Want opinions here...

[Pancho Villa]

I had a thought the other day that I wanted to share and get some feedback from the fine folks here.

As some of you may know I am a big student of history, particularly the history of people who fought for human liberty. And, being here, I am an active shooter and lover of firearms. So I was looking into the 2nd Amendment in the context of the revolutionary war:

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.

Now it is clear to anyone with half a brain that this clearly protects "the people" (you and me) from laws restricting their access to arms and their ability to bear them. The right to keep arms is what the NRA (in their flawed way, I understand; please don't turn this into an anti-NRA thread) and other organizations fight for every day; but whats with "bearing" arms? And why is that seemingly never discussed?

To bear arms is actually to wage war; one bears arms in service to a cause or country. In the revolutionary war the colonists' personal arms quite literally saved the day; it kept the British hemmed up in Boston and the amatuer citizen-soldiers carried themselves quite well in the face of the best trained professional army of the day, until Washington could gather around him enough trained continentals to engage and soundly defeat the British.

The mechanism by which this was accomplished were the militias.
Nominally, militias were under state control; the state governer or legislatures (depending on the circumstances and state) would be the only ones who could "call out" the militia. This was only nominally the reality, however. A fuller picture is given by the realization that militias were locally controlled. Organized locally, officered locally, the militias would call themselves out if danger appeared nearby and combat it. They trained on their own time, with their own weapons. They were most definitely not professionals but in numbers and roughly organized into local companies they could hold their own and even drive back a better trained, experienced force. This is what happened at Lexington and Concord when the British were forced into a bloody retreat by forests "teeming" with rebels. These militias were not called out by the governer or legislature but came of their own initiative to defend their homes and freedom. They were truly local entities and not controlled by the states in any serious manner (the penalty for not coming out to militia service when the governer/legslature called it out was something akin to a traffic citation today; a small fee, no jail time and no real blemish on one's record.)

Here's the rub: "to keep and bear arms." The italisized part gets no attention. Why? I think that personal protection, hunting and sports are all well and good effects of the 2nd amendment, but it says right there that "a well regulated (drilled & trained) militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." as the explanatory clause. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure no government tried to break up the militias. Our rights to defend ourselves and keep arms for other purposes is, of course, a wonderful consequence of this. But it is my impression that the Founders rightfully envisioned that differentiating overmuch between "the army" and "the people" was harmful to both domestic security and prudent war policy.

What do people here think? All of you are gun owners and lovers of the 2nd Amendment. Do you think that militias - in the sense of locally controlled, volunteer groups whose purpose is to help keep the peace (quell riots or help with other local disturbances / disasters) and defend their community from outside invasion (by tyrant or foreign enemy) - have any role or use at all in the modern context? Or are they made obsolete by extensive police / national guard / professional military men?

[Irving]

Kind of hard to justify an active militia for every day things with the amount of money and politics involved in local police forces today.

Let's use the shooting in Thornton the other day. A TON of police (including SWAT) showed up to look for the guy. What role would the militia play in that scenario?

It seems like the militia might take more of a public service position instead of public defense. Perhaps working traffic at broken lights and stuff. Also, we have to consider just how litigious this society has become. People seem to be more interested in who they can sue than who is willing to save them.

[Bailey Guns]

It's my understanding...and this is a Reader's Digest version...that in the context of the times this amendment was written that to "keep" arms meant to own them and to "bear" arms meant to actually carry them with you as you went about your daily business.

I'd have to reread it, but I think the Scalia's Heller opinion stated something to that effect as well.

I need to think a little about this before I answer the other questions you pose.

[cebeu]

"...we have to consider just how litigious this society has become.

I'll parrot Stuart's legal reference as that was the first thing that came to my mind.

Generally obsolete but, I support their right to exist in any community at anytime as clearly defined by the 2nd, operating under the boundaries of modern law of course. Unfortunately the litigious dynamic we all flounder within today in the US will often wreak havoc on those that elect to exercise such "local right.” I support the literal; “The right to keep and bear arms is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both.”

If I decide to fire-up the "Conifer Mountain Militia" tomorrow I expect I and my neighbors to be afforded our right to do so. Of course, by Monday I would expect to see the “Anti-Conifer Mountain Militia Movement” to be in full-swing with the full-backing of the National Democratic [Socialist] Party, Colorado Bisexual/Transsexual/Gay Rights Association, The Colorado Effeminate Male Club, The Colorado Bar Association, The Colorado Department of Justice, Jefferson County Sherriff Department, and the ACLU, all sittin’ next to the CNN van broadcasting from my driveway. By next Friday I expect I would be facing a court date, have mounting Legal fees exceeding 7 figures and to be listed on 'Skunk' Napolitano’s national and international risk lists (“After all, that guy is a veteran you know!”).

For the record, there is no Conifer Mountain Militia but I would discourage visitors from “the hood” or a gaggle of angry Muslims coming-up en masse with bad intentions, might find some uncoordinated horsepower up here! J

[Pancho Villa]

Stuart - your comments are thoughtful and welcome. Thanks.

