Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

[zorq]

Well is it?

The writers of the US constitution drew inspiration from the ancient Greek democracies especially that of Athens. Having a standing militia of citizen soldiers seemed to be necessary for democratic city states in the bronze age. And it was the volunteer citizen soldiers during the American Revolution that helped stave off the British. (Though the Eastern US would almost certainly still be part of the British commonwealth if it were not thanks to the efforts of France).

But what about now? Are well regulated militias necessary in the US? Are there any militias in the US right now that qualify as "well regulated?"

Aren't there other nations out there that qualify as "free states" that don't have standing (or even relaxing) militias?

Doesn't the existence of a well regulated standing military obviate the need for a standing militia?

What do you think?

 

[barbos]

I don't think it is currently well regulated.

 

[zorq]

I don't think it is currently well regulated.

Which "it" are you referring to?
Militias in the US? Militias in all free states? The standing US military?

And if the militias aren't well regulated does that prove their lack of necessity?

 

[Valjean]

The US at that time wasn't a single federated state like today's US, but more a coalition of former colonies. Washington's Continental Army was mostly disbanded after the revolution, leaving only local militias. Even the initial attempt at a federal currency was a flop ("not worth a Continental.")

The Newly formed US did not have a standing army. There were just scattered local militias in the North and Slave patrol militias in the South. Whilst the Northern states worried about foreign threats to the precarious new country, the Southern states had additional worries of their own.

The original draft of the 2nd amendment seemed to call for federally organised militias: "...a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free country", (italics mine).
This worried the Southern delegates, who feared their well organised (slave patrol) militias would lose funding or even be usurped by federal interests. Madison's rewording was an attempt to ensure control of the militias by the states, not The State.

 

[barbos]

I don't think it is currently well regulated.

Which "it" are you referring to?

to NRA folk

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well is it?

The writers of the US constitution drew inspiration from the ancient Greek democracies especially that of Athens. Having a standing militia of citizen soldiers seemed to be necessary for democratic city states in the bronze age. And it was the volunteer citizen soldiers during the American Revolution that helped stave off the British. (Though the Eastern US would almost certainly still be part of the British commonwealth if it were not thanks to the efforts of France).

But what about now? Are well regulated militias necessary in the US? Are there any militias in the US right now that qualify as "well regulated?"

Aren't there other nations out there that qualify as "free states" that don't have standing (or even relaxing) militias?

Doesn't the existence of a well regulated standing military obviate the need for a standing militia?

What do you think?

"free" is a weasel-word. Any and all countries claim they're free, regardless of them being so or not. I think you need to be more specific. If we decide that a "free state" is the same thing as a modern "liberal democratic state" then... not really.

All you need is an army under the control of the elected rulers somehow. Which army and exactly how the control works is of less importance. In a federation, like USA, it's standard that each state has some form of state-army. Since members in a federation can, in theory, leave the federation given certain qualifications, and will need a working army at that time. But in most federations this state-army tends to be a less-than-efficient-fighting force. But each state should probably, at least have, some sort of plan for how an army quickly can be assembled.

 

[J842P]

Well is it?

The writers of the US constitution drew inspiration from the ancient Greek democracies especially that of Athens. Having a standing militia of citizen soldiers seemed to be necessary for democratic city states in the bronze age. And it was the volunteer citizen soldiers during the American Revolution that helped stave off the British. (Though the Eastern US would almost certainly still be part of the British commonwealth if it were not thanks to the efforts of France).

But what about now? Are well regulated militias necessary in the US? Are there any militias in the US right now that qualify as "well regulated?"

Aren't there other nations out there that qualify as "free states" that don't have standing (or even relaxing) militias?

Doesn't the existence of a well regulated standing military obviate the need for a standing militia?

What do you think?

"free" is a weasel-word. Any and all countries claim they're free, regardless of them being so or not. I think you need to be more specific. If we decide that a "free state" is the same thing as a modern "liberal democratic state" then... not really.

All you need is an army under the control of the elected rulers somehow. Which army and exactly how the control works is of less importance. In a federation, like USA, it's standard that each state has some form of state-army. Since members in a federation can, in theory, leave the federation given certain qualifications, and will need a working army at that time. But in most federations this state-army tends to be a less-than-efficient-fighting force. But each state should probably, at least have, some sort of plan for how an army quickly can be assembled.

I'd imagine in the context of the American constitution that free refers to freedom from colonial rule.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The US at that time wasn't a single federated state like today's US, but more a coalition of former colonies. Washington's Continental Army was mostly disbanded after the revolution, leaving only local militias. Even the initial attempt at a federal currency was a flop ("not worth a Continental.")

The Newly formed US did not have a standing army. There were just scattered local militias in the North and Slave patrol militias in the South. Whilst the Northern states worried about foreign threats to the precarious new country, the Southern states had additional worries of their own.

The original draft of the 2nd amendment seemed to call for federally organised militias: "...a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free country", (italics mine).
This worried the Southern delegates, who feared their well organised (slave patrol) militias would lose funding or even be usurped by federal interests. Madison's rewording was an attempt to ensure control of the militias by the states, not The State.

