The militia

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Please share your opinion on "the militia".

16 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	There is no militia as such and the Second Amendment needs to be revised for this change
	2 (13%)
	There is no militia as such and the Second Amendment needs to be eliminated as there is no longer an individual RKBA
	0 (0%)
	The unorganized militia remains (everyone capable of bearing arms for personal and collective defense) and the Second Amendment still applies
	13 (81%)
	The Second Amendment exists solely as a restriction on the federal government
	1 (6%)
	The RKBA remains as a right of the people and new laws are needed to create a militia correctly reflective of the Second Amendment
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[rdharma]

1. You're wrong on your definition of the militia.

Go back and check what the definition of "militia" in 10 USC § 311

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. I didn't give one

I'm asking what others believe about it.

[Decoy of Fenris]

6. Done:

Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

This law, to my knowledge, is still on the books, and clearly separates federally funded militia from the reserve militia.

[HockeyMom]

2. Count me OUT

on that mythical militia. I will gladly give up my "rights" on that one.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Thanks for voting

How did you manage to get counted twice?

[rl6214]

76. That's what I was just wondering

[ExCop-LawStudent]

3. Skewed poll

You left out that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. I'm asking mostly...

...about what people believe about the militia. I believe that at least one of the options listed would be compatible with the individual right model.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

9. Except

that SCOTUS has ruled that it is an individual right. It doesn't have to be compatible with the militia at all.

[Decoy of Fenris]

10. That would be: The Second Amendment exists solely as a restriction on the federal government

Given that the court has ruled the 2nd as an individual right, the 2nd thereby restricts the federal government from infringing on said individual right regardless of militia.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. McDonald applies incorporation

Choosing "The Second Amendment exists solely as a restriction on the federal government" implies that McDonald v. Chicago is wrong about incorporation.

[Decoy of Fenris]

16. After a brief fresher, point granted, and my prior post rescinded. Thank you for the education. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Your prior post...

...is still a valid opinion for those who believe SCOTUS made errors in Heller and/or McDonald.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

94. Which is a moot point

unless overturned by SCOTUS.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Quite true

However, there are some folks who believe there are errors in the SCOTUS decision. I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks about the militia.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

58. OK

There are two basic classes of the militia according to law. The organized militia consisting of the National Guard and Reserves, and the unorganized militia, consisting of adult males from 18-45 (federal), although some states expand the ages. Examples are North Carolina (all able-bodied citizens over 17); Texas (ages 17-60); etc.

The organized militia is strictly regulated under Congress. The unorganized militia is barely regulated at all. The unorganized militia does not include the yahoos who form their own "militias" or "republics" or other loony-toons. It is just people that are subject to call up by the state if the need arises. It's a reserve for emergencies, so to speak.

There is no need to change the current system.

[rdharma]

12. SCOTUS has also ruled that corporations are people .....

..... and money is free speech.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

54. Which, for the purpose of law

they are. Otherwise under our legal system, you could not sue corporations.

I'm not too keen on the money as speech aspect.

[Eleanors38]

90. ...and made a fairly good decision on gay marriage.

[GreenStormCloud]

103. Yes, SCOTUS has so ruled.

And that means it is LAW, whether you like it or not.

[rdharma]

105. That's why the teabaggers need to be removed from the SCOTUS!

Look at their recent Voting Rights Act decision!

[Eleanors38]

89. It is an individual right, but the poll goes to the militia responsibility of the government.

[rrneck]

8. That first option is interesting.

If it actually came to pass that the Second Amendment was changed, I wonder what the chances are that it would look like this:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The cultural and environmental circumstances surrounding a change in the 2A might well tend overwhelmingly in favor of unrestricted firearms ownership.

[rdharma]

13. With no limits, eh? nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

14. Be careful what you wish for. Reinterpretation doesn't mean "How I want it." :) n/t

[rdharma]

17. With Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy ......

.... in the majority, it would be interpreted the way the NRA wanted it.

