Well Regulated Militia. What does it mean to you?

[Redhead999]

Americans talk about a well regulated militia all the time but dont seem to grasp what that means exactly, surely it doesn't mean a bunch of untrained obese AR15 owners. Surely it's more akin to the British Army Reserve (Territorial Army) who gave good service during WW1 stepping into the breach in s time of need to hold the line after the Regular British Army was decimated by superior numbers in Belgium and France at the start of WW1. Part time trained volunteers. Who also answered the call during WW2 right up to the present.

In Britain its the Army reserve though it used to be called the Territorial Army (TA). A force of well trained volunteer part-time soldiers ready to serve in a time of war or emergency to serve abroad or as a home guard. Regulated and trained by the British state loyal to the crown.
In WW1 they held the line against the Germans after the Regular British Army being small in number had been decimated until more soldiers could be conscripted and trained to be sent to France. In WW2 I think they served in the BEF along with the regular British army and along with the those conscripted were folded into the regular British so there was no distinction but don't quote me on that because I'm not 100% on that.
You could also include the Army regular reserve which are ex soldiers of the British army that are still eligible to serve.
The Royal Auxiliary Air Force has elements in the RAF regiment that could be considered members of a well regulated militia. The Royal Marines too have a volunteer reserve too. Think Royal navy does too.
I think the national guard is the US version of a we regulated militia.

Updates

1 y

Citizenry that is armed and is not under government control is not a well regulated militia

Updates

1 y

You can't be in a well regulated militia if your obese or diabetes took your leg...

[Soteris]

The 2nd amendment was intended to replace some or all of the US army with militia. Both because they considered it an effective defense but also because they did not want to have an active army as for them that was an offensive tool and USA was supposed to not invade other countries. How times have changed.

Anyways, the form these militias would take is as such far more professional and organized than what is probably even seen today in USA. Yes, you have various militia groups running around but in my opinion they are far more of an army cosplay group than a serious militia. For example, I doubt most of them could even do the basic first step in case they were called into action. Namely form up and establish communication, either with each other in the case they are fighting the government but perhaps more unlikely, form a channel of communication with local military command and cooperating with them in the defense of USA.

That is the big thing I feel militias in USA missed. Far too often I get the sense they are just expressing their desire to be independent or whatever power fantasy they conjure up in their minds. All their fucking around in the woods dont make them a useful resistance force. For them to do that they need to start doing army stuff. Things like practicing digging trenches, pull together vehicles and equipment as well as supplies, establish discipline and several clear and safe lines of communications both with more conventional methods like phones and mail but also encrypted radios.

They need to practice military maneuvers, building improvised weapons and defenses, how to organize and interact with civilians in emergency situations. There is a million and one things a militia needs to do for them to be of any value what so ever. As far as I have seen no militia group in USA has been willing to put in the effort and resources to be an actual militia, in fact I dont even see a desire to be one in the first place. They just look to want the title of one but have more in common with gangs than militias.

[Redhead999]

I think the 2nd amendment was more to do with standing armies being too costly to afford but allowing for a part time volunteer force with some military training to be maintained that could be called up at anytime for local, state or national emergencies makes sense and historically most countries have done this with a small proffessional Corp at its centre. As for the US not meant to invade other countries I do think that Manifest destiny though coined decades after the us war of independence was the mindset of the founding fathers and colonists. They were even then moving west in native lands and believed they had the right.

Militia groups in the US are basically military reenactors you know like those guys who dress up in uniforms or armour and fight battles from the past, kind of modern day military cosplayers. They kind of buy into a fantasy, I mean enjoy the walking dead.

[Soteris]

Oh I am well aware that USA never really did much more than enact the 2nd amendment in preparation for replacing the military with the militia but that was the idea at least as far as I can tell. Cost is also a valid point but the main reasons I heard in favor of this was ideological and how they envisioned USAs place in the world as a pacifist country. Probably because they came from the imperialist UK and just fought a war for independence against them as well as to contrast USA against the rest of the militaristic Europe at the time.

[Redhead999]

It largely seems to me that the US was set up like the old roman Republic which relied on citizens to serve in the military and disbanding when wars were over. They may wanted to have seemed less militaristic but in they were every bit as militaristic when it came to the native American nations to the west.

[Soteris]

I dont know about that. Rome was ultra militaristic. There was always several standing armies and you even needed a long military career to even enter politics. I guess the ultra militarism does make it more alike USA in a way though.

