The 2nd Amendment
Now let us take a look at the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
It is also necessary to include a Webster's dictionary definition of the word militia; an army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers called up in a time of emergency.
There are numerous examples of the militia being throughout our nation's history. From Andrew Jackson and the "War of 1812." David Crockett and the "Battle of the Alamo" and so many others.
The Second Amendment is not about being able to go out in the woods and shoot diner. It is about average citizens being able to slow the advance of an invading force until the President of the United States can get regular military personnel activated and deployed to repel the invading force.
With the drug cartels and illegal immigration at our southern border; the rising crime in our inner cities and everything else that is going on in this country. I believe it is time that we find ways for the militia to be activated to help local, state, and Federal agencies combat these problems. Since many of these groups that are causing the issues are armed with serious firepower, I believe that these militia units should be equipped with the same firepower to defend themselves and others against these threats. I will discuss what comprises a Militia in a later post.
Hi Joe.
ReplyDeleteHave to strongly disagree on your militia argument. This is the era of Federalism, and the size of the nation precludes us from relying on ordinary guys patrolling with semi-automatics.
We have professional forces for that now. Take the border, we have the Border Patrol (+ other ICE agencies). The problem at the border is lack of funding and will, then it is the need for a militia. We are not being invaded by an armed force, we are unwilling to create a political solution for a mass of folks seeking work and a better life. One side wants to keep the border chaotic and the other wants to make a humanitarian crisis. Both are doing it for votes. Therefore, we get nowhere.
Further, did the Founders really intend to just have a bunch amateurs grab their rifles and repel an invasion by a foreign professional military? Absolutely not. I would say that the Militia Act of 1903 put an end to the idea of an amateur militia.
Again, I must respectfully disagree. If a member of a State regulated Militia had been in the crowd during the recent mass shootings, would the death tolls have been as high? It is my understanding that during the recent mass homicide at the public school in Uvalde, TX, the husband of one of the teachers, who was also a father of a student, arrived at the school, armed with a rifle, ready to do what the police, on the scene, were ordered not to do, enter the building and take out the mass murderer. He was held by the police, outside, while the murders continued.
DeleteAlso, to protect every citizen, without the aid of the Militia, the United States would have to become a police state. I, personally, do not want to see that happen. DO YOU?
DeleteBut why have police? You stated above that "If a member of a State regulated militia had been in the crowd...," does that mean we have to call out the National Guard for every event in town. Are you going to force Guard/militia members to carry their military issued weapons (well regulated militias...)? In this modern world, we can't have loosely affiliated militia members roaming around playing sheriff. Disaster.
DeleteCrimo was shooting from a rooftop, he would not have been stopped by a militia member. He could have been stopped by not letting him buy rifles after 2019 when the police were called to his house, and he threatened to kill his family. His father should never have been allowed to co-sign the app for the guns. His dad sounds like a moron. Maybe making him pass a very tough investigation by the local PD would have helped. One of the officers would have spotted his name and said "no way." Even when the red flags are obvious, no one did a thing. It's like letting a drunk get behind the wheel and everyone saying, "he only staggered a little."
You mentioned the Militia Act of 1903, I looked it up. It divided the Militias of the Various States into two classes, one was the Reserve Militia, which was defined as all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45, and the other was the Organized Militia, later renamed the National Guard, which was eligible for Federal funds for meeting facilities, training camps, and armament.
DeleteI have never advocated for a loosely "Militia'. I have advocated for the fact that State Militias are regulated by the Governments of the various States, they do have the right to regulate membership in that Militia. Complete background checks, complete psychological profile, and a minimum of 8 hrs. of annual training, all paid for by the prospective member. Given all of the defunding the police activism in this country, they could be used by local and state law enforcement agencies as crowd control. While qualified snipers manned strategic rooftop perches. These members of the militia would not even have had to be armed.
Delete