Talk:Militia movement/Archive1

Some comments
Some comments: 1. "generally interpreted by others" is incorrect. The intent of the framers is clear by using contemporaneous dictionaries, the Federalist papers, etc. Some modern liberal interpretations that attempt to ascribe convoluted significances to the 2nd amendment (e.g., that it applied to a national guard) are silly on their face. The Bill of Rights recognized individual rights. 2. strict constructionists who are not part of the militia movement interpret the 2nd amendment the same way militia members.

That is all for now. 00:39, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Commentary on the 2nd amendment
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the right of inidividuals to keep and bear arms capable of killing human beings under the theory that in a country where revolution is possible it is usually not necessary. 00:39, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, come on. It's pretty evident on its face that the Second Amendment, as written, if it doesn't refer to an organized militia like the National Guard, refers to a system similar to the current system in Switzerland. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the US was only a few million people and largely rural, and that concept made a lot of sense. A military-issue rifle in the closet for weekend drills and the occasional riot control muster in a village of a thousand people is a far cry from a drunken redneck with a 357 under his pillow or a gangbanger with a MAC-10. EVDebs 01:18, 28 July 2007 (CDT)


 * "evident on its face" == don't think, just trust.  10:14, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The plain language of the Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms in the context of a "well-regulated militia". It assumed that such a body existed, which it did at the time, and does not anymore. Where you go with the latter part of my statement is up to you (a dozen racist jerks with shotguns aren't what I'd call "well-regulated"), but it is nevertheless clear that the idea that there was in fact such a body was assumed when the Second Amendment was written. EVDebs 18:45, 28 July 2007 (CDT)


 * There are historic things not considered in the hyperbole of speakers that are silent overall, but meaningful. Hyperbole or 21st century concepts aside, consider the MIND SET of those who framed that amendment, which DID draw a lot of debate (though, interestingly enough, not as much debate as the first amendment). The journals and diaries of the "founding fathers" listed many rationalizations for the populace to be armed. The HISTORY was such that the ENTIRE male populace that was capable of bearing arms WAS the militia. ALL were expected to be militia, period, BY LAW. Now, a few militia acts along comes the Militia Act of 1903. Something that formed the National Guard, as it ENFORCES the constitutional requirement of TRAINED militia (considering the horrific lack of performance previously in armed conflicts) and enforced US Army standards. Interestingly enough, that took until the 1980's to START to take effect in codified law). ORIGINALLY, the militia were MEN of various ages (at one point or another, 14-60 until legislated), later, organized militia and unorganized militia. Aka, the National Guard or militia. THAT is the law. The militia was considered as men with arms of conventional military capability. That is and isn't QUITE true today, but that is BATFE issues and congressional act issues, where rights are constrained by mere acts of congress, which has ALWAYS, from DAY ONE, a contentious debate that remains a bit nebulous. What does that *REALLY* mean today? Can a militia unit own a 155mm howitzer? Absolutely, it's a class 3 destructive weapon. Can said militia own rounds that are military meaningful? Not so clear in case law. In REALITY, *ONLY* with a shitload of licenses. As a howitzer in "real English" is a cannon of massive destruction, you can guess what goes lesser in weapons...Wzrd1 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Second Amendment
For the benefit of non-US citizens, could someone include the wording of the 2nd amendment in the article? All we hear is "my right to cary a gun is enshrined in the 2nd amendment." or "the 2nd amendment is outdated & should be interpreted differently" What does it actually say? (I could google it but then I'd have to do it again in a month) Keepgoats 08:10, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Better late than never, I guess. "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."Wzrd1 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)