[Redhead999]

It took a few hundred years for that militaristic culture in Rome to develop. It was only a few decades before the birth of christ that they started using proffessional soldiers and every citizen at the time had to serve. The militarism with the ancient roman empire and current American Empire is very similar

[Soteris]

While the very earliest roman military was very similar to the Greek civil militias they did move to a more semi-professional army structure once they abandoned the Greek phalanx and instead started fighting in their more iconic form. This was around 100 years BC.

[Soteris]

Correction* It was around 400 BC

[Redhead999]

True but the marius reforms were around 100 bc that they were a fully professional standung army when they went from maniples into cohorts abandoning the 3 tier hastati, principle and tirari system

[Redhead999]

... to the standard legionary.

[abc3643]

"I think the national guard is the US version of a well-regulated militia."
Yes, that is exactly correct.

The point of "militias" 230+ years ago was that, given the large size and small population of the United States, whatever army there was might have to march for days across the country to fight an invading force. Furthermore, at that time, it was pretty much impossible then to maintain a large army everywhere in the country due to the necessary manpower and costs.

So, people could be militiamen in their state who could, very quickly, form a local military force to oppose invasion. So, for that to be able to happen, people needed to be able to own guns. That's why the 2nd Amendment starts with:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (*), ..."
and ends with:
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

(*) In this instance, "State" means any nation and not just a state within the USA.

In modern times, that's not necessary - we have motor vehicles and aircraft and a thoroughly modern and capable military.

But state militias are old and have become, as you say, the National Guard and now has a different mission.

Each state has its own National Guard which, in a sense, is that state's militia - its military - not to fight wars, but to keep the peace, maintain order in crisis situations, etc. One example of when that often happens is during times of national disasters during which the Governor of that state may "call-in" or "call-up" (same thing) the National Guard to help maintain order and help with rescue efforts.

But, under times of war or insurrection or other crisis moments, a state's National Guard may be federalized meaning it is no longer under the authority of that state, but becomes a "reserve force", an extension of the United States military.

An example of both of these instances was in September 1957 in Little Rock Arkansas School Integration Crisis.

After the 1954 unanimous Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka KS, schools were required to be desegregated. Many southern states took their time doing so. The school district for the city of Little Rock Arkansas was one of those school districts conforming as slowly as it could.

After some legal wrangling, on 04 SEP 1957, several Black students were to start attending an integrated Little Rock High School. That was going to cause some potential violence with angry mobs so Governor Orval Faubus called in the Arkansas National Guard allegedly to keep the peace, but he really had them surround the school to prevent the Black kids from going to school.

Faubus and President Eisenhower exchanged telegrams about the situation and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued an order that Little Rock schools were to be desegregated beginning Monday 09 SEP 1957.

On 08 SEP 1957, Faubus conducted a televised press conference and re-affirms his stance on integration and insists that the federal government cease its demands for integration.

This pisses off Eisenhower who, in 09 SEP 1957 signs the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

On 10 SEP 1957, the District Court begins to take action against Faubus and the two National Guardsmen who prevented the kids going to school because that's objstruction of justice. By Friday 20 SEP 1957, the date at which the Court mandated, Faubus orders the removal of the National Guard. On Monday 23 SEP 1957, the Black kids try to go to school with police escort, but can't because of the mob there. The Little Rock Mayor telegrams Eisenhower this was a set-up and not a spontaneous act (in other words, a lot like January 6th 2021) and that the police are ineffective at dispersing the mob. In reality, they're obstructing justice.

So, later that day, Eisenhower issues Presidential Proclamation 3204 "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITES STATES OF AMERICA - A PROCLAMATION". In it, he says that wilful obstruction to a Federal court order is occurring and orders that they better stand down and disperse.

There's another mob the next day, Tuesday 24 SEP 1957. That's it - Eisenhower is tired of fucking around with these people. He issues Executive Order 10730 "PROVIDING ASSISTANCE FOR THE REMOVAL OF AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITHIN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS." In the order, he orders the military to go including federalizing the Arkansas National Guard so the State of Arkansas has no power of over its National Guard until further notice. One thousand members of the 327th Airborne Battle Group of the 101st Airborne Division are flown from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Little Rock and in place around Central High School by 7:00 p. m.

The next day, 20 members of the 101st Airborne Division escort 9 Black kids into Little Rock High School.