[Decoy of Fenris]

18. Like I said. Be careful what you wish for. Try to reinterpret at your own risk. nt

[rrneck]

24. It could happen.

Go elsewhere on DU and read about the potential environmental and resource problems we face. Those problems cost money. Money pays for security. There are plenty of stories, again right here on DU, about funding shortages for police departments.

If you started right now trying to amend the 2A, you might get it done in a generation or two. What do you think the world will look like then?

Be careful what you wish for.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. I favor leaving the Second as it is

I like the idea of a militia and think the state and federal governments should work toward that ideal.

[rdharma]

19. Show me where women are defined as part of the unorganized militia.

And how about old fogies?

Are they not "capable of bearing arms"?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. By the thinking of the Founders...

...women were excluded from the militia, nor could they vote or own property.
I could reasonably infer that by their current inclusion in the military that they are also included in the militia.

[rdharma]

23. Fair enough. I agree.

Now....... how about old fogies?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Well, Grace Hopper...

...was promoted to Rear Admiral the year before she retired. She retired at age 79. Maybe not typical but not unknown.

She found the first "bug" in a computer:

[rdharma]

60. Not part of the "militia"

The standing/active military is NOT part of the militia!

[Decoy of Fenris]

61. Might want to check those articles I linked earlier. You'll find out how often you're wrong. :)

[rdharma]

62. No. I think I'll let you tell me about the standing/active duty professional military........

.... being part of the militia!

[Decoy of Fenris]

64. 10 USC § 311 again: Inclusive of active military.

[rdharma]

65. Wrong! Direct quote from 10 USC § 311

"The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia."

[Decoy of Fenris]

67. "Are you a member of the National Guard or the Naval militia? No? Unorganized militia."

Army but not NG/NM? Militia.
Navy but not NG/NM? Militia.
Air Force but not NG/NM? Militia.

[rdharma]

69. Wrong, wrong, wrong, ......

.... I'm retired active duty military. And no....... the standing/professional military is NOT the militia.

I don't think you know the definition of "militia". It's actually pretty well defined in 10 USC § 311.

I know there has been a push by the gun huggers to point at the Dick Act and claim that there are three classes of militia. There are only two. Active duty/professional military is not one of them.

[Decoy of Fenris]

71. Wrong, wrong, wrong, ......

I'm not retired active duty military. And yes, the standing professional military IS the militia.



See how easy that is to do? Boom. Your argument is debunked using your own methods.


Your next assignment is to go back, read the articles again, and read them word for word this time. Tip: Look for how they interact, as opposed to individual parts. I'll even give you a hint; Look in 32.

[rdharma]

72. Keep diggin'!

Gun huggers gonna' hug! No matter what the truth is!

[Decoy of Fenris]

73. Yup. No answer, no response of note? Checkmate. Enjoy your day, kid.

Have one on me as a consolation prize for playing.

[rdharma]

74. You tipped your king, eh!

Probably for the best!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. Agreed

We were discussing militia qualified people and I would argue that Adm Hopper being 79 and in the Navy would suggest that folks over 45 would be militia qualified if not maybe formally recognized.

[Decoy of Fenris]

22. 10 USC § 311 supplemented by 32 USC § 313

Allows for female militiamen as well as militiamen under the age of 64.

[rdharma]

27. No, not ALL under age 64.........

How about Ted Nugent? Would he be considered part of the militia?

[Decoy of Fenris]

28. No, because he's 64. And I never said "All", either; just that it is allowed. n/t

ON EDIT: Also, he didn't serve in the military, which invalidates 313.

Furthermore, I've also found that it's possible to serve OLDER than 64; you just cannot reenlist after that cutoff date or be promoted.

[Decoy of Fenris]

25. Also, 32 USC § 323 supplementing USC § 311 and Title 10 as a whole. n/t

[rdharma]

29. Would Karl Rove be considered part of the militia?

Or Wayne LaPierre?

[Decoy of Fenris]

31. No to either of the above. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. I'd vote no if asked.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

59. Several states

define the unorganized militia as "any able-bodied citizen" which includes women.

