in CONUS but have no issue with NG being called in to stop rioting/looting/property destruction.

[JohnnyEgo]

The last time I saw a stat on gun ownership I felt reasonably comfortable with, it pegged it around 160 million gun owners. Based on what I have seen of late, and the number of my left-leaning friends, associates, and/or coworkers who have a sudden interest in owning a gun, I'd hazard to say that number has increased substantially. But if it is in the neighborhood of accuracy, then I imagine there are roughly 160 million philosophies regarding how 2A should apply. Some will inevitably overlap on a lot of points. Some probably haven't had much thought put behind all the fine details. And that is life; full of nuance, experience, and subjective judgment.

I would also observe that people tend to love a particular philosophy until the negative consequences of it are applied to them. And that appears to be consistent regardless of political affiliation. I know plenty of folks on the left-leaning side who thought 'state's rights' was short-hand for 'racist', and favored a strong federal government and sanctioned use of force in state affairs all through the Obama administration. But their opinions changed awfully quickly with a change of administration. Same thing happens on the right all the time.

But since you seem to be soliciting personal opinions, my 1:160+ million opinion is that I do not care for the militarization of civilian law enforcement and I am a fan of Posse Comitatus, but like buffalobo, I do not object to the National Guard being used (at the state level and within reason) to assist in civil emergencies, to include civil unrest.

[x11]

What are the circumstances of your scenario? What reason for calling in military?

I don't want military operating on the streets in CONUS but have no issue with NG being called in to stop rioting/looting/property destruction.

NG are summoned/invited by the local government and operate under the local/state's authority, and are not sent by the federal government. In fact, that sounds as close to a version of a state militia as anything else.

I'm not asking about a scenario; this actually happened in portland. Rioting/looting/property destruction were definitely happening, and is happening again currently. And the local government has called in the NG to help, again. But there were federal forces that were not NG, and not invited, sent to portland this summer, right? That was non-NG federal military operating on the streets in CONUS? The media reported armed unmarked/unidentified feds in unmarked vehicles "arresting" and questioning citizens for undisclosed reasons. Was the reporting accurate? I don't know, but sure as hell my personal alarm bell went off and I have been wondering what the 2A centric community thinks about this.

[buffalobo]

Are you sure it was military or alphabet agency?

[hollohas]

It's wasn't military. The feds in Portland are US Marshalls mostly and other Fed LEO agencies like DHS, CBP, FBI, Etc. They were not and are not military personnel.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201105/73b4a090f831d04e1e89c1369c861583.jpg

[Irving]

I don't even like mailmen out on my streets.

[WETWRKS]

First...you are assigning the idea of "state run or controlled" to the term militia. The definition of militia as used in another document of that same era basically defined militia to be any able bodied male between the ages of x and y. There is nothing in the definition stating that they are under the control of a higher power nor does it require any level of training. The term well regulated can mean organized...but that doesn't require that the militia be under the control of the government...local, state, federal, or otherwise.

[Rucker61]

"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."

It is generally agreed that one of the purposes of a state run "Militia" is to defend against a tyrannical federal government, for example the beginnings of the revolution that bore our country.

When a leader unilaterally deploys federal military against american citizens, that sounds something like tyranny. Regardless of your taste for Trump's or anyone else's cool-aid. does this not raise your 2A alarm bells? It does mine and I've been surprised that this hasn't been discussed. Maybe I missed it.

Federal law enforcement were deployed, and if the governors oppose that and want to use the state militia to do so, then the governors should muster the state militia.

No one here is a state governor.

[x11]

First...you are assigning the idea of "state run or controlled" to the term militia. The definition of militia as used in another document of that same era basically defined militia to be any able bodied male between the ages of x and y. There is nothing in the definition stating that they are under the control of a higher power nor does it require any level of training. The term well regulated can mean organized...but that doesn't require that the militia be under the control of the government...local, state, federal, or otherwise.

