Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary for the security of a free State?

Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary for the security of a free State?

I can see that it once may have been. Especially in the earlier days of the United States, where the reach of government may have been limited and anti-British attitudes high, and before the country had a large permanent military. But I can't see how it could possibly still be relevant today.

The United States military is more than capable of defending the country's interests against foreign foes, and has been doing so for over a century. And I don't see how militias could possibly defend the people if the state turns tyrannical. The state has drones, tanks and bombs. If the state wants to take you out, it will. And if the military refuses to follow the orders of the tyrannical government, then it's going to be the military that overthrows the state, and not the militia.

So given modern circumstances, how can it possibly still be true that a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State?

So we can get rid of the right to keep and bear arms? Brilliant!

In the late 1700's, the new American nation could not afford a decent standing army. They could barely afford their new president! But a single-shot musket was a common household item for food for the pot - often the only food for the pot. But a musket was also a fairly useful military weapon of the day. So the new government skinflints killed two birds with one stone: The citizens could keep their muskets provided they agreed to be called upon to used it as part of an "organised militia" in time of national threat "in a minute". Yay! Instant army!

arthwollipot said:

......So given modern circumstances, how can it possibly still be true that a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State?

Click to expand...

It isn't. It shows the stupidity of having a written constitution, and especially, of having a constitution written centuries ago.

Wow. We have a hot take here ladies and gentlemen.

You would think people from other countries would realize they have no experience in how something they are unfamiliar with works. Or that they have been receiving propagandized information about said thing. You would think.

This is The End said:

Wow. We have a hot take here ladies and gentlemen.

You would think people from other countries would realize they have no experience in how something they are unfamiliar with works. Or that they have been receiving propagandized information about said thing. You would think.

Click to expand...

Show us the light.

Brainster said:

So we can get rid of the right to keep and bear arms? Brilliant!

Click to expand...

You mean states having militias to guarantee their security? Yeah, we can.

The Militias were always a means to avoid having to have an actual military.
Of course they are completely superfluous, not to mention a joke when considering them as a line of defense against invasion.

arthwollipot said:

Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary for the security of a free State?

I can see that it once may have been. Especially in the earlier days of the United States, where the reach of government may have been limited and anti-British attitudes high, and before the country had a large permanent military. But I can't see how it could possibly still be relevant today.

The United States military is more than capable of defending the country's interests against foreign foes, and has been doing so for over a century. And I don't see how militias could possibly defend the people if the state turns tyrannical. The state has drones, tanks and bombs. If the state wants to take you out, it will. And if the military refuses to follow the orders of the tyrannical government, then it's going to be the military that overthrows the state, and not the militia.

So given modern circumstances, how can it possibly still be true that a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State?

Click to expand...

I know this is intended for the US, but like a lot of things this derives from an English tradition. Part of the consequence of the English civil war was a reluctance to allow the King to raise a standing army (the Navy was not perceived to be a threat), so it was illegal to have an army in England. (In fact it was maintained by annual vote to allow an army for the next year.) The consequence was that England employed foreign mercenaries, maintained regiments abroad, paid other countries to put an army in the field, and had a militia. The militia regiments were both for internal security and the basis for raising regiments at time of war. As 'citizen' part time soldiers they were thought to be less of a threat to parliament than a full time professional army loyal to the crown.

The militia tradition was then imported into the English colonies.

All this is off the top of my head; so could confirm accuracy here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(English)

ETA So militia at that time formed both a police force and a basis for responding to external threats; they would have been perceived as being a support to the government not a threat hanging over the head of the government, whilst professional full-time army would have been seen as more of a threat to the government.

The Great Zaganza said:

The Militias were always a means to avoid having to have an actual military.
Of course they are completely superfluous, not to mention a joke when considering them as a line of defense against invasion.

Click to expand...

Gives tin-foil types a sense of purpose and something to do on weekends.

Brainster said:

So we can get rid of the right to keep and bear arms? Brilliant!

Click to expand...

Look we should never have the standing army, the founders wouldn't stand for it. Shut it down and go back to a militia like they intended.

This is The End said:

Wow. We have a hot take here ladies and gentlemen.

You would think people from other countries would realize they have no experience in how something they are unfamiliar with works. Or that they have been receiving propagandized information about said thing. You would think.

Click to expand...

Or you would think that people are actually quite well-informed about what happens in other countries.

Hans

MRC_Hans said:

Or you would think that people are actually quite well-informed about what happens in other countries.

Hans

Click to expand...

And you might think that it was valid to question whether an amendment to a document was still relevant or might instead be revoked due to being obsolete. For some reason it was OK to ask that question about the 18th; I'm not entirely sure why it must never, ever be asked about the 2nd.

Dave

Sideroxylon said:

Gives tin-foil types a sense of purpose and something to do on weekends.

Click to expand...

True.

Take names in case you have to kick butts at a later stage.

MikeG said:

It isn't. It shows the stupidity of having a written constitution, and especially, of having a constitution written centuries ago.

Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers may not have been perfect, but I don't think you can blame them for the failure of the current population to come up with something better.

arthwollipot said:

Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary for the security of a free State?

I can see that it once may have been. Especially in the earlier days of the United States, where the reach of government may have been limited and anti-British attitudes high, and before the country had a large permanent military. But I can't see how it could possibly still be relevant today.

The United States military is more than capable of defending the country's interests against foreign foes, and has been doing so for over a century. And I don't see how militias could possibly defend the people if the state turns tyrannical. The state has drones, tanks and bombs. If the state wants to take you out, it will. And if the military refuses to follow the orders of the tyrannical government, then it's going to be the military that overthrows the state, and not the militia.

So given modern circumstances, how can it possibly still be true that a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Essentially, the early Militias have been replaced by State National Guard Units, and these State Guard Units often do come in handy during widespread state emergencies such as riots, floods, fires, and so on.

commandlinegamer said:

The Founding Fathers may not have been perfect, but I don't think you can blame them for the failure of the current population to come up with something better.

Click to expand...

But they did come up with something better. The USA has the most powerful army in the world.

And it also has some working-class types dressing in camo and going camping on weekends and shooting some stuff before having a barbeque and some beers.

SCOTUS has held that the right to self defense is so basic that it didn't need to be in the Constitutions at all. And that the 2A prohibits the infringement of that right. Case closed.

The current social problem comes up because "guns" is not mentioned. But since they were defacto 'arms' at the time, yes, 2A protects the right to guns too. Just as computers are protected as '"papers" , semi-auto rifles are still protected arms.

You are right though- the Militia clause has nothing to do with it.

Since it's a sin to reinterpret the sacred Constitution in light of modern change, it seems clear that Americans have the right to bear as many 18th century firearms as they like. Fill your house with muskets if you like. But modern guns, well, the Founding Fathers weren't speaking of those. Assuming the Second Amendment covers things that didn't exist at the time is speculative reinterpretation by activists.

TragicMonkey said:

Since it's a sin to reinterpret the sacred Constitution in light of modern change, it seems clear that Americans have the right to bear as many 18th century firearms as they like. Fill your house with muskets if you like. But modern guns, well, the Founding Fathers weren't speaking of those. Assuming the Second Amendment covers things that didn't exist at the time is speculative reinterpretation by activists.

Click to expand...

Bah they knew how important true american patriots like Tim Mcveigh are to the function of all democracies. And yet they make it unnecessarily hard to water the tree of liberty like he did so well. That is the true purpose of the second amendment, to promote the fundamentally american institution of domestic terrorism.