Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If we in the shooting community do get together like say the Kiwanis and truly do start what the liberal definition of a "well regulated militia", would we not be instantly put on a terror watch list. Would the leftist not perceive us as a threat and we not be lumped into the same group as ISIS or other definite threats to soft targets in the US and around the world.
Would our training and movements not be monitored and our groups infiltrated by agents bent on entrapping any portion of the group into a compromising position. This word, militia is a ****ed if you do and dammed if you don't.
As for the actual definition of militia at the writing of the Bill of Rights, were any man of fighting age who had sufficient arms, powder, shot and provisions for a undefined period of time to keep their community or our nation secure. The writers knew who militia was, they were the shopkeepers, blacksmiths, tradesmen, farmers and basically anyone who had the ability to take up arms in defense of their new born country. They knew these people and who they were because they stood shoulder to shoulder with them. They watch them fight and they watch them die to make our country free.
Now we have a divided camp even among gun owners who have views skewed to the point that my bolt action deer rifle or my pump shot gun is what this amendment is about and those people who chose to use what the media loves to term "assault rifles" as something that shouldn't be protected under this amendment. When in truth it is exactly what this amendment was written about. Every day citizens armed with a near parity of the enemies to the general population and who they may face.
In the fight for independence our militias were armed with what they had. Some with the family long rifle, some from the arsenals of the wealthy who could afford to fund what they could. If they were lucky they got the "assault weapon" of the day, a Brown Bess. Capable of 3 shots per minute in skilled hands.
If it weren't for these militias keeping the British too busy chasing them all over the Carolinas Washington's regulars wouldn't have stood a chance. So we owe our freedom so much to these regular people they were enumerated as the second most important right that is part of the rights so important it states plainly "shall not be infringed". Yet we allow this amendment to be raped in ways that any of the other of the first 10 would have leftist screaming from the hill tops, FASCIST! Yet the same group who will defend Islam terror as just the acts of a few individuals. We let ourselves be lumped together as a bunch of lunatics, with the blood lust of a great white shark feeding on a hapless seal.
We must stand together folks or we will all be kneeling under the boot heel of a despot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Near as I can tell from my reading, the founders intended 'well regulated militias' to be under the ultimate control of the states, and that was the significance of 'regulated'. That was because the founders were representatives of the various states - and the states were leery of giving the to-be-formed federal government too much strength. Federal troops were envisioned as coalitioned from state militias in time of war. It really has no direct relationship to the citizens' right to keep and bear arms. The founders had a bunch of 'interests' they needed to satisfy in order to get our Constitution accepted. Personally, I think they did a fine job.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
37,578 Posts
Near as I can tell from my reading, the founders intended 'well regulated militias' to be under the ultimate control of the states, and that was the significance of 'regulated'. That was because the founders were representatives of the various states - and the states were leery of giving the to-be-formed federal government too much strength. Federal troops were envisioned as coalitioned from state militias in time of war. It really has no direct relationship to the citizens' right to keep and bear arms. The founders had a bunch of 'interests' they needed to satisfy in order to get our Constitution accepted. Personally, I think they did a fine job.
Considering the "minutemen" brought their OWN guns - I think the 2A did, in fact, refer to privately owned weapons.

Otherwise there simply would not have been a revolutionary war. No privately owned firearms = no revolutionary war = no U.S. of A.

Q.E.D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
DITTO Mike G!

I'm just confounded how eloquent posters, who appear educated, are completely uninformed about the historical context of the words "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."

I grew up in one of the original 13 colonies and ignorantly, I failed to bring my long gun to church services every Sunday as required by old blue laws. Citizens of Rhode Island and Massachusetts were required to own, maintain and muster with weapons. It wasn't optional for male citizens above age 12.

Even while a young volunteer in the militia (National Guard), I failed to do so. I didn't know about the law.

How can Americans be so **** ignorant of our history......we're still a young nation!

