Self-Regulated Militia Pros And Cons

Back then, the militia was the only form of protection, and it was made up of local citizens. Now though, America has trained authorities whose main job is to protect us, so there is really no need to bear arms.

The second amendment should not be taken away because it also provides each state with an option for a militia. Over the past 5 years, that gap has rapidly decreased in all sectors. GPS and mapping tech, software, optics, etc has gotten smaller faster and cheaper at a rapid pace in the civilian sector, and in some instances -more user friendly by far.” Militia’s are a sort of small army, with very advanced weaponry that show that militia, and the military are very advanced. “Today, 23 states and territories have organized militias, most commonly known as State Defense Forces (SDFs).” (Carafano “The 21st-Century Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security) The government being trusting enough to let multiple states have small armies shows a lot. It shows how the government and each state is organized. Militias also allow states to be separate from the government, but still be with the government. If each state has a small militia, they won’t need help from the government, while the government still controls laws for how militias work. Some may say we don’t need a small military, we have the army, or the police! But the army is more national, plus would take a longer time for help. The police help, but sometimes more power is needed, other than hand pistols. Without the second amendment, the whole country

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely proclaims a purpose. It does not limit nor expand the scope of the sentence “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The clause’s text demonstrates that it brings an individual right to keep and bear arms (Bill of

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

Although many may argue that it is our Constitutional right to bear arms which therefore cannot be infringed upon, ultimately this statement holds a fallacy in that the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights states, “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.” A militia, by definition, is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. There is no statement within the Second Amendment holding the fact that any civilian, licensed or not licensed to carry, cannot have this right revoked in any daily life situation. The Second Amendment clearly states that only when necessary in emergence may a well regulated militia hold the right to bear arms. Are we, as citizens of the United States holding this fallacy because we believe we need such power, or do we hold such power because we believe this fallacy.

The Second Amendment states that “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”.1 It is important to understand that the Second Amendment was created in order to allow the American people to form militias in response to a tyrannical government attempting to suppress the American way of life. In order for Americans to form militias, they must uphold their freedom to bear arms as a

The second amendment of the Constitution states -“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.” (Constitution, Amendment 2). There is much debate as to whether the Amendment refers to individuals having the right to bear arms or that we are entitled to have an army (militia) that is ready at moments notice to fight for our country. Both interpretations are technically correct as they are present in the Amendment. Every state had a National Guard that is readily available in case of disaster or war. This goes without mentioning our military that are also ready and waiting. Everyone shares in the protection

     This conclusion, although widespread, is hardly valid. In the time of our fore-fathers, bearing arms was not only fully acceptable, but was ultimately necessary for the protection of the livelihood of the individual and for the preservation and prosperity of the nation. A nation of citizens with the right to bear arms demands the respect of their government and has the capacity to influence their own leadership; an unarmed population lives at the mercy of their administration. It is hardly conceivable that the drafters of the Constitution would incorporate a statement limiting the right to keep and bear arms to members of a state militia. To include this condition would ultimately have removed from practice the very entity that freed this country from oppression and gained us our independence: the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The second amendment was not intended only to grant a privilege to a group, but to preserve the right of the individual.

Some people will argue that the US Constitution allows citizens to bear arms only for a well regulated militia, A militia being an army composed of ordinary citizens. This is true that

The Second Amendment says “ 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”

The reason why Michael Belksik thinks the second amendment does not guarantees gun ownership is because the colonial government interpreted the second amendments much stricter that they can control over the militia for their strategies in the civil wars. For instance, Belksik mention in his article that the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 required that the militia should report to the governor every three months on the number of arms held by the state (249). He also mentions that the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 declares that the gun ownership must require an oath from the governor before using the weapons for the state’s defense, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 stated, “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state… the military should be under strict subordination to, and

The first half of the 2nd Amendment states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. This was put in place to ensure that the government or

Senate Bill 656 does not allow for "well regulated" without context of "Militia," because it allows for all citizens to conceal arms instead of carrying them openly, which violates the above requirements for being considered a regular militia. However, militia has also changed in meaning. In the time of the American revolution militias was a localized fighting forces made of all able bodied men, more local even that state level as the Governors of the states were British appointees that the militias were rebelling against. Yet they were regular military forces, forming chains of command, carrying their weapons openly into battle, and following the laws of war while carrying their banners and flags. Our closest modern equivalent would be the National Guard. While they do fit the criteria for being regular militaries, the various National Guards of each state are not militias as the word was used writing the Bill of Rights. This is because they all fall under the ultimate command of the President, to use in any war America fights. More than just the 2nd Amendment, using state militias to fight in foreign wars is unconstitutional. The Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" (US Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 15). Fighting wars on foreign soil is the realm of the Army. The

The word "militia" as used in the original Amendment to the Constitution is defined as the war "arms" individuals are granted the right to bear, but the court system denies that and by so many cases, they put so much harder and tougher restrictions on it [1]. What I think is the court is afraid of the secret militias overthrowing the government. It may also be a security issue, but let's keep that in mind that in a society where everybody is armed, there are fewer crimes happened than in a society with no guns allowed. The right to bear military arms SHOULD be granted back to individuals but with enough teachings about them. The right is already given to people in the constitution, but there is always something going on in the background that is not told to people. Let's be honest. Every government on the Earth is afraid of being overthrown by secret militias with military weapons(from the dictator government of North Korea to the Conservative government of the US). They can not let people use military arms because united militias can plan secretly and work to overthrow the government. The government of the US has done so many bad things to

The current constitution is saying that “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.” Both the first and second clauses of this constitution are problematic. First of all, the militia does not exist anymore and it was replaced with a permanent military and