ABC: Militia members receive government money

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.


Why? So we can defend ourselves against urban hoards? Is that really what they had in mind when they wrote the amendment? I don't think so. So what good is the second amendment in terms of keeping the people "safe" from the gov?
For protection of the nation, we have a military. The purpose of a well regulated militia is what? To defend ourselves against whom?
I think that supports my point that the purpose of the second amendment is obsolete. It's one of those ideas in the constitution that is now outdated. I'm sure it made good sense at the time, but the infrastructure of our country has completely changed.

When America was young, there wasn't anything like the large centralized military we have now. There is still a valid concern that our government could turn against us, and oppress us. Of course, they have cluster bombs, chemical weapons, and nukes...Have we created a society so dangerous that we should all be armed when walking around town? I really don't think that's what they had in mind when they wrote the amendment.
If the amendment is obsolete, why have it? If the reason for gun ownership has changed, shouldn't the amendment reflect reality?

You could argue that because the amendment became obsolete and because of the open-ended nature of the wording, it's actually caused a problem. Who would disagree that the mountain of illegal guns in inner cities is a bad thing? Even the hard core gun nuts don't like the idea of criminals with guns. But that's what we have. Do we let that situation continue to get worse? Do we give up and say: It's the wild west out there. The cops are useless other than to pick up the bodies. Everybody get a gun. Is that really the best solution? I don't think so. And yet in the US a "militia" group has been arrested with a huge arsenal.

Is the status quo ok? Should we leave the amendment alone? Could we do better?


Hmmm... could local and state police, being that they aren't federal, count as a well regulated militia?
I have noticed pointedly the huge wave of shootings that are not occurring as people carry openly. In particular, many Starbucks have not been bullet riddled and hundreds of people not killed. I am not against gun ownership, but I am for forms of gun control. Even the NRA agrees with me. You could argue that the second amendment is a root cause for criminals owning guns. Guns are just too easy to obtain.


And I think that we have established that the point of the second amendment when it comes to protecting yourself from the government is moot. That reason no longer exists.
So the colonial (or 2010) militia can not reasonably (or practically) rise against the government (FBI, SWAT, National guard, etc), but can certainly protect a neighborhood during riots or looting. I don't think insurrection was the only intent of the 2A - that was merely to have access to and experience of firearms for whatever purpose.

The insurrection angle is just the drama scenario that the rightwing like to use. Should we be standing up for the rights of armed goobers who want to kill cops for Jesus? Does the busting of this militia reveal the slow encroachment by the gov to control the people?

Yes, I realize these particular goobers were more likely to shoot themselves than a bunch of cops...

Does the second amendment have any value in terms of protecting the citizens from the gov? The answer to that is pretty simple. Armed insurrection against the government is not a right protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court clarified protected activities under the 2nd Amendment just last year, and will do so again this year. If you read the decision, you'll see those are things like hunting, and home and personal protection.

from the articles of confederation , "the first constitution"

"every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. "

the 10th amendment hints ... but it should be self evident , that the right of arms for self defense is a right . we're not peasants at the mercy of aristocrats , but citizens with a duty to protect and defend the united states and the constitution
In the beginning, our country did not have an army. It was a bunch of states glued together. I think our founding fathers looked at protecting your family from harm and protecting the country through the militia as essentially one in the same. And your right to keep and bear arms was to protect your ability to do both.

And as someone reminded me a few years ago, our constitution does not remind us of what rights our king grants us. It reminds us and our government of what God given rights our government has promised, under penalty of law, what it will never take away. The contradictory point is that the regulation isn't very strong. If you have a clean criminal record, pay the tax for an automatic weapon, (and have a somewhat cooperative local sheriff) you can purchase, keep and use a handheld or even a large belt-fed machine gun in a lawful manner.
We were warned that the accumulation and abuse of power is inevitable, by the same gents who were thoughtful enough to suggest that we need to remake government when it ceases to serve our needs. I hope it never comes to such an event. Argument aside for how to interpret the 2nd Amendment - The closest contemporary situation where our government has acted in a tyrannical fashion was the Supreme Court appointing Bush as President.

Right now there's no overwhelming consensus that our democratically elected government is acting tyrannically, because the actions of the current administration can be turned around a lot easier with an election than a civil war.

I can't believe your entire argument for abolition of the Second Amendment is based on a fluff ABC story that says some militia members are on welfare. Who the hell cares about that?

Disclaimer: I think most people know that a bunch of dudes w/ SA AK's, mall ninja AR's, and C&R bolties will get smoked by our modern military in a shootin' war with the gummint, no matter how much camo they wear. Therefore, I'm not calling for small scale armed insurrection. However, you should remember that most states still retain their own state military guard.

Back to your subject. We do need certain protections against tyranny in all its forms, no matter where it comes from. This includes 2A. To eliminate it from the Constitution would mean that it would default to the states in accordance with the 10th. Either way, we will still retain and exercise the right to bear arms. Including large belt fed machine guns. Quad Ma Deuces, anyone?

Your logic about what the founders thought about protecting the country through the militia is flawed and incomplete. The founders understood well how the people may be oppressed without some means to protect themselves because they were students of history, and modern history has proven their concerns time and time again. The federal government was made to serve us, not the other way 'round. The founders wrote about the idea that governments can and do cease to serve the people that made them, and it is the people's duty not to preserve and defend that, but to make sure that government is broken and made anew. On a small scale, we do that with elections, but even those are arguably tainted by those wishing to remain in power, so it seems one could still make the argument that tyranny is indeed alive and well is the USA.

If you really believe what you wrote above about the idea that we have God given rights our government has promised, under penalty of law, [that] will never [be] take[n] away, then 2A shall NOT be abolished. It is the canary in the coal mine and once it dies, so will ALL opportunity for liberty in the USA.

ElMuertoMonkey. The worst thing this country ever did was not elect Bush. The worst thing it ever did was elect this friggen ape we got now.
This commie loving ass kissin B ball player is destroying our country faster than a friggen speeding bullet.
Have you seen our national debt, our unemployment rates, what the F#$k meds are you on. I want some.
I keep forgetting. It's all Bush's fault.
Here is a picture of your hero. Just before he bent over and kissed his American hating ass.

j427x said:

you know i wouldn't doubt it is the militias that are so radical may be funded by the CIA's black budget.

you know the government has to have some PC enemy to fight to get funding for all these government agency's 'protecting" us poor pitiful tax payers!


HS will likely get a big pat on the back and a nice fat check for this!

Click to expand...

That would not surprise me. I don't know about the cia but,

I'm sure they are ALL infiltrated by the fbi.

Unfortunatlly most are in denial about it though.
There are 3 fairly organized ones in my state. Although I'm not affiliated with any of them in any official capacity, I see members from each one from time to time at the different ranges and shooting events that I go to. They are decent guys, not wanna be commandos.
I've asked guys from all 3 groups the same question and ironically all 3 answered it the same way.
My question was;
''Do you think your organization is infiltrated by the fbi?''
The answer ALL 3 TIMEs;
'No, but the other 2 are.'

Sad very sad.