Question: do we want a society where we have to pay for all those cops? Or is it more cost effective to keep a smaller police force with a volunteer militia to keep the costs of enforcement down? Even fairly untrained militiamen could be useful in something as simple as cordoning an area off. Not suggest that the Bubba-Gump SWAT team take the lead but that citizen activism of that type could save everyone's pocket books for the cost of a couple hours' time once in a while. Same thing with the DNC (I worked across the street from the mint at the time and had a front row seat to that whackiness) or other times when undesireables come to down

As far as litigation goes...I've actually been emailing a few guys who have been in militias in the past and that has been a major concern and mostly why they have been "by invite only," small and basically ineffective. But there is The Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia, aka the Michigan Militia, that has been active for a decade and a half or thereabouts without a bunch of litigation being brought against them. So I think that concern, while valid (don't go denouncing Islam as a satanic religion, be a little PC if you can, etc,) is not as major as you make it out to be.

Bailey - Thanks for commenting I am glad I can post on such an "extremist" topic here and not be flatly denounced as a lunatic. I look forward to your thoughts. I was always under the impression that to "bear arms" was to bear arms in a (in this context, volunteer) militia group - as in at war. But if you can find something that contradicts that it would certainly be interesting.

cebeu - see my comment above about lawsuits & etc.

Thanks for the replies guys, I really do appreciate it.

[earplug]

We have guns to keep our local and federal officials from taking our liberty and Justice away.
When the National Guard is federalized and the police follows the rules of the federal government instead of the local government, we have a means for setting things right.

[Irving]

In order to be effective, it would take full time organization, and emergencies often happen during business hours. I wouldn't mind running a broken light, but not if I'm going to risk losing my job to do so. Fortunately I don't have a job like that, but I used to and 95% of the population does.

I think the main issue has to do with the ever increasing specialization of society. People during that time used to be more of a jack-of-all-trades type and production levels were much smaller than they are today. If I were a retired millionaire, then I'd be all over a militia, but I have to go to work and do all those other things that come with a society dependent on specialization. Ever increasing specialization includes specializing the military.

[Pancho Villa]

You should basically consider it having a semicolon, as the original works edits and considerations of the creation of the constitution had them as separate "ideas". The preface of the sentence is not in fact a preface nor explanatory in it's nature, it's a separate idea completely.

The second amendment provides for two absolute rights that cannot be infringed:

The right to have and participate in a well regulated militia
(though some framers have stated in times of peace, militias should not be necessary)
AND the right to keep and bear arms.
RKBA has nothing to do with the first idea, though the first idea certainly depends on the second, as you cannot have a militia without ARMS.

This is the best readers digest version (to steal that phrase from Bailey Guns) I can give you without boring, and having to pull a bunch of links.

It should be interpreted written like this, as it's the original intention:


For some reason they thought being terse and keeping it as short as possible would make sure that "infringement" would never be a problem. Wish they had better foresight.

Interesting; I did not know that. Thanks!

Any thoughts / your personal opinions on the other questions in the OP and my subsequent reply?

Edit to add:

I think the main issue has to do with the ever increasing specialization of society. People during that time used to be more of a jack-of-all-trades type and production levels were much smaller than they are today. If I were a retired millionaire, then I'd be all over a militia, but I have to go to work and do all those other things that come with a society dependent on specialization. Ever increasing specialization includes specializing the military.

People were still fairly specialized at the time of the founding, I think. Isn't it more of an issue of available time and the leniency of bosses in giving their guys time to go ahead and help out when/if needed. I don't think this is as big an issue as you seem to think it is, either; I have been in many jobs, including management, and in none of them would taking an afternoon off have killed me.

There's also the added tax savings (assuming our Glorious Leaders don't just come up with another program to spend our money) that means you'll get a net-gain in money (ideally) if thats done. So long as its done under official auspices I don't think employers would think it was a big deal; they still hire people in the National Guard after all.

[hip55]

It has been my understanding that the 2nd amendment was created to protect the 1st amendment.

[iamhunter]

Although I respect your opinions, it takes alot more to understand the intent of the second amendment than a mere reading and analysis of the reading words.

If you look at it in a historical context, in the time it was written it was understood that the "militia" was in fact any man of age capable of serving in a military capacity.

The founding father's had no idea there would be a time when we had a standing police force and military. In fact, they were deathly afraid of forces like that and considered them, at large, to be a massive threat to liberty. The people, you, me, and everyone around us, were originally intended to be the one and only force that protected this nation.

Take a few quotes from some of our nations most prominent historical figures

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun" - Patrick Henry

You can see here it was understood that ANYone physically capable was considered part of the "militia". In fact the world "regulate" had a very different meaning When the constitution was written. It meant "to make regular". In other words, they intended all of us to ALWAYS BE "the militia". Many of the founding father's considered a large standing army a huge danger to liberty, and I still doubt that we were every intended to keep one except for in times of war. In essence, we still are today, the "militia" it is just no longer recognized. Here are some more quotes:

"As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." - James Madison

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped"

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry

And to close, a few quotes from my favorite of our fathers, Thomas jefferson.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

So as you can see now. We all were intended to be the militia, the defendants of our freedom and our nation. If a politician was doing a bad job in the 1700s-1800s people would storm their offices and literally drag them out. We've fallen away from that mentality, and our country suffers from it.

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason