THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy...Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.DO you still want to argue that well-regulated does not mean under strict control by laws?
This is yet another aspect where facts and history are against you if you want to try and argue that it means "well-trained".
Yes.
ReplyDelete"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
ReplyDeleteI wonder what he means by "people at large"? Of course, most people owned firearms that were comparable to military issue, sometimes even better.
"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Keep fighting those straw men Laci.
ReplyDeleteI find it more interesting to read the prophetic anti-federalists and their accurate predictions of what the future would hold.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
We have had a standing army for two centuries, no need to muster citizens out of their beds/homes.
ReplyDeleteNot yet, anyway.
DeleteThe first Anonymous is exactly right. When the 2A was written, the term militia had a meaning that no longer exists.
DeleteEven if your statement was true, that would not make the 2A go away. That's not how laws work. It would, at most, be a reason to argue for amending or repealing it.
DeleteSorry Mikey.
Anonymous October 4, 2014 at 12:00 AM
DeleteNot yet, anyway.
Please explain.
"It would, at most, be a reason to argue for amending or repealing it." Or, simply considering it what it actually is, obsolete and meaningless.
DeleteIt would seem to be that you are in the minority of having the opinion of the obsolete and meaningless. Apparently not so obsolete and meaningless as we still have it and is successfully defended constantly by the majority and the courts with no hint of repealing it or amending it from anyone.
DeleteAnd anon, its self explanatory.