General Discussion

jmowreader

(53,586 posts) Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:52 PM Jan 2013

I found an interesting line in the Constitution [View all]

This is in Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...

We all know that the Second Amendment says this:

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.

If Article I says the government shall be responsible for organizing and arming the Militia, which means among other things deciding what guns the Militia should have, and the Second Amendment says that this Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, could it then not follow that the government can decide it should not be equipped with weapons like Bushmasters and AK-47s?

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I found an interesting line in the Constitution [View all] jmowreader Jan 2013 OP

A very logical argument to me. n/t JimDandy Jan 2013 #1

Yeah, but we already have well regulated militia brush Jan 2013 #42

Forwarded to the White House. Not sure if anyone else is aware of this. Good find. ToxMarz Jan 2013 #2

Yes. No one at the White House has a copy of the constitution. harmonicon Jan 2013 #12

Dammit..... A HERETIC I AM Jan 2013 #19

Well.... there was National Treasure and Nicholas Cage did LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #75

Maybe they could try lemon juice on a pdf? Wednesdays Jan 2013 #80

You just cracked the entire case wide open. JaneyVee Jan 2013 #3

"You just cracked the entire case wide open." AAO Jan 2013 #8

Unfortunately it is NOT common knowledge. obxhead Jan 2013 #47

True, I meant to those of us who are sane. Meaning, not the rightwing. JaneyVee Jan 2013 #58

I suspect there are people Jenoch Jan 2013 #64

It is sad, if those who want to discuss the 2nd amend would not be aware of the Militia clauses. jmg257 Jan 2013 #85

And what if they do? Spryguy Jan 2013 #59

Not really. The National Guard has to be effective in their jmg257 Jan 2013 #4

One could argue that . . . MrModerate Jan 2013 #23

True...The constitution identifies the existing Militias as they were...State jmg257 Jan 2013 #35

The National Guard is not "the Militia" jmowreader Jan 2013 #28

The Wolverines are NOT the Constitutional Militia. The Militias were State entities jmg257 Jan 2013 #39

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary pandr32 Jan 2013 #51

Does wikipedia now have the same status as federal law? DeltaLitProf Jan 2013 #81

As has been noted before . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #5

The S.Ct. has already ruled, I believe, that the Congress can limit the KINDS of guns... Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #6

Interesting. nt ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #7

You do know an AK-47 is Bay Boy Jan 2013 #9

Facepalm.. Nt Heimer Jan 2013 #50

+1 SunSeeker Jan 2013 #55

I assume you are trying to tell me something... Bay Boy Jan 2013 #89

In the DC V. HELLER ruling... derby378 Jan 2013 #10

I wonder if they could constitutionally seize weapons Nevernose Jan 2013 #13

I think the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain to land or real estate for "public use" derby378 Jan 2013 #15

Weapons are seized from criminals . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #26

Property is seized if used in the act of a crime. It's not specific or limited to weapons. RB TexLa Jan 2013 #30

Granted that. another_liberal Jan 2013 #34

It would be a rare legal act to make something illegal and then remove the items that were RB TexLa Jan 2013 #38

LSD was legal for decades . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #43

They didn't do it with personal possession of alcohol in the 20's. I said it would be rare. RB TexLa Jan 2013 #52

During Prohibition . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #60

Like I said rare but not impossible. RB TexLa Jan 2013 #63

Because... ReRe Jan 2013 #41

I guess that's true . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #46

Duh.... ReRe Jan 2013 #66

From what I recall in some law classes from way back... 2naSalit Jan 2013 #72

Thank you! ReRe Jan 2013 #73

Thanks, glad you liked that. 2naSalit Jan 2013 #74

I have to correct myself on something... ReRe Jan 2013 #76

Good question though 2naSalit Jan 2013 #77

Night-Night... ReRe Jan 2013 #78

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2013 #16

Depends on how many opinions from courts are out there Cleita Jan 2013 #11

Dingdingding! We have a winner! shenmue Jan 2013 #14

Are current Armed Forces Constitutionally different from the "Militia" you reference therein? yodermon Jan 2013 #17

Very much different jmowreader Jan 2013 #29

It seems to me that "keeping arms" is not the same as "owning arms" and since the Jumping John Jan 2013 #18

Tht's part of the problem/evolution of the amendment. jmg257 Jan 2013 #27

Yes but it was the states (colonies) that allowed the ownership of arms and Jumping John Jan 2013 #44

Neither the States or the feds could deny the people arms for Militia service. jmg257 Jan 2013 #53

But the states could choose to exclude some people from the militia. I am sure British Jumping John Jan 2013 #67

Colonial militia service was voluntary. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #68

No it wasn't voluntary. Jumping John Jan 2013 #70

I was referring to the revolution. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #71

We are talking about after the Constitution was written; its affects on the Militias. jmg257 Jan 2013 #82

Militias were also abandoned as military tactics changed. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #45

Agreed. Even Washington knew the militia sucked. But that was the whole jmg257 Jan 2013 #56

Bookmarking.... Great post! nt Firebrand Gary Jan 2013 #20

As an related aside, Shankapotomus Jan 2013 #21

No, it can't. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #40

k/r limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #22

Keep reading. bluerum Jan 2013 #24

The truly interesting sentence is this... Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #31

Not sure how it is intimately related to the militias, other then the Militias were to reduce jmg257 Jan 2013 #84

It's the sunset clause that's so interesting Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #86

Both posts are very informative, but his suggestions are not likely practical. Besides, jmg257 Jan 2013 #87

Before part you quote, says: elleng Jan 2013 #32

You might be interested in the following... PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #33

It means that Congress can do those things if it called the militia up for Federal service. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #36

What is it that shall not be infringed? The Blue Flower Jan 2013 #37

Here try it this way... You'll feel better... jmg257 Jan 2013 #62

They all want to be disiplined... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2013 #48

Although the OP H2O Man Jan 2013 #49

yes, and even Scalia has said as much BainsBane Jan 2013 #54

Nothing to add at this point. Heimer Jan 2013 #57

Thoughtful, yes, but also intheflow Jan 2013 #88

The 2nd Amendment was there to prevent the need for a standing army. But we got one anyway. SunSeeker Jan 2013 #61

Recommended and Kicking. Ruby the Liberal Jan 2013 #65

You *DO* realize who "the people" are, right? What part of "the right of the *people*" Ghost in the Machine Jan 2013 #69

A few things...foremost the 2nd amendment did not give us anything... jmg257 Jan 2013 #83

This is the result of the Experience of the American Revolution happyslug Jan 2013 #79