During America's Colonial period, specifically during our revolution, the "Militia", eventually expanding and forming the Continental Army and more formal local militias, consisted of approximately 3% of our population, including soldiers + active covert supporters + spies/operatives. Yes, only 3% of our citizens had the courage and many couldn't do it full-time because they were self-employed (farmers, lumberjacks, trappers, merchants, etc)

The Militia recruited volunteers from the "people", the citizenry of the colony. Most of the citizenry had their own weapons and were expected to have and bring their own weapons in a "come-as-you-are" revolution against the baddest army with mercenaries on the planet. The Militia encountered endless problems supplying the citizen soldiers with sufficient initial weapons and replacement weapons. Manufacturing in the colonies had been outlawed by King George III, so we didn't just crank up the blacksmith and machine shops to increase production. Citizens discharged from the Militia or on leave, left and returned with their weapons.

All of our Founding Fathers concluded that "citizens" needed to own arms and store ammunition to maintain their freedom against both future foreign invasion and internal, homegrown tyranny from future elected officials. Pragmatically, the fledgling United States of America couldn't afford to pay or supply an army, so Washington knew he would have to rely on the state and local militias with armed citizens while a skeleton Continental Army was on life-support.

Knowing the history, how can one question the phrases? Reading the correspondence of the Founding Fathers to their families and business associates makes clear their intentions were to have all male citizens armed whether they volunteered for their local militia or not, is clear and unambiguous.

While I rant, I realize that posters questioning these fundamental words are Internet Trolls, Lawyers with an Agenda, Political Activists, and/or simply lack the intellectual capability and curiosity to self-educate.

I also realize these folks have no foresight or ability to envision the consequences of uninformed citizens, the sheep, subjugated by their own elected officials, but unable to return to the balance of "by the people, for the people" because they have self-disarmed. I presume ignorance is bliss!

I also perceive these are the same folks, I repeatedly explain the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act tenets to and the abilities enabled by it's 2011 repeal by the Obama administration.

Perhaps I should just chill out and quote Forest Gump's mother, played by Sally Field, "You know Forest, stupid is as stupid does."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Near as I can tell from my reading, the founders intended 'well regulated militias' to be under the ultimate control of the states, and that was the significance of 'regulated'. That was because the founders were representatives of the various states - and the states were leery of giving the to-be-formed federal government too much strength. Federal troops were envisioned as coalitioned from state militias in time of war. It really has no direct relationship to the citizens' right to keep and bear arms. The founders had a bunch of 'interests' they needed to satisfy in order to get our Constitution accepted. Personally, I think they did a fine job.
There were no significant state militias at that time either. Most ere local. Every settlement, town, community or neighborhood had it's own "militia". You simply didn't have time to muster a statewide group of soldiers when a settlement got raided. Today we often say, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Local militias played a huge role in settlements that were ouside of the recognized states. Back then they would have said "when hours count, the state's militia is only days or weeks away. The Revolution was fought with a conglommeration of dozens of local militias, not 13 state militais.

"Well regulated" simply meant the people wouldn't be trying to figure out how to use arms passed out hours before the British were marching into town.

Another interesting tidbit that gets left out of the "assault weapons" debate is that the individuals who made up local militias were much better armed than the soldiers of that time who were shooting smoothbore muskets that were fired from teh front line all at once, in hopes of accidentally hitting something. A far cry from Daniel Boone's squirrel rifle.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
37,578 Posts
Javelineer2 and Tim,

I think it just boils down to people being ignorant of U.S. history. Probably washed all that out of the school curriculum where they attended? Just a guess.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16 Posts
Anyone who thinks a large privately organized "militia" is somehow going to protect out 2A and save or RTKBA is obviously not thinking things through clearly.

Despite some here who love to label anyone with differing opinions a "troll" and an "anti-gun infiltrator", I'm simply a fellow gun enthusiast with some views I'd like you all to consider... and I'm not trying to 'kill' the 2A, I'm trying to SAVE it.

Speaking as one, I can assure you that all Democrats and liberals are NOT trying to 'grab our guns', they just want to see some common sense coming from gun owners, instead of all the NO COMPROMISE hysteria. Every time one of these liberal-hating hard liners calls Democrats or liberals vulgar names, he is turning people against us... making enemies of people who may otherwise be more sympathetic to our 2A concerns.