So, you see, in this instance, the Arkansas Governor called in the Arkansas National Guard to use, he claims, to keep law and order which is the first sense of the National Guard. But, the Guard was really being used to obstruct federal justice. Eisenhower then federalized the Guard to nullify its use by Arkansas and to assist US troops in getting the job done.

Timeline of the Little Rock Crisis.
https://www.nps.gov/chsc/learn/historyculture/timeline.htm

Eisenhower Library documents about the Little Rock crisis.
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/civil-rights-little-rock-school-integration-crisis

Presidential Proclamation 3204
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/research/online-documents/civil-rights-little-rock/press-release-proclamation.pdf

Executive Order 10730
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/research/online-documents/civil-rights-little-rock/press-release-eo-10730.pdf

==========
If you want to understand more about the National Guard, look at Title 32 of United States Code: National Guard
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32
==========

[SaoirseS]

A. Citizenry that is armed and is not under government control.

[monorprise]

@SaoirseS Yes and no, to be spesfic its not entirely subordinated to the Federal Government in practice by virtue of the last line of Article 1 Section 8 clause 16.

The idea was to have a largely civilian part time militarily force who's officers and training were commanded by the each of domestic governments of the states rather than a single president or congress as the regular army is. A regular army that was intended to be temporary due to the 2 year funding provision of clause 12 of the same. (hence the warnings about standing armies, as they are normally the force that overthrows Free governments.)

The advantage of this decentralize system of standing occupation capable army is no one man can effectively command a standing military force able to overthrow the system.

As they could not insure the continued existence nor loyalty of said military force for want of control of its training or officers.

If the president tried to make himself dictator the State would tell him to take a hike and refuse to allow their militias to enforce his edicts.
if A governor tried to make himself dictator the other states and president would eventually force him to step down.

The 2nd amendment was written to prevent congress from disarming this militia to prevent them from making us wholly reliant upon the military they control and thus unwilling or able to use the 2 year limit.

[OlderAndWiser]

"Well regulated militia" does not take its meaning from what a Brit in the 21st century thinks about the concept. It means what our Founders intended it to mean in 1789. That meaning has been explored by our Supreme Court.

"The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service."

https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

Americans enthusiastically defend their individual freedoms and liberties, as you should remember.

[WindAtMyBack]

First of all, Americans don't talk about a well regulated militia. But yes it DOES include obese AR-15 owners. It included almost everyone. The militia and the people are pretty much the same thing.

The way some people love to twist things around and over analyze things is the reason why many of the founders argued against the Bill of Rights. Their arguments were that:

1) That rights were natural rights. That the people already had those rights. By enumerating some rights, it might imply that other natural rights did not exist, or were somehow less important. More than 200 years later it turns out that they were right. We DO assume that the enumerated rights are more important, and that other rights are lesser or don't exist at all.

2) More importantly, they argued that the Bill of Rights was not necessary. The original intent of governmental power was VERY limited. The Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not give the government the authority to take away those rights.

The compromise was to add the 10th amendment. It clearly stated that if the government was not explicitly given the authority to do something, then they couldn't do it.

Nitpicking the wording of the 2nd amendment is an attempt to circumvent a natural right people already have. It's a right whether the 2nd amendment exists or not.

The 10th amendment protects all the other amendments. The government can't take away people's weapons because they don't have the authority to, with or without the 2nd amendment.

[monorprise]

The Concept is directly related to the concept of Posse Comitatus, with involved the power to conscript every man able to bare arms to the service of his community in dealing with public enemies forign and domestically.

From the U. S. point of view this varies by States and their laws but in general the entire male population is regarded in some capacity part of the militia.

The 50 States effectively own the Milita's, Congress only has the power in Article 1 Section 8 clause 15 and 16 to borrow and provide some support to the part of them in service of the USA. Otherwise clause 16 clearly leaves the keys to controlling the militia in the hands of the States. "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

This is actually critical part of the Constitutional security of theses united States as Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 does provide congress the ability to raise a separate regular army but only for 2 years at a time. Thus requiring the same majority of States and people remain in agreement on the need for such an army.

As it is such an army owing its loyalty only to the president that appointed and trained them could be used to occupy and oppress the people.
Unlike the Milita whos officers and training can practically be commanded by the 50 states many of whom will not agree with such an act and refuse to part take.
This happens regularly in practice, from refusal to partake in certain military exercises, to the occupation of Washington D. C. post January 6, where the guardsmen of many states were needlessly left in freezing parking lots for a mission that was really quite silly.

