If we're supposed to be able to have an independant state militia, why do the fed's shut them down???

Answer 1

For the first time in weeks, i have a disagreement with coragryph.

The second amendment to the US Constitution provides the right to bear arms to support the militia. To understand this provision, you have to understand the history.

In colonial times, most everyone was in a militia, which really wasn't regulated at all.

The whole idea of the second amendment was to allow the citizens to bear arms so that, if the central government got too strong, we would be able to rebel against them (another revolution). Remember, the constitution (and amendments) were enacted after the Articles of Confederation were signed. The confederation plan was a completely weak federal governments, with almost all rights going to the states.

With the Constitution, many states were concerned that the US central government would be too strong; another tyrant (like King George) in presidential clothing.

So, the second amendment was inserted to protect the right of rebellion -- by the people and the states.

The national guard would not qualify as a state militia, because it is sort-of a joint federal/state organization.

As an interesting side note, the supreme court has found that the state can regulate, or even prohibit, the possession of certain arms. These regulations make good policy sense (can't own uzis, tanks, anti-aircraft weapons), but I believe they are probably against the intent of the framers. We do not need hunting weapons to fight the central government (in the event of a rebellion), we need uzies, tanks and anti-aircraft weapons.

Having said that, it must be understood that, even with the checks and balances in the rest of the constitution, there was a fear that the US Gvt would get too strong, and would become tyrannical, so the framers wanted to protect one last right- the right to rebellion.

Why, then, would the US Gvt shut down these malitias? For the same reason that dictators (USSR, etc.) require that their citizens disarm (for their own protection) -- it prevents the ability of the citizens to revolt.

Now, fast forward, I happen to believe, as a matter of policy, that having guns in the hands of extremists is a dangerous thing. I also think the government should be able to regulate, or even ban, certain guns. It is far better to regulate these weapons than have a bunch of dead people!

However, I happen to believe that in order to legitimately do so, the constitution should be amended to (1) clarify the right to bear arms; and (2) clarify the term militia.

Finally -- please note -- The United States Supreme Court disagrees with my views, as they take a more pragmatic view of this issue. In the end, the constitution means what the Supreme Court decides it means -- regardless what it says.

So, just as A. Scalia's "plain view" reading of the Constitution is often out-voted, so has mine --- and I do not even wear a robe.

Answer 2

Because the militias that are shut down by the feds aren't state run. They are private, armed groups, usually with radical beliefs, much like the Mahdi army in Iraq that murderes people who don't believe like them. According to the consitution, the states can have militias, run by the State government. That is what the National Guard is. They fall partly under control of the Federal Government, but the state government can call them up too. Any person who wants to can't just go form their own, armed militia. The militia, according to the constitution, is suposed to be run by a governing body, not some psyco rednecks who think the confederacy still exists.

Answer 3

National Guard is not a state militia. They are supported by the Federal Government and Serve at the Federal level over State level if needed. Just look at Iraq and Louisianna. The States just don't bother to organize their own militia because the Feds provide them with the National Guard, and That prevents little State government from having too much power over big Federal government.

Answer 4

Well, robert_dod, the several states ratified the constitution and not the Federalist Papers. The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to interpret that part of the constitution.

The real meaning of the Constitution is not its intent but its application, enforcement, and judicial interpretation. So, the National Guard is in effect the well regulated militia of the 2nd amendment even though that was not the original intent.

Answer 5

It's called the National Guard. And last I checked, they're still in business.

Check out Article I Sections 8 and 10 of the Constitution.

Answer 6

Nominally, each state's National Guard is the state militia of which you speak.

Answer 7

We got the national guard,and military bases.Some ppl think within some reason the militia will be corrupt.

Answer 8

Because they aren't "well regulated militias." A survivalist group isn't the same thing. Using the word militia doesn't make them one.

Answer 9

Ever heard of the National Guard?

Answer 10

Because dems and moderate repubs are fearful of an armed and organized militia.
They're all for the protection of the guilty so long as they aren't threatened themselves.