Sounds almost like you are describing the National Guard.
National Guard is a professional fighting force still under the power of Congress. Though funded and primarily controlled by the states, Congress still reserves the right to call up the National Guard to serve for national causes. I am describing more like the Minutemen of Massachusetts during the Revolutionary War.
__________________
- AnywhereInTX
2010 DC 4x4 4.6L
Black Tundra Club Member #82
2013 Ford Mustang GT Premium 6MT
Race Red
"Winning is a habit I can't seem to quit.
Failure is the one game that I refuse to win.
Handsomeness is a burden my face has to live with every day."
Last edited by AnywhereInTX; 01-17-2013 at 12:36 PM.
No problem. "Well regulated" refers to discipline in which the way members of the militia act.
The second amendment gives the rights of the citizens to bear arms, for private use & if unfortunately needed, stand a fighting force to protect the rights of free people against government tyranny. The second amendment afforded private citizens a check and balance against Congresses right to order a professional army around. At this time, we were still afraid of what our budding country could turn into if one person or political group were to come in power. If the framers of the Constitution wanted Congress to have the enumerated power to control this "well regulated militia," it would have been stated either in the amendment itself or as an enumerated power.
Huh....I contend we should be more afraid of government now than at any time previously.
__________________ Everyone Goes Home
FETC Founder, Member #1 Radiant Red Tundra Club Member #23 Tundra-With-A-Cap Member #21
The Following User Says Thank You to BigRed2007 For This Useful Post:
National Guard is a proffessional fighting force still under the power of Congress. Though funded and primarily controlled by the states, Congress still reserves the right to call up the National Guard to serve for national causes. I am describing more like the Minutemen of Massachusetts during the Revolutionary War.
A definition of "militia" specifically refers to having non-military members.
__________________ Everyone Goes Home
FETC Founder, Member #1 Radiant Red Tundra Club Member #23 Tundra-With-A-Cap Member #21
The Following User Says Thank You to BigRed2007 For This Useful Post:
"The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."
__________________
I use and talk about, but don't sell Amsoil.
2006 Tundra replaced a
98 Dakota 3.9 automatic, long bed.
Retired with broken A/C, July 2008.
623,000 miles.
On original engine and transmission.
+Everybody knows something you don't know.
+Truth does not need to be 'balanced' and it ain't caused by voting or consensus or polls or yelling louder or silencing someone.
+Artists prove truth can be in forms you don't understand.
The Following User Says Thank You to shatto For This Useful Post:
I ask this seriously. What do you interpret "well regulated" to mean?
I get what you are after with your question and it looks like it's been answered. I would counter with my own question. Why are all of the first 10 Amendments clear and clean limits on the power of government over the people, yet the anti-gunners continue to mold the 2nd into some sort of limit on the power of the citizen.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Why is that so hard to understand?
Verb
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
I get what you are after with your question and it looks like it's been answered. I would counter with my own question. Why are all of the first 10 Amendments clear and clean limits on the power of government over the people, yet the anti-gunners continue to mold the 2nd into some sort of limit on the power of the citizen.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Why is that so hard to understand?
Verb
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
I view the Bill of Rights as a protection of the citizens against the government and the majority. Each amendment is not a clear and concise limit without exceptions but a balancing act. Each amendment has exceptions and are not absolute.
......
__________________
2012 DC RW 3" RC front, BHLM, PC beadlocks, NFAB Steps
Magnetic Grey Club #18
The Following User Says Thank You to Iamjcb For This Useful Post:
I ask this seriously. What do you interpret "well regulated" to mean?
Come on. That's a liberal talking point meant to lead to the point that the government is the regulator for the unorganized militia. The framers of the Constitution wanted LESS government control over the states and the people.
The National guard is a militia. But the US Code has already defined the difference. The National guard is the organized militia, while every able bodied US Citizen is the unorganized militia.
Quote:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Do not mention his name here. He spits on us and talks crap and you're directing people to him from our site? I don't think so. I know you're neutral and that's fine, but please do not mention him here.
The Following User Says Thank You to Toxarch For This Useful Post:
I view the Bill of Rights as a protection of the citizens against the government and the majority. ......
When the liberals become the majority, I'll agree with that
According to the recent election, you might think liberals are, in fact, the majority. Not true, though they are quickly becoming the majority, and as the handouts increase, it will be game over.
I ask this seriously. What do you interpret "well regulated" to mean?
I refer you to the Supreme Court case: DC v Heller.
Quote:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
Come on. That's a liberal talking point meant to lead to the point that the government is the regulator for the unorganized militia. The framers of the Constitution wanted LESS government control over the states and the people.
The National guard is a militia. But the US Code has already defined the difference. The National guard is the organized militia, while every able bodied US Citizen is the unorganized militia.
So using two actual word in the second amendment is a liberal talking point? Using that logic, I hereby claim "not ...infringed" to be a conservative talking point.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using AutoGuide.Com Free App
__________________
2012 DC RW 3" RC front, BHLM, PC beadlocks, NFAB Steps
Magnetic Grey Club #18
The Following User Says Thank You to Iamjcb For This Useful Post:
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Jena
Cindy's Truck
Dave & Cindy's Toy (Now Up For Sale :( )
Dave's Truck
