Will the Second Amendment survive?

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by icileparadise

Yes all that is true but where did the Army eventually come from. The peoples militia became the army despite the Constistution, the Bill of rights the ammendments etc. I firmly believe that the 2nd Ammendment written in it's day was to lay the foundations for the army today. Politics.

Resolved, that a General be appointed to command all the continental forces, raised, or to be raised, for the defense of American liberty.

The above resolution of the 2nd Continental Congress, on 14 June 1775 established the beginnings of the United States Army.

The Army had been well established for 14 years, it didn't eventually come from anywhere. It was there. The writers new the difference between the militias of several states and the then Continental Army.

[regular.joe]

The U.S. military has one and only one purpose...to defend the land and ships of the United States from attack. It's not here to overthrow dictators, prevent other nations from developing nukes, train the military of other nations, to take part in peacekeeping or humanitarian aid missions, to enforce UN sanctions or resolutions, etc.[/quote]


Taken from Field Manual 1 "The Army". Published by Headquarters Department of the Army in June of 2005

1-2. The Army, a long-trusted institution, exists to serve the Nation. As part of the joint force, the Army supports and defends America’s Constitution and way of life against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Army protects national security interests, including, forces, possessions, citizens, allies, and friends. It prepares for and delivers
decisive action in all operations. Above all, the Army provides combatant commanders with versatile land forces ready to fight and win the Nation’s wars.

1-8. Army forces are versatile. In addition to conducting combat operations, Army forces help provide security. They supply many services associated with establishing order, rebuilding infrastructure, and delivering humanitarian support. When necessary, they can direct assistance in reestablishing governmental institutions. Army forces
help set the conditions that allow a return to normalcy or a self-sustaining peace.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'm not trying to "impress" you. I picked the first 2 or three articles that showed up on google.

By all means go to fuckinggoogleit.com so you can learn how to look things up for yourself.

Are you pissed off because your claim was false Radar (and any idiot knows it is without even bothering to look up fuckinggoogle.com), or are you pissed off because you can't find anything substantial to back up your false statement?

You and UG are both on the same slippery slide here. That's patently obvious.

[icileparadise]

It's a very simple question: when all the constitencuy thingeys and the Amendments were written THEN at that time wasn't the militia and the right to bear arms written to birth the Armed Forces as it is it known today. My point is that the civilian element,no matter how much firepower it has, is unregulated and in no way attached to the overall plan of homeland defense as it stands today. I like that Alan Aarkin film "The Russians are coming"

[regular.joe]

To say that our Military today doesn't have militias in it's history would be out right lying. I would have to answer no, the 2nd amendment was not written to birth the Armed Forces as it is known today.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I'm begging to think that you are not aware of what you are saying, or that you are mis representing on purpose.

[regular.joe]

The Army traces its heritage to the colonial militias. These were precursors of today’s Army National Guard. Citizens answering the call to protect their homes and families began a heritage of selfless service and sacrifice that continues today. Opposition to British colonial policies in the eighteenth century led to war in 1775.
After the battles at Lexington and Concord, militia forces from across New England surrounded British forces in Boston. The Continental Congress assumed command of these units as “Troops of the United Provinces of North America” on 14 June 1775.

from the start, the Army comprised a small national force and the state militias’ citizen-Soldiers. In times of emergency, the standing army was enlarged with recruits and augmented by mobilizing the militia and creating volunteer units, initially by state and nationally by the time of the Civil War. This tradition of an Army that combines “full-time” regular Soldiers and citizen-Soldiers serving for short active service periods is still the cornerstone of Army organization.

-FM 1 United States Army

yes the 2nd amendment was tied to the idea of having armed citizens in the United States, in militias, and not. Militias in those days could not be formed unless the citizens were privately armed. You are right to see a connection between the militia and the Military. The second amendment was not written to create this connection. This connection was started 14+ years earlier in our history.

[icileparadise]

These were turbulant times. France at war with England (again) the Boston tea party', Science... Majour leaps in society, moving to cities etc. All I'm saying is that the 2nd amendment is the army today. We as citizens should not have the right to bear arms as so many people argue we can. What do i need with an assault rifle that fires armoured piercing rounds if I am a civilian? If I am a Soldier ok. But where is the malitia if your country has an army?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by BrianR

Militia refers to ordinary, untrained citizens.

"Well regulated militia" refers to trained, organized citizens.

[regular.joe]

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

These are quotes from people of the day. It should shed some light on why the second amendment came to be. We in the United States have a long tradition behind us. These quotes were made in 1788 a year before the 2nd amendment was ratified with the first ten.

[icileparadise]

Happy Monkey, I see where your'e going, are you law schooled by any chance?

[icileparadise]

Let's do another analogy: the Army in Iraq was disbanded before the Allies got there, Are we therefore now fighting their militia?

[regular.joe]

Yes

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Are you pissed off because your claim was false Radar (and any idiot knows it is without even bothering to look up fuckinggoogle.com), or are you pissed off because you can't find anything substantial to back up your false statement?

You and UG are both on the same slippery slide here. That's patently obvious.

Why would I be angry? Each and every single thing I've said is factual and true. I already know what I've said is a fact. If you are too lazy to look it up on google, don't get upset with me. The UK, Australia, and Canada have more violent crimes (rapes, assaults, etc.) than America on a per-capita basis. Many of those crimes aren't reported in those countries because the Ministry doesn't allow more than a certain number of reports to be made.

The only difference between America and those countries, is over there people use bats, knives, etc. rather than guns.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by icileparadise

It's a very simple question: when all the constitencuy thingeys and the Amendments were written THEN at that time wasn't the militia and the right to bear arms written to birth the Armed Forces as it is it known today. My point is that the civilian element,no matter how much firepower it has, is unregulated and in no way attached to the overall plan of homeland defense as it stands today. I like that Alan Aarkin film "The Russians are coming"

An armed citizenry = militia. The founders listed a well-organized militia as one of the MANY reasons that INDIVIDUALS retain the right to keep and bear arms without any governmental oversight or permission. The militia in question is here more to defend Americans from the American government than from other governments.

Also, anyone who thinks a well-armed general citizenry of millions and millions of Americans can't beat a military with a few hundred thousand people (even the best armed military on earth) is smoking crack.