Quit it with the original intent, everyone knew this was to prevent thugs from stealing VHS recorders and microwave ovens as Scalia pointed out in Hell'r.

 

[ksen]

bless his heart

 

[DrZoidberg]

"free" is a weasel-word. Any and all countries claim they're free, regardless of them being so or not. I think you need to be more specific. If we decide that a "free state" is the same thing as a modern "liberal democratic state" then... not really.

All you need is an army under the control of the elected rulers somehow. Which army and exactly how the control works is of less importance. In a federation, like USA, it's standard that each state has some form of state-army. Since members in a federation can, in theory, leave the federation given certain qualifications, and will need a working army at that time. But in most federations this state-army tends to be a less-than-efficient-fighting force. But each state should probably, at least have, some sort of plan for how an army quickly can be assembled.

I'd imagine in the context of the American constitution that free refers to freedom from colonial rule.

Aha... like Saudi Arabia today... the land of the super free? Or Burma... the land of the super duper super free? Gambia? If the definition also includes those countries then I think I'll give "freedom" a pass. So that context doesn't help. It's a worthless type of freedom, if it doesn't also include political freedoms.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well is it?

Not a militia, but a strong well organized professional non-political military is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

Seems many mistake the above for "baseless and naive paranoia about freedom from the Federal Government".

 

[braces_for_impact]

Um...

 

[dismal]

Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

Seems many mistake the above for "baseless and naive paranoia about freedom from the Federal Government".

The guys who had just created the federal government weren't so much against the federal government.

This clause reflects that they did not want to see a permanent standing army.

 

[ksen]

Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

Seems many mistake the above for "baseless and naive paranoia about freedom from the Federal Government".

The guys who had just created the federal government weren't so much against the federal government.

This clause reflects that they did not want to see a permanent standing army.

Now we get both!

 

[dismal]

The guys who had just created the federal government weren't so much against the federal government.

This clause reflects that they did not want to see a permanent standing army.

Now we get both!

That's what it takes to keep Canada out.

 

[ksen]

Somebody just needs to fuck those guys until they're dead.

 

[J842P]

I'd imagine in the context of the American constitution that free refers to freedom from colonial rule.

Aha... like Saudi Arabia today... the land of the super free? Or Burma... the land of the super duper super free? Gambia? If the definition also includes those countries then I think I'll give "freedom" a pass. So that context doesn't help. It's a worthless type of freedom, if it doesn't also include political freedoms.

Well, the US constitution also includes political freedoms. My point was that the phrase "free state" in that particular clause was probably referring to freedom in that sense. Maybe not. I'm not a legal scholar.

 

[Trausti]

Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

Seems many mistake the above for "baseless and naive paranoia about freedom from the Federal Government".

The guys who had just created the federal government weren't so much against the federal government.

This clause reflects that they did not want to see a permanent standing army.

The natural right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment simply reaffirmed (i.e., "shall not be infringed), is meant as a check on the federal government and to maintain the right to self-defense. If the people are armed then the government and its army can be constrained. That had been the understanding of the Second Amendment when it was ratified and for more than a century thereafter. The efforts to claw back the natural right focused on what is essentially the preamble of the Amendment - the need for well regulated militia. This was likely due to the term "militia" having lost its 18th century commonly understood meaning. That is, the militia is the people. Yet, the Amendment is unambiguous that the right reaffirmed belongs to the people and not to the states or congress. It would be rather ridiculous to argue that to protect against government tyranny, the right of the government to keep arms shall not be infringed. So, yes, a well regulated militia - the individual right to keep and bear arms - is necessary for the security of a free state as this may be the only check the people have on tyranny.

 

[dystopian]

The guys who had just created the federal government weren't so much against the federal government.

This clause reflects that they did not want to see a permanent standing army.

The natural right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment simply reaffirmed (i.e., "shall not be infringed), is meant as a check on the federal government and to maintain the right to self-defense. If the people are armed then the government and its army can be constrained. That had been the understanding of the Second Amendment when it was ratified and for more than a century thereafter. The efforts to claw back the natural right focused on what is essentially the preamble of the Amendment - the need for well regulated militia. This was likely due to the term "militia" having lost its 18th century commonly understood meaning. That is, the militia is the people. Yet, the Amendment is unambiguous that the right reaffirmed belongs to the people and not to the states or congress. It would be rather ridiculous to argue that to protect against government tyranny, the right of the government to keep arms shall not be infringed. So, yes, a well regulated militia - the individual right to keep and bear arms - is necessary for the security of a free state as this may be the only check the people have on tyranny.

The notion that a militia consisting of US citizens could serve as any kind of check on a government turned tyrannical is an absurd fiction when said government has the military resources available to it that the US government has. It's just naive gun-nut wank fantasy. In order for a militia to be able to hold its government in check; there needs to not be such a massive power imbalance between the two.