States using Militias to object to federal tyranny is not my idea. This is James Madison's idea, per The Federalist, No 46. As I understand, they modeled 2A around the mechanics of how it worked around 1775. The NG being a version of a modern state militia is not my idea either.

Which document do you refer to?

Sure, I appreciate that a militia can be a bunch of pitchfork armed farmers or a bunch of AR armed tacticools, but if a militia is unaffiliated with and unsanctioned by any form of government whatsoever, then it might be tough persuading the local community that you really represent them and don't have a much smaller interest.

[x11]

It's wasn't military. The feds in Portland are US Marshalls mostly and other Fed LEO agencies like DHS, CBP, FBI, Etc. They were not and are not military personnel.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201105/73b4a090f831d04e1e89c1369c861583.jpg

Excellent point. There is a distinction between military and federal law enforcement agencies. That does address the Posse Comitatus Act. All good, case closed?

[lpgasman]

I don't even like mailmen out on my streets.
That's sexist, there are mail women too![Flower]

[Aloha_Shooter]

The federal LEOs deployed in Seattle previously were specifically assigned to protect federal buildings. They announced that and in fact kept to that. I don't have a problem with that mission. I haven't seen what was announced for Portland recently but again don't have any issue if it was similar -- just to protect federal buildings and structures (including statues and memorials).

The governor can of course activate the National Guard in his/her state for other assigned missions, whether it's helping out with emergency management, search and rescue, or protecting kids going to school.

Equating the "militia" in the 2A to the National Guard is a false and fairly recent (1930s) predicate. The point of the well-armed militia (common people) is that they ARE the local community. As such, being well-armed places them in the position of being able to resist that government overreach.

[CS1983]

Re: Well-Regulated

from a now removed page (found it via webarchive)



The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

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.

[MrPrena]

That's sexist, there are mail women too![Flower]

His/Her mailcarrier who deliver it to his/her house could be a male. :)

[Great-Kazoo]

That's sexist, there are mail women too![Flower]

There are. But them trying to decide which bathroom to use, at the bar, gives them away.

[brutal]

The federal LEOs deployed in Seattle previously were specifically assigned to protect federal buildings. They announced that and in fact kept to that. I don't have a problem with that mission. I haven't seen what was announced for Portland recently but again don't have any issue if it was similar -- just to protect federal buildings and structures (including statues and memorials).

The governor can of course activate the National Guard in his/her state for other assigned missions, whether it's helping out with emergency management, search and rescue, or protecting kids going to school.

Equating the "militia" in the 2A to the National Guard is a false and fairly recent (1930s) predicate. The point of the well-armed militia (common people) is that they ARE the local community. As such, being well-armed places them in the position of being able to resist that government overreach.

Exactly. I'm glad someone finally pointed this out. I held my comment until reading the whole thread.

[flogger]

Good thread! Keep it going.

[lpgasman]

There are. But them trying to decide which bathroom to use, at the bar, gives them away.

Ah yes, that third gender.

[Martinjmpr]

[FONT=Lato, Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=#333333]When a leader unilaterally deploys federal military against american citizens, that sounds something like tyranny.

You mean like in 1794 When Washington led troops against the Whiskey Rebellion?

[BladesNBarrels]

You mean like in 1794 When Washington led troops against the Whiskey Rebellion?

Only Commander in Chief to put his uniform on and lead the troops.
But, it did cause the Bourbon industry to move to Kentucky to avoid them blankin' taxes.

[x11]

You mean like in 1794 When Washington led troops against the Whiskey Rebellion?

Pretty fascinating example. My next question was how and who defines what a militia is? which seems to be mostly kinda answered by the Militia Acts spawning from and since the Whiskey Rebellion.

Thank you all for the references and food for thought.

[BushMasterBoy]

Link below says what is lawful. Not sure it covers every situation, but it gives a general picture.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/09/Colorado.pdf