The National Guard and the 2nd Amendment

[nathanbforrest45]

One of the arguments those in favor of gun control are constantly making is the 2nd Amendment only applies to State Militias and does not protect the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Let's for the sake of this thread assume that is true (which I don't believe for an instant). If the 2nd Amendment applies to State Militias then why is the United States government disarming the National Guard by taking its Apache helicopters and replacing them with Black Hawks which do not have nearly the combat effectiveness. For many years the Militia or National Guard was the fighting force of this country and there was a very small "standing army" of national troops. The Civil War was fought primarily with state militias. The Spanish American War was fought with a volunteer force raised by Teddy Roosevelt. The National Guard is the only military force that is owned by the States.

Why is the National Guard being disarmed? By what authority can the Army circumvent the 2nd Amendment by taking the arms legally authorized by the 2nd Amendment?

[Peter1469]

The national guard is not the militia. That is clear.

The militia is the whole people (males 15-45; varies via states). We just haven't really practiced it in a long time.

[nathanbforrest45]

The national guard is not the militia. That is clear.

The militia is the whole people (males 15-45; varies via states). We just haven't really practiced it in a long time.

The National Guard is a component of the militia and as such should be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Why is it not?

[Peter1469]

The National Guard is a component of the militia and as such should be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Why is it not?

The National Guard can't be the militia contemplated by our Founders. (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/is_the_national.php)

The national guard is a sort of organized militia, but is subject to federalization....

[Newpublius]

See the Militia Act of 1792, Peter, where the statute contemplates the President being able to call the militia into service.

nevertheless, a well regulated militia.....that's the reason, the right still flows to the people and ultimately we're discussing FEDERAL restrictions promulgated when the BoR didn't apply to the states. The XIV Amendment changes that and flat out discusses how they wanted to prevent state action from disarming the blacks.....there's no question about that and makes its way expressly into pre-XIV Amendment statutes and is frankly discussed in the Congressional Globe.

the 'well regulated militia' is frankly overdone, it's basically irrelevant.

[nic34]

See the Militia Act of 1792, Peter, where the statute contemplates the President being able to call the militia into service.

nevertheless, a well regulated militia.....that's the reason, the right still flows to the people and ultimately we're discussing FEDERAL restrictions promulgated when the BoR didn't apply to the states. The XIV Amendment changes that and flat out discusses how they wanted to prevent state action from disarming the blacks.....there's no question about that and makes its way expressly into pre-XIV Amendment statutes and is frankly discussed in the Congressional Globe.

the 'well regulated militia' is frankly overdone, it's basically irrelevant.

Right, the militia thing went out the window when we built a national military. Most of the framers were against the idea of a standing army.

However, there is no reason we cannot regulate firearms. And if anyone tells you they are against gun control, they're lying.

[Peter1469]

Understood. But the militia was always much more independent than the National Guard. Also agreed that the states have not really used their militia rights for a very long time.


See the Militia Act of 1792, Peter, where the statute contemplates the President being able to call the militia into service.

nevertheless, a well regulated militia.....that's the reason, the right still flows to the people and ultimately we're discussing FEDERAL restrictions promulgated when the BoR didn't apply to the states. The XIV Amendment changes that and flat out discusses how they wanted to prevent state action from disarming the blacks.....there's no question about that and makes its way expressly into pre-XIV Amendment statutes and is frankly discussed in the Congressional Globe.

the 'well regulated militia' is frankly overdone, it's basically irrelevant.

[nathanbforrest45]

You are missing the entire point. Re read my second sentence please. A major argument of the left is the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia and then defines the militia as an entity like the NG. You cannot have it both ways, you can't say the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia and then say the militia is not really the militia. Then just who is the militia according to the leftist?

Don't go off on a tangent here and start arguing that the militia is the people. I agree with that position. I am only addressing the lies of left when it comes to gun control and the Constitution

[1751_Texan]

One of the arguments those in favor of gun control are constantly making is the 2nd Amendment only applies to State Militias and does not protect the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Let's for the sake of this thread assume that is true (which I don't believe for an instant). If the 2nd Amendment applies to State Militias then why is the United States government disarming the National Guard by taking its Apache helicopters and replacing them with Black Hawks which do not have nearly the combat effectiveness. For many years the Militia or National Guard was the fighting force of this country and there was a very small "standing army" of national troops. The Civil War was fought primarily with state militias. The Spanish American War was fought with a volunteer force raised by Teddy Roosevelt. The National Guard is the only military force that is owned by the States.

Why is the National Guard being disarmed? By what authority can the Army circumvent the 2nd Amendment by taking the arms legally authorized by the 2nd Amendment?

Maybe because there are hundreds of military installations in this nation. Do you believe that US Military housed in country would not be involved in our national defense in the event of a national invasion?

[Cigar]

The National Guard is a component of the militia and as such should be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Why is it not?

Unless you put on the wrong color uniform :afro:

http://missrosen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/312a_43.jpg

[zelmo1234]

Maybe because there are hundreds of military installations in this nation. Do you believe that US Military housed in country would not be involved in our national defense in the event of a national invasion?

Yes but who is gong to protect the citizens against our own government, that is the question. those military installations are not going to be called to stop things like the BLM or ATF

[zelmo1234]

Unless you put on the wrong color uniform :afro:

http://missrosen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/312a_43.jpg

I guess that I was not aware that they were prevented from forming!

[Cigar]

I guess that I was not aware that they were prevented from forming!

Not surprising you're unaware ... :wink: most are.

Maybe a little researching @ The FBI Records: The Vault - The Black Panther Party ... Oakland, California in 1966.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oQNBq5C8_tY/TrXIMUeH11I/AAAAAAAAAGI/VGyTQZm9w0U/s1600/hoover+1.jpg

[1751_Texan]

Yes but who is gong to protect the citizens against our own government, that is the question. those military installations are not going to be called to stop things like the BLM or ATF

what makes you think a gaurdsmen is going to protect anything but the Constitution he swore allegiance too?

You have some romantic notion that the National Gaurd is there on the ready to fight for insurgents...The modern gaurd are not "minutemen".

Where do you think attack helicopters come from? Do you think the 'states' manufacture state armaments?

[nathanbforrest45]

Maybe because there are hundreds of military installations in this nation. Do you believe that US Military housed in country would not be involved in our national defense in the event of a national invasion?


Irrelevant to the question regarding the Second Amendment.

[nathanbforrest45]

Unless you put on the wrong color uniform :afro:

http://missrosen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/312a_43.jpg


Irrelevant to the question regarding the Second Amendment.

[nathanbforrest45]

what makes you think a gaurdsmen is going to protect anything but the Constitution he swore allegiance too?

You have some romantic notion that the National Gaurd is there on the ready to fight for insurgents...The modern gaurd are not "minutemen".

Where do you think attack helicopters come from? Do you think the 'states' manufacture state armaments?

So, as far as you are concerned the 2nd Amendment has no relevance any longer?

The Apache Helicopter is made by Boeing Aircraft and is neither a state or federal agency.

Why is the United States willing to allow Iraq to own Apache Helicopters but not the State of Tennessee?

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/01/28/U-S-to-sell-24-Apache-helicopters-to-Iraq-.html

[Akula]

Unless you put on the wrong color uniform :afro:

http://missrosen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/312a_43.jpg
That's right. Straight lines.
Load up in the truck.