Who are the Militia?

[jmg257]

115. I know, I never said anything was forbidden.

"Saying one is necessary, is not the same thing as saying that "because one is necessary, X is forbidden"

I didn't say this.

I did say the 2nd states that well-regulated militias are necessary. In 1788 they were the state militias - they were to be well- regulated according to regulations provided by Congress (Militia Act 1792). In 2013, BY LAW, the closest thing to the constitutional militias is the National Guard.

I also said that the well-regulated militias in 1788 were thought to be necessary, because THEY removed the pretext for large standing armies, THEY were to be called forth to secure our freedoms, and the people, who composed the well-regulated militia, typically armed themselves (per govt regs) to avoid the govt DISarming them (though there was debate on this too).

As the 2nd states, BECAUSE well-regulated militias are necessary, the right of the people to bear/keep arms can't be infringed.

BUT!!...
These days, we have HUGE standing armies, the well regulated militia, AKA: the NG, is a federal entity, is a reserve to the armed forces, is provided special arms by the govt (which they can only bear in service, and which we, the people do not have access to - not to bear, not to keep). The armed forces can be called forth same as the well-regulated militia, and are clearly our 1st defense against invasion, etc.

Since the primary purpose of the 2nd was to secure arms for the well-regulated militias of the several states, made of the whole body of the people, that purpose is obsolete...THAT militia no longer exists. WE, the people don't think it is necessary at all.


Notes:
What the framers who debated the amenments said about the article which became the 2nd (passed into law):
PRIMARY PURPOSE - Securing arms for the militia, keeping the miltia entities from being destroyed:

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

Mr. Jackson — Did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians, consequently one part would have to defend the other, in case of invasion;

Mr. Sherman — Conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well-known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent; many of them would rather die than do either one or the other — but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary government, said he, and the states respectively will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; beside, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of this society, and defend the cause of their country.

Mr. Benson — Moved to have the words "But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the legislature — for, modify it, said he, as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the judiciary, on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not?

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia.

etc. etc.

Not one mention of self-defense, or hunting, or ???.

The Congress was to be given powers related to regulating and arming the militias. The people feared the govt would abuse this power to detroy the militias, in order to raise an army - the power of tyrants. The states needed their militias, and especially slave states 'due to their situation'. They need them well-regulated, effective, and available.

The primary purpose of the 2nd is to secure arms for the militia, and to ensure they are well-regulated..