Should the US allow militias?

[New Aerios]

Oh wow.

Yes, government is pretty bad. But your reasons... Wow...

First of all, the US government doesn't ban tobacco. If you believe it does please provide a source. Secondly, can you explain to me in detail how simple Fluoride ions are capable of altering an individuals mind to the degree it would take to implant a specific thought?

In a decision handed down earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld New York City’s ordinance banning the sale of flavored tobacco products
[2] U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Mfg. Co. LLC v. City of New York, 708 F.3d 428 (2nd Cir. 2013).

OK, fair enough, although by the sound of that the ban was state, not federal. Didn't New York have that weird authoritarian power fetish guy who banned drink cans or something? I'm assuming it was him, but anyway, that isn't a nationwide ban.

[Pilotto]

Preventing meetings is a violation of the First Amendment, not the Second. Their ability to bring along their firearms is limited by local ordinances, since Second Amendment rights are not unlimited.

I think what he means is that disallowing the militia to organize and get together is infringing on the right to form a militia.

Bingo

[Greed and Death]

So long as the militia is not committing any crimes or conspiring to committing any crimes, to prohibit it from meeting would be a violation of their first and second amendment rights.

Preventing meetings is a violation of the First Amendment, not the Second. Their ability to bring along their firearms is limited by local ordinances, since Second Amendment rights are not unlimited.

Neither the first or second amendment are unlimited, but taking guns to a gun club/range/other area to practice and train in their use is likely protected subject only to safety regulations.

[Distruzio]

I was doing some reading recently and found that the U.S government made it so that they are the only ones that can make and control a militia. That seems wrong in my opinion seeing that a militia is supposed to be for the people to protect their liberties. If the government is the only one that can control them then how are we, the people, supposed to protect our freedoms. It also violates the second amendment.

Of course it should. It should also maintain vigilance to ensure these militias aren't targeting national officials. The regulation of militias should lie within the domain of the state governments.

[McCatsonia]

Provided they don't go around violating others, of course.

[SD_Film Artists]

Don't you think that an armed group owned by an accountable, democratic county/state protects liberty much more than an unaccountable armed group with a survivalist/gun fetish. If they really wanted to protect freedom then they'd be doing peaceful activism, lobbying etc; but no, they're clutching guns as if the world's going to end.

Sure, but does that justify outlawing and arresting them?

Since "militia" is quite a politicised buzzword in America, there could be all kinds of decent law-abiding groups calling themselves that; but if you mean the more general sense of the word, like the aforementioned trigger-happy survivalists, yes it should be illegal just as it's illegal in any other industrialised nation.

[Elmerna]

Technically speaking, there is no law in the us preventing gun owners from forming an organization. So that would kind of mean that a militia consisting of 4 million people could exist and they could call themselves a militia. It's just that the organization wouldn't be backed by the US government, or a state government.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I was doing some reading recently and found that the U.S government made it so that they are the only ones that can make and control a militia. That seems wrong in my opinion seeing that a militia is supposed to be for the people to protect their liberties. If the government is the only one that can control them then how are we, the people, supposed to protect our freedoms. It also violates the second amendment.

They haven't violated anything. The Second Amendment says that militias can be formed, this clause largely added because at the time the US did not have a regular army. Most state militias though that were formed, eventually turned into the National Guard for each state. People today can still form militias however.

Well regulated militia = National Guard.

[Big Jim P]

They haven't violated anything. The Second Amendment says that militias can be formed, this clause largely added because at the time the US did not have a regular army. Most state militias though that were formed, eventually turned into the National Guard for each state. People today can still form militias however.

Well regulated militia = National Guard.

Other organizations as well.

Easiest fix: don't call you shooting club a militia.

[Mormak]

Really given there isn't any Legislation prohibiting or Proscribing the formation and creation of Militia, this is a non issue to me.

Private Militia are merely incapable of being considered an active military or policing force, they a body of citizenry nothing more, but they can be legally formed.

[Delmonte]

For constitutional reasons? Yes. It says in black and white that they are allowed. But also for practical reasons. Most militias are not anti-government groups. Most of them are groups of citizens who band together in rural areas where the police can't get anywhere particularly fast in order to protect themselves and their friends/family from everyday crime. The National Guards are the clearest descendants of the militias, but something less formal is required in various parts of the US.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Well regulated militia = National Guard.

Other organizations as well.

Easiest fix: don't call you shooting club a militia.

[Geographic Location] militia ([GL]M) -----> [Geographic Location] group of citizens who shoot firearms together, learn first aid, assist authorities search & rescue efforts, and perform other miscellaneous non-profit activities ([--]GCSFTLFAAASREPOMNPA)
...
This could make it very hard to make signs.

[Greed and Death]

Provided they don't go around violating others, of course.

Once they break the laws they can and will be broken up. Also the victims would be entitled to damages from the group as a whole not just the individual perpetrators.

Hence why an old black woman gained a former KKK compound worth 2 million dollars.

[Mormak]

Provided they don't go around violating others, of course.

Once they break the laws they can and will be broken up. Also the victims would be entitled to damages from the group as a whole not just the individual perpetrators.

Hence why an old black woman gained a former KKK compound worth 2 million dollars.

The UKA's Headquarters?

<_< That Jury was rigged.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Not needed anymore, at the time yeah sure....not necessary right now.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Look up books banned in schools, look at some of the propaganda in schools, and look at Michelle Obama and her new laws.

Wat.

Must be one of those people who think Obama runs the whole show too.

[Juggalo world]

Yes, even if they weren't allowed how could the government stop them any group,of citizens could gather in private for a milita meeting and have a stockpile of weapons and ammo.

[The Pretty Good Place]

Would you rather have a government that tells you what to think, what to eat, what to read?! I would rather die than give up my rights!

Slippery slope detected.

Name one thing the government does that tells me what to eat, think, and read. My Service doesn't count.

Ever heard of corporate sponsorships to parties? There's a lot more that goes on then what the media covers. They don't make it necessary but no country starts as a dictatorship. Look at world events like Ukraine to see how easily and quickly a country can fall. If we don't maintain our ability to protect ourselves and our government decides to abuse its power, we can end up like that.

[Rurmastadt]

I say yes. So long as the militia is properly organized (a mob of people with guns is not a militia), well regulated (accountable for their actions while performing their duties as militiamen), and not based around some kind of radical political agenda I see no problem.

When there isn't a military threat we can encourage members to take classes and get certifications that can allow them to work in support of federal and state responders in the event of a natural disaster or similarly destructive event. Sort of a grassroots supplement to the national guard (which is in no way a militia, it's a decentralized reserve army).