Every time that clown Ted Nugent (who is a VN draft-dodger, look it up) opens his big mouth calling our president a 'mongrel' and spouting racist vitriol and hatred for all Democrats, he is turning more people against us, people who might otherwise be on our side. Most people who aren't gun enthusiasts but have no problem with gun ownership, they think Nugent is a spokesman for all gun owners, and we all must think like him. He is certainly not MY spokesman, he is an embarrassment to our cause.

Every time Charleton Heston got up and spouted that "pry it from my cold dead fingers" crap, it scared people. Every time that maniac Wayne LaPierre, current president of the NRA, spews his "no compromise, we need MORE guns!" rhetoric , it scares people. People who might otherwise be more open to our cause.

And every time some group of 'cowboys' take over a nature preserve armed with Ar15s and declaring they are prepare to use deadly force "if necessary", it frightens people. It pisses people off. And turns more folks against us. These Rambo wannabes aren't heroes, many see then as criminals and traitors to our country.

So why would anyone be foolish enough to think that a nationally organized group of activists, armed to the teeth and training for what most will see as a bloody & violent revolt, do anything but turn the entire country against all of us gun owners?

Yes, there is a growing anti-gun sentiment in this country, but it's not because "all liberals want to grab our guns!'. It is because the extremist hardliners amongst us are scaring the crap out of everyone, creating angry anti-gun sentiment from those who may have been our allies otherwise. If it continues, we are doomed.

Are you getting this?

If you truly want to save our 2A & RTKBA then let's start by knocking off all the ignorant hate and fear mongering and come to the table for some honest discussion, instead of labeling anyone who dares to suggest anything resembling compromise as a troll and trying to run them off. That's not healthy debate, that's just close-minded fear, IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelcj

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,834 Posts
It is OUR job to protect the 2nd Amendment. Where did someone mention it was theirs (a militia)?

You may be a gun enthusiast (or not) Boogyman, but if you are you are surely supporting the degradation of the 2nd Amendment. All that wasted verbiage in your post only to summarize by saying "Shut up and listen to me. Talking is how things are accomplished." I hear you loud and clear.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,143 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
16 Posts
It is OUR job to protect the 2nd Amendment. Where did someone mention it was theirs (a militia)?

You may be a gun enthusiast (or not) Boogyman, but if you are you are surely supporting the degradation of the 2nd Amendment. All that wasted verbiage in your post only to summarize by saying "Shut up and listen to me. Talking is how things are accomplished." I hear you loud and clear.
So how do you think "things are accomplished"... by shooting people?

Do you realize what just a single weapons squad with air support can do to a bunch of guys holed up in a stick-framed building with their little AR15s? What are you going to do against tanks, attack aircraft, drones, mortars, RPGs, SAWs and Ma Duce?

Let me guess... you think all private citizens should be allowed the same weapons and armament as our military forces, right? Good luck with that. :rolleyes: This isn't the 1700s when it was muskets and blackpowder cannons. This is the 21st century with 21st century weaponry. Catch up. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
I'm not willing to give up any freedom the 2nd amendment guarantees. What are you willing to give up guys?

The people your trying to please don't think you have rights to begin with in regards to guns. They will take your 2nd amendment, cut it to pieces, and hand you back a shadow and shavings of what you once had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StretchNM and JBelk

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
So how do you think "things are accomplished"... by shooting people?

Do you realize what just a single weapons squad with air support can do to a bunch of guys holed up in a stick-framed building with their little AR15s? What are you going to do against tanks, attack aircraft, drones, mortars, RPGs, SAWs and Ma Duce?

Let me guess... you think all private citizens should be allowed the same weapons and armament as our military forces, right? Good luck with that. :rolleyes: This isn't the 1700s when it was muskets and blackpowder cannons. This is the 21st century with 21st century weaponry. Catch up. :)
Interesting. So do you also think the Constitution does not apply to computers to? They didn't exist back in the day.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,143 Posts
Boogyman--You are a straw man. The Second is about DEFENSE from the bad guys. People don't trespass where they're risking their lives to do so. Look at the home invasions in Chicago and then look at small town USA where such things are Extremely rare. The difference is the risk to the bad guy.