[WhiteSteve]

I mean, a militia would probably need to be an organized group, firstly. People who have an organized training routine, drills, etc. “Well-regulated”…. well, regulations come from the government, no? The whole amendment is sort of flimsily written, to me, it’s too vague.

Honestly, my issue with The Constitution in general is that it was written in 1787, and that’s PRE-Industrial Revolution. Nothing has changed the make-up of the current world as we know it as The Industrial Revolution. That changed EVERYTHING, really, even down to predictable human behaviors, but most importantly, the world population EXPLODED, and then it wasn’t long before everything became all about turning a profit (for the rich) and getting by in this new post-industrial world (for the poor).

Bottom line: it was a completely different world for a variety of reasons, and even if it at one time was a revered and original document, times change, often rendering things to be less impressive or less impactful than they initially were. Almost nothing about our society is the same as it was 235 years ago. So it doesn’t seem
logical to me to just hold everything some dudes said that long ago, who could have NEVER predicted what our world would be today, as golden and unchangeable. Not saying you have to crumple it up and throw it in the trash, I’m just saying it should be understandably up for discussion as to whether or not, or to what degree, it can still be applied in today’s world.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pVy3I8SoVvk

[exitseven]

That is why the ability to amend the Constitution was baked into it from the beginning.

[Dargil]

There is nothing ambiguous about what A Well Regulated Militia is. A "well regulated Militia" is the standing Army and Marines that we have, especially respecting the National Guard.

But that is not the intent of the Second Amendment. It's what comes after that. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...",

A standing Army IS necessary to the security of our free state. What would have happened without one in WW2?

But it is what that Well Regulated Militia can do under orders from a rogue government just like we have now and like Nazi Germany; which is to violate the security and liberty of our citizenry; such as declaring school parents as domestic terrorists and then using the Justice Department to enforce unlegislated, unelected policy..

..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not about a Militia. It is about protecting ourselves from one if it becomes necessary under a rogue government like ours.

The USA has more than 400 million privately owned firearms, including 20 million AR15's to enforce exactly that. Our standing Army and Marines totals about1.6 million including support personnel and it is unrealistic to believe they would last long in any action against citizens. That's why the Soviet Union never had battle plans for a land invasion of the USA.

Now you know what it means.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

If you peruse how the right to keep and bear arms is expressed in the states’ constitutions, you’ll find discussion over the preface of the 2A becomes nothing more than cerebral flatulence. The term militia may as well be relegated to the dustbin of history along with words like overmorrow. In fact and in law, the word is moot.

[Dargil]

@LuvMeSomeBoys Pardon me as I get off the floor having fallen off my chair laughing. Cerebral Flatulence. I like that. Fortunately ridicule and reason are not the same.
Your ignorance of litigation of the Second Amendment is reflected by your word salad.
You leftists continue to try to litigate settled law, which the amendment makes clear unlike anything in the Constitution versus Roe.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

For starters I’m not a leftist. Secondly I’m not trying to litigate anything. Thirdly I’m a lawyer. Fourthly, I agree settled law (Heller and the cases that preceded it) makes it clear, and like you I wonder why some people are still hanging up on the prefatory militia clause which the court has determined to be moot;

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Fifthly, I should have phrased the comment differently, as my intent was not to direct it AT you, rather it was meant to be a broad comment regarding those twisting in the wind over the prefatory clause and the word militia. I apologize for the lack of clarity. Lastly, most state constitutions avoid the clause or use of the word militia. Some that still have it have crafted the term to mean that every citizen is part of a freestanding group that constitutes a militia - a workaround for the dispute that raged on until settled once and for all 14 years ago.

[MrHopper]

I think the UK has been around longer so we had time to "iron" things out, at least in a time before computers came about. We had a right for people to carry firearms in our civil rights bill... but we altered it as times changed as we didn't need people to defend farms from bandits etc any more!
The US has its complexity's due to all the levels of laws and owner ship, a good example is federal laws banning cannabis in CA, they shut them down and then they reopen when they go because its legal in CA.

[Redhead999]

A lot of what the militia did in Britain was replaced by the creation of the police. Military back in the day used to act as home guard units, put down riots (peterloo), and augment the regular British army. But became much more regulated. A Territorial doesn't get to own an Sa80 for personal use.

