Well regulated militias the answer?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by tiberius10721, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. tiberius10721

    tiberius10721 New Member

    499
    0
    0
    I've been thinking about this for quite a while now and I just want to run this by my fellow members here. I always hear the anti gun crown talk about how gun ownership was meant for well regulated militias. Now of course anyone who reads the second amendment knows this is not true. I was just wondering that If local gun clubs formed well regulated militias if it would be a way to protect our AR 15 type rifles and gun ownership rights. It would seem to me that if people pulled together as militias we would have a stronger legal argument in front of the supreme court. Any thoughts? Now people I'm not a lawyer I'm just a simple working man so if I got something wrong i apologize.
     
  2. Jpyle

    Jpyle New Member

    4,828
    0
    0
    Dont have to form anything...we the people are understood to BE the militia.
     

  3. jcd390

    jcd390 New Member

    214
    0
    0
    I thought about the same thing regarding "well regulated militias". This is what I came up with, the second amendment states: "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."

    So for all the folks that say that it was intended for Militia, why did they (our forefathers) use "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and NOT "the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms"?

    Anti-gun people are still trying to figure out how to answer me.

    In regards to your question, I am sure that might be an option just not sure how that would work. Seems like either the local or state government would have to acknowledge them as a militia?
     
  4. tiberius10721

    tiberius10721 New Member

    499
    0
    0
    My question is what the heck does well regulated militia mean does that mean well organized? I live here in Ca and me and a whole lot of my shooting buddies own a whole lot of AR 15s and AK type rifles and we have been discussing this a lot lately. I am definatley going to research what is involved in being a well regulated militia.
     
  5. tiberius10721

    tiberius10721 New Member

    499
    0
    0
    I'm not saying we have to form anything what i am asking is would we have a stronger legal argument in court if we did belong to well regulated militias? I'm asking this because I'm sure that sooner or later the gun bans that will be proposed will end up in front of the Supreme Court. The anti gun people are always legally one step ahead of us can we maybe proactively get together and be one step ahead of them? Can us gun owners pull together and be more organized than the anti-gunners. Right now we have the NRA to help protect our gun rights but maybe they cant do it all by themselves.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  6. tiberius10721

    tiberius10721 New Member

    499
    0
    0
    A Well Regulated Militia.org is not owned or operated by any organized Militia group.
    It is owned by a private individual who is providing this venue in support of the entire unorganized militia ("...all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45" and anyone else who avails themselves to the defense of the Republic)

    Okay so the way I understand this is that someone in my group of shooting buddies needs to declare him or herself the owner of a militia and we are protected by the 2nd amendment. sounds like a plan.
     
  7. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

    ^^^statement of fact^^^

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.


    ^^^reminder to the Govt.^^^
     
  8. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    7,368
    164
    63
    Regulated meant functioning in the colonial times. A 'well regulated clock' meant one that worked good.
    A well regulated militia meant properly armed, trained, and ready to defend at a moments notice.

    Think in context....

    A well (lots of laws, lots of regulations, lots of oversight and severe restrictions) militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.....

    Or..

    A well (trained, armed, organized and practiced) militia, being necessary for the security if a free state.....
     
  9. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    221
    63
    If you go back and study history, the feeling at the time was that each militia unit would be under the command of the governor of the state. IAW the "militia act" all able bodied men form the "unorganized" militia, and are subject to being mustered by the governor.

    The "organized" militia consists of the National Guard and reserves, and is subject to muster by either the governor (national guard) or the president (guard and reserves)

    The founders forbid private armies. And by extension, I would believe, private militias. I am not lawyer either, but I would not think a private militia would have any official standing or authority to act unless mustered by the governor..

    However, I can't find any proscription against a private militia organizing and training and making itself available for muster at the governor's pleasure.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  10. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    I believe the citizens of Athens TN used rifles and ammunition taken from the local National Guard Armory. I don't know how many of them were actually in the Guard.
     
  11. nosaj

    nosaj New Member

    746
    0
    0
    If we form a FTF Militia there may be some type of obama handouts available being that we would be a minority group. Obamacare can pay for my guns and ammo....hmmmmm
     
  12. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    I tend to view the modern militia just as I view our Colonial ancestors...

    All able bodied men capable of supplying there own arms and ammunition, and ready to muster at a moments notice.

    Think War of 1812 when British War Ships closed on Boston and Red Coats marched on Washington. They were met by a mix of US Army Forces which were flanked by militia who answered the call to National Defense.

    Nothing has changed...had tha Japanese attempted to invade CA, OR, or WA, they would have been met by a similar mixture of forcing consisting of the States National Guard and responding resident with there own rifles.

    The notion that "we the people" would pick up arms to defend ourselves and our communities is what scares the left in this country because they know there views are not mainstream and they know a certain percentage of us would use force to defend the Constitution...from any threat, regardless of the uniform worn by that oppressor.

    This is why disarming us first, is a mandatory prerequisite to there ultimate objectives. It's also why we've seen 70 years of trickle down regulation rather that any attempt to fail swoop the 2nd Ammendment.

    Our adversaries know that our number are more than a match of law enforcement and the National Guard. They know that a cart blanch attempt to breach our liberty through an outright ban would result in full scale revolt...and they know that at last half of the police officers and Guardsman would resign before violating there oathes and committing suicide by taking on a gurilla force of 60,000,000 American gun owners.

    Even if only 10% resisted your talking about corralling a 6,000,000 man force of what basically amounts to sleeper cells. Guys who do not communicate, can't be tracked, and can't be identified until they act...and then it's too late.

    Those who would comprise the 10% would be the fittest and best trained amongst us and they would find support and safehaven in every part of the country.

    The only way our enemies succeed is if we let them wear us down year after year, restriction after restriction.

    I for one say NO MORE. I wil not abide any further restriction upon my birthright. I will not surrender my property. And I will not surrender my liberty without a fight.

    While I have ZERO desire to fight or harm anyone...this is not my choice. It is the choice of the Government and the men who derive there pay from it who will decide whether or not we continue to live in peace...or not...

    ... I suppose it's always been that way.

    Tack
     
  13. cakesterkiller

    cakesterkiller New Member

    257
    0
    0
    i will call you boss... will you lead us into a better America?.... seriously
     
  14. tiberius10721

    tiberius10721 New Member

    499
    0
    0
    good point Tackleberry!
     
  15. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    Well spoken as usual Tack!
     
  16. jack80

    jack80 New Member

    100
    0
    0
    Consider this me pressing the "like" button Tack
     
  17. jjfuller1

    jjfuller1 New Member

    4,738
    2
    0
    and i have very much the same feelings. no matter the cost, i will fight for what i believe. i've done it before, and it looks as though i may have to do it again at some point.
     
  18. thum1995

    thum1995 New Member

    43
    0
    0
    Militia act of 1792, it states all males ages 18-45 are required to ready themselves for military service. I take that as an invitation to arm myself as I see fit.
     
  19. Squawk

    Squawk New Member

    864
    0
    0
    The problem is many will try to stand alone in their homes. I for one have told my parents, if I hear that confiscation is coming, literally, I am packing up and bugging out. I will find as many people that will stand with me as I can, we will pick a location. Then we will fortify.

    One person alone stands no chance. Power is in numbers. I will stand with any of you.

    Tack. I will follow you anyday.

    As said in Braveheart, they can take my life but never my freedom.
     
  20. thum1995

    thum1995 New Member

    43
    0
    0
    Truer words are yet to be spoken. I will gladly lift up rifle pike or saber I defense of my home, my family, or my freedoms. My family's dine it twice before, no man ever stands alone.