In colonial times we were a colony of ENGLAND. The militia fought AGAINST ENGLAND. It maintained its own cache of weapons. In fact the Revolution began when the British regulars tried to confiscate the Lexington militia's weapons and the militia refused and fought back.
The National Guard is a unit of the central government, its weapons are maintained by the central government, it gets its orders from the central government.
How is it that people who oppose the Second Amendment believe that that these two types of organization, which appear in every relevant respect to be the opposite of each other, to mean the same thing?
2007-04-03 08:47:31 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Actually in the context of a military unit, 'well regulated' means in order and well-equipped. They didn't have a bureaucracy in 1789 - today's concept of 'regulations' didn't exist.
2007-04-03 08:53:34 · update #1
Ok it says the right of the people and a militia is a grass-roots citizens band formed to defend the citizenry from threats without and within, including the central government. So..... again, how do Libs equate this with the central government? If your point is "we don't need a 2nd Amendment anymore" then try to repeal it instead of saying that it doesn't mean what it says.
2007-04-03 09:53:52 · update #2
Because it fits their agenda, just like saying that the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment applies to private ownership.
2007-04-03 08:51:39 · answer #1 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The national guard has duel status, that means it is part of the militia and part of the US government at the same time. The Militia act of 1903 (Dick act) reorganised the militia due to some terrible performances of the militia in the 19th century.
There are two parts to the militia, the organised and unorganised militia. The organised militia is the national guard and the unorganised militia is every citizten from 17 to 45, though there is no organised (logically as the name suggests) part to this entire militia. (to the extent that in vietnam they conscripted people, rather than using the unorganised militia which would not have been able to leave the country anyway)
The US constitution gives the US federal govt the power to arm the militia, this was also considered to be the power to disarm the militia, therefore the 2nd amendment was introduced to protect the keeping of arms. The national guard is armed by the federal government, the unorganised militia is not. The fact that arms are given to the national guard really does not make them any less a part of the militia.
It is not a matter of people who oppose the 2A think that these are the same thing, they are the same thing, only with different status. The national guard can be sent abroad, because it is part of the military, but it is also part of the militia.
The main problem people have is when people say that the 2A protects only the militia, rather than individual citizens, which is wrong, the 2A protects the militia through protecting individual citzens.
2007-04-05 08:31:42 · answer #2 · answered by Dave 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So if David Koresh had a legitimate militia would an American version of AlQuaeda also be? What about the Symbionese Liberation Army? Surely that was a militia. If so-called "eco-terrorism" groups started arming themselves, would they also be protected by the 2nd amendment? Face it, the founding fathers in no way wanted to protect vigilante or outlaw organizations that call themselves militias. State militias are a part of the National Guard; that is what is authorized in the 2nd amendment.
2007-04-03 16:45:47 · answer #3 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"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."
As it reads there and on the Bill of Rights. A a regulated that is necessary to security shall not have it's rights to bar arms infringed upon. You, your brother, and your cousin are not a well regulated militia that is vital to our security. Times have changed since this bill was passed. States no longer need well regulated militias because they have a National Guard. Also, the idea you need to gun to protect yourself from the government is a crazy as well. Your deer rifle is not going to stop the tank they can bring to your doorstep. It is an archaic amendment that allows people to continue shooting each other.
2007-04-03 15:59:05 · answer #4 · answered by miggity182 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
well although i firmly support the 2nd amendment, i do not agree with the argument about the militia thing. no matter how you look at it, a militia does not pertain to individual civilians. a militia does not mean bob smith on his farm with 5 shotguns. thats a man with 5 shotguns. a militia, as defined by webster.com is:
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
notice, it does mean organized, in defense of our country. not defense of your home, but country. a militia fought against armies. so it must be an organized body. there are millions of other arguments for allowing guns, but i dont think arguing the militia statement is an effective one.
2007-04-03 16:10:47 · answer #5 · answered by 2010 CWS Champs! 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They have a fear that people like david something or other in waco texas would use his militia to battle the government and do not want the people to keep and bare arms . By the way the sure showed him and his followers . Can anyone say toast .
2007-04-03 15:54:18 · answer #6 · answered by trouble maker 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The militia was an organized group of men whose weapons and gunpowder were stored in the town magazine, to be used in the event of an attack on the town by Indians.
2007-04-03 15:58:38 · answer #7 · answered by Crabboy4 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Once again, this massive infringement on states' rights brought to you by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. Other contributors include: socialism, belief in superiority of the government over human rights, and pure lack of logical thought.
2007-04-03 15:54:08 · answer #8 · answered by Richard S 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I have no idea why you're talking about this.
To my knowledge, the opposition to the 2nd Amendment (I don't oppose it, so I could be wrong) is that scary people are allowed to have guns.
I don't necessarily think that's a problem. I do, however, think you're ignoring two words in that Amendment: "well-regulated." What do you suppose that means?
2007-04-03 15:50:43 · answer #9 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They want to be the only ones with guns,then they can do as they please to the rest of us.
stalin,Hitler,Castro,ect took the people's means to resist as a first step of Dictatorship.
2007-04-03 15:56:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