Nobody with two brain cells is contemplating going against the US infantry for any reason at ALL. They're on OUR side!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ironhead7544

·
Banned
Joined
·
16 Posts
Boogyman--You are a straw man. The Second is about DEFENSE from the bad guys. People don't trespass where they're risking their lives to do so. Look at the home invasions in Chicago and then look at small town USA where such things are Extremely rare. The difference is the risk to the bad guy.

Nobody with two brain cells is contemplating going against the US infantry for any reason at ALL. They're on OUR side!!
Glad you think the infantry are the good guys... I was infantry. ;)

Well, there seem to be at least a few without two brain cells, judging from comments I see around the forum advocating 'armed revolution' against our government. And what exactly is this supposed to mean ;

We must stand together folks or we will all be kneeling under the boot heel of a despot.
coming from lilwoody's post above? Oh right, the 'despot' he was referring to must be a burglar breaking into my house to step on me. Uh huh.

BTW, where in the world did you see anything I said that would cause you to call me a "straw man"? I fully support our RTKBA and our right to defend ourselves against anyone who intends us harm. That's why I have a CWP and carry a Charter Arms 'Off Duty' .38 special. So what's up with the name-calling?
 

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
24,030 Posts
Boogyman -

One more personal attack on those who disagree with you and one more reference to political parties in your posts is getting the posts deleted and a board suspension for you. Guess you haven't taken heed to our creed of "courteous and respectful" responses.

We're not trying to pick on you - just that you have to follow board rules like everyone else.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16 Posts
Boogyman -

One more personal attack on those who disagree with you and one more reference to political parties in your posts is getting the posts deleted and a board suspension for you. Guess you haven't taken heed to our creed of "courteous and respectful" responses.

We're not trying to pick on you - just that you have to follow board rules like everyone else.
What personal attack? If you mean the 'two brain cells' comment, I was quoting the post I was replying to, and it wasn't directed at any individual personally.

As far as references to political parties, does that include referring to liberals and conservatives? Because I see lots of those references. And I see a lot of name-calling on politicians, celebrities, and so on, whom I thought were fair game.
I'll be happy to follow the rules as long as everyone is held to the same standards.

If it's true that you're not "picking on me" or scrutinizing my posts any more than any others, then I appreciate the fair and balanced treatment. :)

EDIT: On second thought, spare me the insincerities. I've taken great care to be courteous and respectful. I haven't called anyone names; yet I've been called a 'troll' over and over, accused of lying about being a gun owner, lying about having a FFL 03 & CWP, and even accused of lying about my military service... and a lot of this actually came from an admin/mod. I saw no warning posts from you admonishing those members who were disrespectful to me.

You are just waiting for an excuse to ban me. I'll save you the trouble.... this will be my last post. I don't stick around where I'm not wanted.

Adios!
 
  • Like
Reactions: xjsdvr

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
24,030 Posts
You went back and edited your "brain cell dead" reference out. Now, you want to act like it was never there. You full well know what a political party is. Liberal and conservative are merely a description. Just keep arguing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,388 Posts
Near as I can tell from my reading, the founders intended 'well regulated militias' to be under the ultimate control of the states, and that was the significance of 'regulated'. That was because the founders were representatives of the various states - and the states were leery of giving the to-be-formed federal government too much strength. Federal troops were envisioned as coalitioned from state militias in time of war. It really has no direct relationship to the citizens' right to keep and bear arms. The founders had a bunch of 'interests' they needed to satisfy in order to get our Constitution accepted. Personally, I think they did a fine job.
"Vt",
The "Well regulated Militia" clause came well before the States Rights amendment of our Constitution.
The 2nd amendment gave us the right to bear arms, the later amendment gave the individual states the right enact firearm laws that DID NOT INFRINGE on the second.
Thus, we have the can of worms that we're confronted today with today.
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,834 Posts
You are just waiting for an excuse to ban me. I'll save you the trouble.... this will be my last post. I don't stick around where I'm not wanted.

Adios!
*****************************
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimSr

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,143 Posts
Just remember this-- The Second says nothing whatsoever about guns. Nothing, nada zero but many assumes that's what it means.
 
1 - 20 of 82 Posts
Top