[msongs]

26. the current militia is out there letting its kids kill each other with guns nt

[rdharma]

30. And many of them are under age 17. nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

33. Good thing laws stop them from owning guns. Otherwise, they'd kill someo... Oh. Nevermind. n/t

[rdharma]

35. Good thing we don't have laws in place that could stop or make it harder for them to acquire guns.

Thank the NRA and the irresponsible gun nuts/owners for that!

[Decoy of Fenris]

36. Good thing we already have 271 federal laws in place to do just that.

Thank the ... Oh, wait, kids are still dying. Maybe those laws aren't working.

[oneshooter]

57. Of which you are one, acording to some folks around here.

Remember, you are a legal gun owner, until your not.

[Decoy of Fenris]

32. Stop letting kids kill other kids with -anything-. There's a thought. n/t

[rdharma]

38. Heck! He looked over 18 to me!

And I'm not required to check his ID for a private sale in my state! So........ what are you going to do about it, eh?

Besides, they can't trace it back to me......... because I also bought through a private sale and there's no registration requirement!

And the kid offered me way over what the gatt was worth. I'd call that a sweet deal.......... wouldn't you?

[Decoy of Fenris]

40. And at no point is "The gun" at fault in that scenario. Thank you for pointing that out. n/t

[rdharma]

41. Who said it was?

The scenario points out the need for laws to keep folks from doing irresponsible things with that dangerous weapon.

But nice NRA talking point!

[Decoy of Fenris]

44. But you're wrong. That's the point. Your entire premise, and execution of analogy, are incorrect.

But nice right-wing Bloomberg talking point.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. A short excursion into search engine land...

...I found a quote using the term "gatt" but I was wondering if there is an example from film or television.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Ever heard the term...

..."wet blanket"?

[rdharma]

43. You talkin' to me?

#at=11

Yes! I enjoy being a wet blanket to the gun nuts!

[Decoy of Fenris]

45. Actually, he was talking to me since non-gun-related deaths are not an issue for the Controllers. nt

[rdharma]

47. Sorry! I didn't mean to induce a "gun lover sad"! nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

51. I'm always sad for the deaths of children, regardless of cause. Aren't you?

I'm a mite worried that you're ROFLING at it though.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. Actually...

...not at that time.

[rdharma]

48. But did you like the Travis Bickle vid clip? nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

49. Whoops! Wrong post. Sorry!

[rdharma]

52. Don't worry! I won't hold your keyboard responsible! nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

53. Nope, just good old fashioned clicking the wrong reply button. Only human. :P

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. Sure

he's my hero.

[rdharma]

55. I think George Zimmerman liked him too!

Everybody needs a role model, eh?!!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

96. No one's born a 'Travis'....

...but some folks grow into it.

[rdharma]

97. And some grow into George Zimmermans! nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

98. To quote Donald Sutherland...

...as Oddball:
"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. Exercise a bit of...

...Democracy and vote.

[rl6214]

77. Letting?

I don't think anyone is "letting" anyone get killed anymore than anyone is "letting" people go out and have car accidents or "letting" anyone drown in a pool.

[jmg257]

56. The Constitutional Militia of the several States no longer exist, and the

2nd should be changed accordingly; this will cut all the bullshit on what it actually says or what its (obsolete) primary purpose/intent was.

225 years is a good run, despite it not being exactly applicable for more then 100 years - let We, the people decide what it should say so all can understand.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

84. Should there be a militia?

[jmg257]

87. Nope...no need. The people decided a long time ago

That the well regulated militias are not the best security. That they are not even necessary to secure our freedoms.

We prefer huge standing armies and navies, and reserves of volunteers that are federally armed, funded and controlled. Especially when compared to any mandatory duty to become regulated and serve in the militia.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. It may be your opinion that...

..."The people decided a long time ago...That the well regulated militias are not the best security..." but I was asking your particular opinion. Regardless of what 'the people decided' I would like very much to hear what you would prefer.

[jmg257]

91. Im OK with the way things are. While I would have no problem

Being trained as part of the militia, there doesnt seem to be any particular advantage "freedom-wise". Besides its all I know. The fear of large standing armies being the arm of a tyrant seems to have been pretty much abated. Though the cost is tremendous, too much, there is little doubt the nation and our liberties are well defended martially.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

92. IMHO...

...a militia hybrid would be better and cheaper.