[crossdressingrihno]

To me a regulated militia is a group of organized and trained civilians that can prepare for combat within a relatively short amount of time.

Naturally a Melitta probably wouldn't march in sync or anything like that but they should at least be good at coordinating with others, making quick and effective strategies, be able to fire with decent accuracy, lead a civilians to safety and hold down a position for at least two or three days. If they meet this criteria then I could definitely consider them in militia

[skeetskeetskeet]

The government has more shit than like the next 13 countries combined for military... the days when rednecks with shotguns were a threat to them are so far gone... your milita looks cool until drones start bombing and maybe a couple warthogs strafe your corn field

[Redhead999]

https://youtu.be/mH7-BLnNU9M
Nowhere to hide

[RealMarek]

It means to me what it meant to the founders: “equipped.” “Regulated” did not have the same meaning in the 18th century as it does today. They were specifically against the central government controlling militias.

[Redhead999]

"Regulate
control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the Code regulates the takeovers of all public companies"

https://youtu.be/1plPyJdXKIY

[RealMarek]

I get it, but that’s not what “regulate” meant in the 1780s. I believe this original intent is what should matter in constitutional interpretation.

[driven159]

The militias of the civil war were just like small untrained army groups to plug in where they were needed but now adays they are more of a self-interest non-government group that play games, and some are very dangerous at one time they served a purpose not so much anymore j

[exitseven]

Citizens need to be armed and should expect to defend the Constitution from all attackers both foreign and domestic.

[Redhead999]

The biggest threat America has faced in the last 200 years is McDonald's, Wendy's, KFC, Burgerking, Coca-Cola...

[exitseven]

It is a worldwide phenomenon. @Redhead999

[Redhead999]

Pretty much America.

[RuthlessAggression]

REGULATED, is the keyword. Something republicans HATE

[Redhead999]

To be fair democrats equally hate regulation ie in regards to corporate sponsorship of politicians

[RuthlessAggression]

Not really. I don't

[Fuentes]

What are you even talking about? Lol I see abuncha UK gibberish that does not pertain to the US in anyway the Reserves are not full of any retired people and neither is our Guard?

[Redhead999]

In the UK the Regular Army reserve are former Regular army members eligible to serve again in time of war or emergency. The British Army Reserve is close to your National Guard and used to be called the Territorial Army. But I do believe in the US ex regular service men and women can still be in the in the military reserves for Army, marine, navy, airforce separate from your well regulated militia the national guard. "The Retired Reserve consists of soldiers who have retired from either the active or reserve components of the Army but have not reached the age of 60."

[PatriceONeal]

The 2nd amendment is for foreign AND domestic threats. Foreign means outside threats and domestic would be your own tryrannical government like you see in North Korea for example. I bet Ukraine wished they had an armed population right about now..

[Redhead999]

Ukraine does have an armed population right now, they have a well regulated militia. Military service was a must for every able bodied man in Ukraine for decades. That's why Ukrainian athletes can return home to fight because they already have Military training rather than some guy who happens to own an ar15.

[PatriceONeal]

And if they had their whole population owned ar15s, how would they fair then?

[PatriceONeal]

There's no actual reason for you to be this obsessed with a semi automatic weapon beside that you watched to much news and social media and believed all of it.

[Redhead999]

Pretty sure they have an AK for every citizen. 10 javelin missles for every Russian tank etc. Much like the taliban and Iraqis had only it didn't matter that every citizen had an assault rifle, they dont make much of difference against tanks, drones, artillery, body armor etc.
Ukraine is well armed. Plenty of AKs, SKS, RPGs, PPS43, RPDs, RPKs basically everything the Russians have, Ukraine was 30% of the Soviet military complex, they build AKs and former Warsaw pact Nato countries are donating soviet era weapons to them and that's not even counting countries like Germany, austria and Belgium that have a huge small arms industry with weapons such as the G3, Fal in storage. The US military has huge stores of the M16A2 just sitting waiting for a war, huge stores of the M4 waiting for a war. Every possible small arm you can think of produced in the west is in Ukraine right now millions of them. They are even seeing American made Winchester 1892 rifles bought by the Russian imperial army before ww1 being used. Some of the small arms being sent the Russian army would be envious of.

[PatriceONeal]

The math doesn't check out. There's no army in the world that can fight 350million us citizens in their homes spread across a country this large. You'll literally never disarm the united states so get used to it.

