[+][deleted] 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]blackopdelta9931 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sid_Vichous23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kinetic_Wolf11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pearceharris2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChiTownBob1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WearDoWeGoNow0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]commander_zoidberg 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryanackermen20192 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DetourThisSociety71 points72 points73 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blackfysh8876 points77 points78 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hemmeroidhenry28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popeman797 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hemmeroidhenry3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DetourThisSociety0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yzpv 43 points44 points45 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tailback2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WearDoWeGoNow2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChiTownBob1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dragonbeorn1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ChiTownBob1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]16yeets30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FLNRMUSIC7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtoman16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]smellwell -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtoman12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaFoShizzle4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]smellwell 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]D4rk50ul12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

It definitely is.

“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”.

The funny thing is I don’t know anyone in a “Well regulated militia”. They’re really not around anymore are they?

[–]YetAnothaThrowawayXD3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Not trying to argue for or against, but that is pretty well understood couple of lines that has been hashed out in SCOTUS.

The point was for the civilians to have arms in order to form a well regulated militia should one be needed. It isnt saying you need to be in a well regulated militia, it is saying because the people need to be able form one, the people must also therefore be able to own guns.

The interpretation is in line with what was originally intended, whereas anti-gun people try to interpret it in different ways while ignoring the original intent of the law, which is well established and legally relevant.

Basically, there really isnt any debate on the militia part, the only debates occurring on a legal front are extent. SCOTUS ruled a few years back that every state must issue a concealed carry permit but can set their own reasonable process.

The whole militia thing is a anti-gun red herring. It really only comes up when someone doesn't understand what they are talking about.

[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

But they (militias) really aren’t around anymore are they? That was my question. An institution which the signers described as “necessary to the security of a free state”. And we don’t have them.

I’ve noticed that pro-unrestricted armaments folks really don’t like talking about that pesky part of the 2nd amendment. And when someone happens to mention that particular part, they immediately “don’t know what they’re talking about”.

[–]YetAnothaThrowawayXD0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Regardless of whether or not anyone thinks they are around anymore, the law is what it is. Until it is repealed it will provide the right. It doesnt matter if they are around, the right is provided so they can be around. Your right to vote is not taken away by you not using it. Interestingly, 2a is the only inalienable right provided that requires a physical object.

Fwiw 2a has been actively used to secure a corrupt election in one town (town showed out, shots fired as they sieged a prison)

There are active militias, usually seen as far right, but they exist.

Current state national guards were officialized (word?) out of the militias that were formed under 2a. This allowed them to have special rules carved out granting them modern military weaponry. These are one example of a "well regulated militia" that was formed and is still around. Idk how anyone who is informed could claim such a use of 2a doesnt exist. They only use modern weaponry because congress gave them special privileges. We do see them performing duties a militia would perform, such as actively patrolling NYC public transport.

Shop owners in LA riots as well as the Black Panthers can be seen as impromptu militias.

Police get their right to firearms from 2a. Some states give them extra privileges or make acquiring specialty firearm stuff easier than it is for citizens (suppressors and such)

The intent is for a militia to be capable of forming. Lack of a current need doesnt relate to lack of any future need. 2a is there to make sure that any future need for a militia can be satisfied by raising one. It has been used in our history and will continue to be used.

This is what I mean when I say people dont understand what they are talking about. The right to bear arms is not predicated on being in a militia, nor is it predicated on militias existing. This is very clear cut and well established in law under original intent. Only people who dont understand what they are talking about argue that either of the two previously mentioned conditions must apply. They dont, havent, and wont.

Only the ill informed argue that there arent modern examples. The national guard is one. It is clear someone knows nothing of the topic if they are not aware of the biggest and most obvious use of this right. Less obvious and possibly debatable is that police also count as a militia on this front, i dont know the law around that, but they do own weapons via 2a.

2a provides a blanket right to basic weaponry and in the case of a well organized militia forming there is precedent to expand allowed weaponry if the militia is recognized as serving a vital role to the government/people and those weapons are justified for that role (swat).

Edit: I should add that I am not trying to advocate for or against. I only mean to point out that most people who are anti gun are fundamentally misinformed. If someone wants to debate gun rights, they shouldnt do it on those red herring arguments. There are plenty of other angles to go at it from. This is why congress and state governments try to legislate the type of weapons that can be owned, not wether or not weapons can be owned in general. That ship sailed when the bill of rights became official. The only way to change that is to repeal it. Zero chance that will ever happen without a civil war starting. Seriously.

If the argument is context of owning weapons inside or out of an active militia, that is already a thing via national guard and police having special privileges or easements. The remaining weapons civilians own is seen as weapons needed to form a basic militia should they want to independent of government seal of approval.

People can argue what guns should be considered basic, what allowances should be carved for specialty cases and how those laws work. But the whole militia thing is a red herring. It isnt pesky. It is actively used and good they included it. It is the entire reason the national guard exists. It gives you the right to get the town together and (with guns) enforce your right to oversee the count of votes. Many dont like to think about it, but you can, and it has been done before when the situation warranted it.

It does no service to a cause to make ill informed arguments, and there are a lot going around the past couple decades. The current vogue one is that you dont need that rifle for hunting. Hunting is a privilege not covered by 2a. It is unrelated. States could revoke the privilege to hunt and not run afoul of 2a.