[jmg257]

93. But how effective? I guess it depends on how its organized /regulated. Nt

[jimmy the one]

63. organized into the unorganized

dscntnt: Please share your opinion on "the militia".

benjamin oliver (cited by scalia) did: Benjamin Oliver, Right of an American Citizen, 1832: "The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such (militia-related) purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it."
Read More here: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=125573

decoy/fenris: Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, (NatGuard) - Ha, organized the militia into the UNorganized militia!

The big big big big big big BIG problem you have there, fenris, is that the UNorganized militia (reserve militia), by definition of unorganized, fails the 2ndA litmus test in that it's not well regulated. It can't possibly be what the founding fathers intended, as of course the repeal of 1792 militia act attests. And the UNorg'd militia hasn't been significantly activated in the militia sense, ever (a brigade in wwII for a year, is all).
Thus the 2ndA is as obsolete & as worthless as teddy roosevelt said of the 1792 militia act. Thomas Jefferson contended the original US constitution would last for 19 years & need be rewritten, all you 2ndA adherents need heed tommy J.

I've added editing to dscntnt's poll questions - that is if it were MY unscientific worthless poll to do:
1 There is no (WELL REGULATED CITIZENS) militia as such and 2ndA needs be revised.
2 There is no (WELL REG'D CITIZENS) militia and 2ndA needs be eliminated as there is no longer an individual RKBA. << the REAL answer, but untenable.
3 The UNorganized militia remains and 2ndA still applies. (Wrong answer)
4 -SCRATCH- 2ndA exists solely as a restriction on the federal govt
5 RKBA a right of the people and new laws needed to create a (WELL REG'D CITIZENS) militia reflective of 2ndA.
6 The Dick Act is one of your favorite acts.
7. A 2nd Amendment Mythology, being necessary for the security of a free state, rkba etc.

Scratch #4 since it should be compatible with all 4 other options, or at least not mutually exclusive.
Should also scratch #5 since whichever congressman suggested that might be at the receiving end of 2ndAmendment adherent's fetishes, who cherish, yes cherish is the word cherish their individual right to bear arms without ever having to serve one single day in the military or any well regulated militia.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

85. perhaps a better phrasing is...

...separated into the organized and unorganized...

If the organized militia is formed drawing on the ranks of the unorganized militia, then the overall system is "effective".
(The 18th century meaning of "well regulated" was effective and functioning.)

[rl6214]

75. How was Hockeymom able to vote twice

Or have her vote counted twice?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. Possibly...

...the same way this double rec occurred:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&info=1&address=1172123941

The admins have been informed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=1993

<scratches head>

[upaloopa]

78. Does any other country have a right to own guns in their

founding documents?
I believe we have one as a result of
1. the people not wanting a standing army yet felt the need to defend themselves from a foreign country thus everyone is part of the militia and should own a gun.
2. the states feared a strong central government and wanted to be sure they could defend themselves from it.
3. Militias we needed to capture fugitive slaves.

By leaving out the militia part the court bastardized the amendment for political purposes.

Now I do feel we should be able to own guns but it should not be an absolute right free from regulation.

So I would say taking it for what it means, the second amendment has no purpose in this time and place.

[gejohnston]

80. Origionally, Mexico did

Article 9 IIRC. Of course that ended when the oligarchs got paranoid about those lefties back in the 1950s and 1960s.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. Responses:

"Does any other country have a right to own guns in their founding documents?"

I don't know. IMHO, neither case would validate or invalidate such an inclusion in our BoR.

At the time standing armies owed their continued positions and livelihood to the central government. Folks believed in the governments and infrastructures they had developed and wanted to restrain a more distant and remote government. Please note that there is no Constitutional prohibition on a standing army but sentiment against one was strong. Militias were used and were effective in fighting the Revolution. Each person (white males of age that is) had the right and duty to be armed and serve.

