The Second Amendment: The Right To Form Militias

People tend to focus on the gun part of the second amendment, but the militia part of it is just as important. In fact, in their words, necessary.

We’ve all heard people call the Second Amendment the right to bear arms. But that may well be the wrong point.

“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.”

When people come together to protect their own from outsiders; they have formed a militia. People doing that is what our founder saw as necessary in any free society, and it is one of our rights that they were protecting. Being able to have plenty of armed people on hand to form that militia is why the federal government was forbidden from restricting ownership of guns.

The phrase “well regulated” is part of the problem, however, and their solutions for problem with the second amendment. Without that, it actually protected slave that banded together to fight back, and Indians that did not want to move. There was no way in hell that any state would pass anything that gave those groups the right to form militias, hence the term, well regulated. In my opinion, it was a term to exclude those certain types of people from having militias able to stand up to the state governments as well as to prevent gangs of bandits and thieves that were already becoming a problem in a few areas from being considered militia. The well-regulated is to keep the people they considered inferior from being able to have militias the same way that they were not allowed to vote, not people they thought of as equals.

Many of the protesters that are coming into conflict with federal officers would be called militia under the definitions that the Founding Fathers used. Our Founding Fathers intended that those groups be strong enough to stop outsiders from coming in and telling them how they have to do things. But right now, not only are many of them unarmed, they are often met with overwhelming force in some kind of armor or another. As flawed as the system is, law enforcement is supposed to be done by the locals only. Militias, just as well armed as they are part of what is supposed to ensure that.

And make no mistake, that system has serious flaws to it too, ones that, impart, led to the Civil War. But those are another topic. For ages, you have had the cities using federal troops from one agency or another to enforce their will on the countryside militia. Right now, the countryside is doing the same thing to the cities, whose militia are less organized and drawn mostly for those that have no guns. But both groups have the right to band together and tell the federal government to shove it.

Me in the Philippines

I would love to hear you opinion on this as would many of those reading this.