There are some instances where original intent has been overruled, i.e. voting but that was to expand a right, not restrict.

[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

FWIW I was a member of the National Guard. I hardly think that being sent overseas to fight a war in the Middle East was simpatico with the founders’ idea of what a militia was. If that’s truly your idea of a “well regulated militia” that’s a pretty weak example.

[–]YetAnothaThrowawayXD0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Its something more than now, undeniably. It serves a lot of purposes in addition. My point was that it was was formed under 2a and formalized as the national guard later. Just pointing out that it was a well known use, and it was for a well regulated militia, it just evolved from there. It is certainly more than that now, but the history is there and it only came into existence due to 2a. The right for it to exist comes from 2a, and was further expanded upon by congress.

Its not a weak example at all. It is a perfect example of a militia being formed for a purpose under 2a. The fact that it became something more doesnt diminish that.

Congress could revoke their active support for the Guard and it wouldnt eliminate their right to exist, because the right is granted by 2a.

Also, thanks for your service.

[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

You are aware that members of the National Guard do not bring their own personal rifles from home... right?

The National Guard has zero resemblance to a Militia as the founders saw one.

[–]YetAnothaThrowawayXD0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

More than aware. Are you aware it formed originally as a militia under 2a? Are you aware 2a gives more than the right to bear arms? Are you aware the entire foundation of the guard is 2a and it is only something more because congress came along later and said so? It happened here.....

The national guard was formalized as an organized militia under the militia act of 1903.

Maybe its your concept of what a militia is that is wrong. It isnt 10 guys with muskets defending their farms.

This isnt me trying to make the guard an example. It is one. It is literally theeee example. Its me pointing out that retards that like to talk about 2a dont even understand the guard only exists because of it. Period. The fact you seem to think 2a only gives the right to own firearms or that it would mean you are required to bring your own is laughable. 2a doesnt require you to bring your own, it just says you can have a firearm (technically "arms" but w.e.) Could be yours, could be the states, could be owned by the county. You are aware police issued firearms are done so under the right to bear arms they have as a civilian as well right?

Every joe with a dick likes to read 2a and think they are a legal scholar without one iota of understanding its history, original intent, or current usage.

Honestly. Fucking shame on you man. Even the national guard webpage says as much. Have you really served and never once looked at the "about" page? Wtf. Even they say they are a militia to this day. Oopsie.

The militia, called the National Guard since 1916, has served community, state, and nation for nearly 400 years, and citizen-soldiers have fought in every major American conflict from 1637 to present day operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Much has changed since the “first muster,” but more than 370 years later, the men and women of the National Guard are still defending their neighbors – and their nation.

This militia which formed originally under 2a has only been called the national guard for about 1/4 of its lifetime. Guess what, people used to own their rifles, and its a good example of why personal ownership is considered essential 2a. It was essential for the formation of the initial militia. Doesnt mean you need to own the rifle to bear it. Personal ownership is just one way.

Its literally a perfect example of good use and current use of rights under 2a. It is in line with what the founders wanted. They wanted state power and little to no federal standing army. They wanted the people and states to be capable of forming their own militia seperate from the federal government. Thus the national guard under state control is actually pretty much in line with intent. Including fighting in wars. Domestic disaster relief (natural, or terror attacks etc). Stepping in to help local goverments in times of civil unrest or governance collapse. These are all historical roles of militias prior to the founding of the US.

What is probably not in line with their original intent is private mercenary militias like the group formally known as blackwater.

[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t read most of your post. I saw the word “retard” and the phrase “fucking shame on you man” and that tells me everything I need to know about the amount of thought and consideration that you put into your opinions.

[–]YetAnothaThrowawayXD1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vincethered1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnothaThrowawayXD1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Im actually against civilian ownership of guns.

Doesnt mean I dont understand the amendment and what it means. Arguing the letter of the law is different than supporting it.

Still dont understand how you dont know you served in a militia when it is on their about page. This is my point. People like you spout off on 2a without knowing a lick about it. You didnt even know your were in a militia. You said the guard was a sorry excuse for a well regulated militia. Its with no doubt well regulated and is literally a militia by law and their own words. I can understand a civi not knowing this.... but a guardsman. Holy fuck

Also never said unchecked arms. In fact i said 2a provides for basic weaponry that is then expanded upon when the state or fed legitimizes the militia. As is the case for merc groups the the guard.

But i dont argue for or against online and this conversation demonstrates why..... most are illequiped to even enter the conversation let alone argue for or against within the framework of the law. Thank you for being a shining example of the ignorance of the American populace in regard to their history and constitution. In your entire time in the guard, and the time leading up to your recruitment, you managed to not even wiki them or look at their about page. 🙃

[–]vincethered1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bonethugsgoat13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]devok16 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]djmonster018 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EMThrowaway-_-21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]f3m1n15m15c4nc3r13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]djmonster016 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EMThrowaway-_-9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealMrBehavior1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Potential_Command 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]realChebz4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cbr900rr19963 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealMrBehavior2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NohoTwoPointOh1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AwsomeNoodlez0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honk honk

Comments

The national guard was formalized as an organized militia under the militia act of 1903.

Title	Honk honk
Author	xdrunkagainx
Upvotes	1106
Comments	56
Date	May 19, 2019 5:14 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/bqjdp7/honk_honk/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/honk-honk.463048 https://theredarchive.com/post/463048