Posted on Aug 20, 2019
When will everyone be reporting for drills with the "well regulated militia "?
6.05K
113
73
14
14
0
I think it's time to discuss the 2nd Amendment frankly and honestly.
I can't help but notice that people are obsessed with their "rights", but are completely silent about their responsibilities. We forget that the amendment has a purpose statement. The importance of a free standing, well armed, well trained "well regulated militia".
I'd like to politely point out that congress at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted was also kind enough to spell out precisely what the militia was composed of, and give guidance on the training and leadership requirements....
We'll ignore the racist part of it, "able bodied white males"...
But it's pretty explicit. Each and every free, able bodied white male between 18 and 45 is to be enrolled by the Captain in each state, provide their own arms and ammo, and attend regular drills and exercises, and when called upon.
So when are you all showing up for your well regulated militia drills? You want your guns, but none of the training and discipline the founding fathers expected you to have WITH those guns.
I expect to see a lot more of you at formation from here on out!
I can't help but notice that people are obsessed with their "rights", but are completely silent about their responsibilities. We forget that the amendment has a purpose statement. The importance of a free standing, well armed, well trained "well regulated militia".
I'd like to politely point out that congress at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted was also kind enough to spell out precisely what the militia was composed of, and give guidance on the training and leadership requirements....
We'll ignore the racist part of it, "able bodied white males"...
But it's pretty explicit. Each and every free, able bodied white male between 18 and 45 is to be enrolled by the Captain in each state, provide their own arms and ammo, and attend regular drills and exercises, and when called upon.
So when are you all showing up for your well regulated militia drills? You want your guns, but none of the training and discipline the founding fathers expected you to have WITH those guns.
I expect to see a lot more of you at formation from here on out!
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 23
There are groups that organize and practice. The Media hounds them and shames them. People do not risk their employment. Lets correct how they are looked at by Media.
(12)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I like the way it says that you "Shall" have a gun and ammunition. That's not a suggestion of maybe it would be a good idea, but a mandated requirement.
(5)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
"Keep their jobs" while serving? You mean like the Servicemens Civil Relief Act already covers?
(3)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SFC Michael Hasbun - The Media hounds them and shames them. Lets correct how they are looked at by Media.
(0)
(0)
"So when are you all showing up for your well regulated militia drills? You want your guns, but none of the training and discipline the founding fathers expected you to have WITH those guns."
Who exactly is "you all"? Since you are referring to gun owners, I would say you are talking about all gun owners, myself included. I would say the majority of my gun-owning friends take the 2nd amendment very seriously, and none in my circle view it as a right or privilege, but more of a responsibility. Yes, many of those are veterans, but not all. The civilians in my circle have the same viewpoint. The ones who carry concealed for example, also view training and weapon proficiency as a responsibility and none of them view carrying a firearm alone as "good enough", even if we are talking about personal defense or PP. I know beyond a doubt that this mentality is not everyone's mentality. There are plenty of Fudds everywhere. That said, taking the 2nd Amendment and toying with words, is just a more subtle approach than those who overtly want to abolish the 2nd Amendment altogether. If that occurs, the precedence that sets will lay each and every amendment on the chopping block. Only the naive would think otherwise, and I believe we can already see some chipping away occurring on the 1st and 4th.
Who exactly is "you all"? Since you are referring to gun owners, I would say you are talking about all gun owners, myself included. I would say the majority of my gun-owning friends take the 2nd amendment very seriously, and none in my circle view it as a right or privilege, but more of a responsibility. Yes, many of those are veterans, but not all. The civilians in my circle have the same viewpoint. The ones who carry concealed for example, also view training and weapon proficiency as a responsibility and none of them view carrying a firearm alone as "good enough", even if we are talking about personal defense or PP. I know beyond a doubt that this mentality is not everyone's mentality. There are plenty of Fudds everywhere. That said, taking the 2nd Amendment and toying with words, is just a more subtle approach than those who overtly want to abolish the 2nd Amendment altogether. If that occurs, the precedence that sets will lay each and every amendment on the chopping block. Only the naive would think otherwise, and I believe we can already see some chipping away occurring on the 1st and 4th.
(7)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
SFC Salmon - Likewise my non-military rifle and gun owners are quite proficient with their weapons. Most are avid hunters and are certainly capable of conducting Asymmetrical Warfare. They know their terrain, routes/trails, hiding spots and how to live off the land. They may not have the 'look', but many are volunteers of our police, firefighters, EMS. Others are foresters or Game Wardens.
(3)
(0)
SFC Robert Salmon
Unfortunately, I believe people like us are the minority. Most people rarely have time to do everything they want to do, but unless they prioritize training as a "need" and treat it as such, then they just end up being once a year paper punchers. I refuse to fall into that category.
(1)
(0)
This is a post aimed at shaming people into accepting gun control. Everyone has a right to own a weapon. Period. The idea that gun owners should compromise is a joke. We compromised in the 80s when carrying a weapon was suddenly a crime. We compromised with the sportsman protection act that banned sale of weapons manufactured after 1986. Carrying a pistol became a crime almost every where and the gun control side wanted to ban them. Instead, We compromised with the “assault weapon (scary attachment thingy) ban in the 90s. Then the conversation shifted back to out right banning hand guns. Again. The scary thingy ban sunset under President GW Bush. Now we are back to talking about “assault weapon “ bans again.
Gun owners have given up too much. It has never been a compromise because the gun control side isn’t actually losing anything.
I do agree with you that law abiding people should get together to train for the unthinkable even though it is irrelevant to being able to own weapons. As for people obsessing over rights, they need to. Our bill of rights is being eroded constantly, as evidenced by people wanting to ban amendments 1-10, especially the 2A.
Gun owners have given up too much. It has never been a compromise because the gun control side isn’t actually losing anything.
I do agree with you that law abiding people should get together to train for the unthinkable even though it is irrelevant to being able to own weapons. As for people obsessing over rights, they need to. Our bill of rights is being eroded constantly, as evidenced by people wanting to ban amendments 1-10, especially the 2A.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
A typo. The sportsman’s act banned the sale of AUTOMATIC or select fire weapons manufactured after 1986.
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see)
Well said, SFC.
It also bears mentioning that the scary attachment thingy (assault weapons) ban of 1994 had absolutely zero impact on crime according to the DOJ and the FBI.
Well said, SFC.
It also bears mentioning that the scary attachment thingy (assault weapons) ban of 1994 had absolutely zero impact on crime according to the DOJ and the FBI.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next