[Redhead999]

40% of adult Americans are of obese, so that's 140 million incapable of fighting, that couldn't last a day without stuffing their fat faces or risk entering a diabetic coma.
The US military is like almost 2 million under arms, Armed with heavy machine guns, tanks, drones, artillery, aircraft, b52s etc. I mean a handful of us special forces knocked out alqueda and the taliban in a few months something the might of the Soviet military couldn't do. Afghanistan a country with a population of 40 million and flooded with AKs the most prolific assault rifle in the world, and the Afghans aren't soft fat Americans but very tough people living on the edge of civilisation used to war. They don't panic if the power goes out or if Starbucks doesn't get their order right. Yet less than 100,000 us troops pacified Afghanistan for 20 years.

[PatriceONeal]

I've seen fat slobs at the range eating pork rinds litng up a 100ft target in great clusters. You really have no clue what you're talking about. It takes exactly 0 athleticism to shoot a firearm. That's why they are so effective as force multipliers. Keep going.

[PatriceONeal]

The US military failed in struggled with the tag tag Vietnamese and sheep farmers in Baghdad. What makes you think they have any chance against insane fat Americans armed for the apocalypse?

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Was this question created just as a vehicle to bash Americans?

[PatriceONeal]

@LuvMeSomeBoys they're jealous of all this feedom

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

@PatriceONeal. They don’t live here but are obsessed smh. Most of them can’t stay on topic.

[PatriceONeal]

@LuvMeSomeBoys but we should be more like them. Had one girl tell me the US aren't accepting of other cultures. The melting pot of all places. Who knew.

[Redhead999]

The US military won in baghdad. They basically wiped the vietcong out in 68, North Vietnam hadcto send regular NVA troops south, basically killed 1 million Vietnamese without even trying in the days before infrared targeting systems, night vision etc. In Iraq you had whole regiments surrendering to a single apache helicopter who shot them up with a 30mm cannon, they had no idea who was shooting at them. In Afghanistan the taliban basically packed their bags and left for 20 years waiting for the us to pull out rather than fight.
Yep that fat slop lighting up targets at range can't move when mortars or indirect machine gun fire is fired in his general direction or just a javelin missle fored into their house. The fact that you don't know that shows how delusional you are in your militia fantasy.

[PatriceONeal]

Dude you're so clueless. How many mortars do you yhink are available. 350+ million? Not even a fraction.. Hello?

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

@PatriceONeal. From reading all the comments it looks like this is just another troll.

[PatriceONeal]

@LuvMeSomeBoys most of the libtards that are left are. But they make for great examples

[Redhead999]

Don't need 350 million, a mortar kills multiple people lol. Arsenal of democracy remember. A 50 cal will shred any house. A 20mm cannon will shred any house. Drones are cheap and super effective, you will probably never see the drone that gets you.

[PatriceONeal]

Go get a tank see how long you last dude lmao

[Redhead999]

These 50 cals can be mounted to anything from a 4x4 to a remotely operated vechile. It can aquire targets using sensors, thermal imagining, night vision, motion sensors at extreme range. A 1500m robotic sniper system and machine gun capable of operating automatically. More than enough for some fat lone wolf.
upload.wikimedia.org/.../Gladiator_240G.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/.../SWORDS_robot.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...iller_TALON_SWORDS.jpg

[PatriceONeal]

You should order off Amazon prime to get it sooner. Start that antifa 2.0 uprising

[Redhead999]

Antifa would never serve. They like you indulge in the fantasy that owning an AR15 somehow makes you a threat to a tyrannical government.

[Anonymous]

Why the hell does any non us citizen think thst their opinion matters when it comes to our constitution?

No thank you.

[Redhead999]

Why is the US concerned with every other country, how its run and how much oil they have?

[SaoirseS]

@anonymous. I’m with you. This is clearly a Wiki warrior with no real understanding and too little to do.

[Opinion Owner]

@SaoirseS
TYVM.

[Redhead999]

@SaoirseS I know the difference between a militia and a paramilitary organisation lol

[Redhead999]

@SaoirseS I'm going by how the federal government of the United States defines and organises the national guard which is a component of the United States military, not one of the federal paramilitary organisations like FBI SWAT.

[SaoirseS]

I’m not wasting any more time with you. Run along.

[Redhead999]

@SaoirseS US policy after defeat in Vietnam?