Let me not argue for the court but only quote:

{“ ‘(T)he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . (Its uses) sugges(t) that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.}

"Now I do feel we should be able to own guns but it should not be an absolute right free from regulation."

I don't believe there are any rights absolute and free from regulation, do you?

Thanks for your 'pass'. Wouldn't your position fit one of the first 2 choices?

[bowens43]

79. there is no RKBA except in the context of a WELL REGULATED militia

There has never been an individual right to have firearms. The foundling fathers would be appalled with the bastardization of the 2nd.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

83. Thanks for your vote.

[hack89]

86. Both the president and the Democratic party platform disagree with you.

something for you to consider.

[Lizzie Poppet]

99. Both the law and the basic principles of linguistics disagree.

You're welcome to your opinion, but it's not a particularly informed one, I'm afraid.

[GreenStormCloud]

104. That horse is very dead. You can quite beating it.

SCOTUS has ruled. Obviously you don't like the ruling. Tough beans.

[jimmy the one]

95. unorganized force pool

dscntnt: If the organized militia is formed drawing on the ranks of the unorganized militia, then the overall system is "effective".

Utterly specious; The unorganized militia is as much the force pool for criminals & misdemeanants, as it is the force pool for the national gds or military, even MORESO.
The unorganized militia is oft called the couch potato militia, the sedentary militia, & for good reason. UM does no training, no meetings, one can go from 17 to 45 & supposedly be 'in' the Unorg'd militia without ever doing a thing to that extent, indeed this is the case near 100% of the time. Inductees into the armed forces & nat gds still have to undergo basic training boot camps, & while some may get advanced ratings due previous firearms training or other skilled training, it is NOT due to being part of the 'unorg'd militia', but rather previous schooling or jobs.'
Have you ever put down 'Member of the Unorganized Militia' on a job application in the 'past experience' columns?
The Multitudes, The Proud, The UNORGANIZED. Semper Fooey. - It's a joke.

dscntnt: (The 18th century meaning of "well regulated" was effective and functioning.)

Geez, can't stop the 2ndA Mythology runaway train; I post this rebuttal regularly once a month abouts, stop using Roget's instead of Websters to define things. Here is webster's 1828 dictionary, with 'well' being understood, pls point out exactly where webster defines 'well regulated' as being 'effective & functioning', & explain why 'subject to rules or regs' is ignored by the progun crowd:

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
REG'ULATE, v.t. 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,regulate

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. What a sad commentary...

...on your own spirit is your outlook on the rest of humanity that you believe there are more evil criminal-minded folks than there are good and well-meaning.

[jimmy the one]

101. sad commentary boomerangs

dscntnt: What a sad commentary...on your own spirit is your outlook on the rest of humanity that you believe there are more evil criminal-minded folks than there are good and well-meaning

Translation: I can't argue the truth of what jimmy said so I'll alter what he wrote & make ad hominem based upon my own (dscntnt's) misrepresentation.

1 dscntnt first wrote: If the organized militia is formed drawing on the ranks of the unorganized militia, then the overall system is "effective".
2 I then wrote: The unorganized militia is as much the force pool for criminals & misdemeanants, as it is the force pool for the national gds or military, even MORESO.

I implied nothing whatsoever of there being "more evil criminal-minded folks than there are good and well-meaning";
I wrote, fairly plainly, there are more criminals coming out of your 'unorganized militia' force pool, than gdsmen joining the 'organized' NationalGds.
What I did imply is that the 'unorganized militia' is simply the predominance of american adulthood, nice or not. And I'll add you trying to put the Unorg'd militia on some pedestal is absurd.

criminal: In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population
organized militia: National Guard: Size 467,587 end strength (FY2009); Active As state-funded militia under various names: 1636–1903; As federal reserve forces called the National Guard: 1903–present; Country USA Federal (10 USC); Branch US Army and US Air Force; Role State Militia/Reserve force

What I said is true. What you said was a misrepresentation & veiled ad hominem. In the future do not twist what I say & formulate bigoted cheap shots; first start by apologizing for & retracting this one.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

102. yeah; whatever

have a nice 4th