[Guffrus]

@anon Because you are a large, powerful and dangerously ignorant bunch of muppets.

I wouldn't trust you to locate your own hands.

[Redhead999]

@Guffrus you can't be in a well regulated militia if your obese or diabetes took your leg...

[Guffrus]

@Redhead999 Quote 'you can't be in a well regulated militia if your obese or diabetes took your leg... '

What is the relevance of this?

[888theGreat]

England is a declining power which is why it has lost all of its territories and Islands

[Redhead999]

England is apart of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It was in decline all through the later half of the 20th century but has been pretty stable since the 80s. In fact we've two new aircraft carriers.

[888theGreat]

right , they suck big ones. And their so called conservatives are still Democrats here.

[Redhead999]

We are less of a declining power and more a vassal state of the American empire

[888theGreat]

England has lost all of its Islands and territories. They lost US by the way. Their Navy are rusted ships. They have smaller military. Not many Nukes. They lost Reserve Currency. They always ask US what to do.

[RationalMale]

Given that we kicked you guys out of our country and now you guys don't even have freedom of speech, whatever the Brits are doing about gun control we should probably do the opposite!

[Pterodon]

A militia is armed civilians that assist a military. Citizens owning weapons is the militia and it is regulated

[Redhead999]

Yes citizen soldiers like the national guard

[Pterodon]

No they’re regular military or reserves. A militia is armed ordinary civilians

[Redhead999]

Which is what the national guard is.
https://youtu.be/pgV6VUinDEA

[Pterodon]

No the national guard is regular military or reserves. Your assessment is wrong. Being well regulated means background checks for gun purchases

[Redhead999]

Don't think they had background checks in 1777. The US army has a reserve.

[monorprise]

Ask the founders who wrote the Constitution of 1787 and they were intended to BE the only standing army in times of peace. Today they still constitute one of the largest and most important parts of the US military under the name of the National Guard.

[Pterodon]

@monorprise again that’s a standing army. A militia is armed CIVILIANS. You just don’t get that do you?

[monorprise]

@Pterodon I don't dispute that the National Guard today may be regarded as an army, nor that Congress has in many key areas intentionally violated the terms of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 via legal tricky known as duel enlistment.

At the same time States have successfully refused federal mobilization of their National Guard troops, So clearly they haven't lost control of their militia yet, and retain the tools via careful appointment of officers and insistence on training to retain practical control. As was the designed intention of this force for it to remain a guard against them being used to enforce a tyranny.

[Anonymous]

Regulate - control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly

Huh, that's funny. I don't see anything about the state being involved in here. I wonder why that could be 🤔

[monorprise]

In the contemporary English in which the Constitution was written in 1787 'regulate" meant "to make regular".

There are a few things you should read to understand why its written this way.

A) Understand most Free governments were overthrown using the military either by their own accord or by orders of the leading centralized executive or legislator.

B) See what limited powers the Federal Government had been given by reading Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12, 15, and 16 of the same Constitution gives you the context of Congresses relevant military power. Specifically note the 2 year limits in Clause 12 inhibiting a standing federal army, and the last line of Clause 16 leaving the States in effective control of the militia.

Then you will understand why the 2nd amendment is written the way it is written what is meant by a Free state and why congress is forbidden from prohibiting the keeping and bearing of arms.

This isn't simply about hunting, nor a bunch of red necks with guns, in the militia there is a very large very real well armed and organized army here.

[Opinion Owner]

@monorprise Even if the states have control over local militias, it still doesn't give them the right to take the guns away without due process, as the 2A makes that very clear.

[monorprise]

Actually the Federal Constitution 10th makes it rather clear that text has to explicitly apply to the States for it to apply to States. The 9th amendment is what the Federal court routinely violates in inferring in the enumeration of rights, the existence of 'rights' which deny or restrict other rights retained by the people.

Roe v. Wade was one of the best examples of this kind of behavior in that they inferred the existence of a 'right to privacy' at the cost of the 'right to life' of some 50+ million of our smallest and most innocence of citizens, as well as the right of self-government at the state and local level violating the 10th.

The best way to defend any liberty believe it or not is from the bottom not the top, for liberty is such a thing that comes from God or nature directly to the people not the State.

[Opinion Owner]

@monorprise I totally agree with you there. This is why you cannot solve economic issues with legislation because, even if you solve the issue in question, state involvement will only add more issues.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

In modern times it means absolutely nothing.