Well regulated militia?


PDA






DevLcL
January 10, 2006, 04:10 AM
Amendment II

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.

In light of new (rediculous) laws being passed, unjustified government shootings, and many other questionable actions being taken by the government in general, this statement seems to be more and more relevant every time I read it to myself. I'm sure folks out there are thinking the same way as me, folks in a much better situation to actually be any kind of force. My question is this, where is this "militia"? It's often been said that if your a freedom loving american then "you are the militia", which sounds good, but what exactly does that mean? Does you phone number go to some weird guy in a basement somewhere collecting numbers for the day when the militia is needed? A more likely scenerio is that the 2nd amendment was created not to make sure that the citizens could over-throw the government but rather to keep them happy. Certainly now-days the government has 'civil war' low on their list of worries. Any organization that could come close to fighting the government in terms of training and firepower (which is really none) is or would be labeled with the ever-popular term "right wing militia" and thus, is unrespected by LOTS of people. No matter how much you hate the Micheal Moore movies, plenty of people love them with even more passion. There will always be mislead people out there fighting the wrong fight for the right reason. People like Cindy Sheehan proabably do actually want to do 'good' and they cannot see that what they are doing is actually bad. It's been said many times (usually referring to spouses) "once a person has made his/her mind you cant change it".

SO....When will they/we determine the time for this 'militia' to be created. Who is they? And how do they/we know that they/we will all actually fight? It's all very confusing to me but also a very practical thing to think about. I'm very young. With the way things going I will most certainly see some sort of civilian backlash in my lifetime. Add to that the fact that I'm basically a perfect specimen of human :cool: I would feel obligated to fight...right? Being a young-able-bodied-freedom-loving-gun-toting person such as myself, it would be very uncool of me to not fight alongside my neighbors in a conflict that threatens me and mine.


Call me a right wing extremist if you must, I just don't wanna hide in the back only to get picked off anyway.

-Dev

Edit: I hope this post doesn't annoy anyone. LOL

If you enjoyed reading about "Well regulated militia?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Devonai
January 10, 2006, 08:20 AM
Remember the groups of armed men banding together to protect their neighborhoods after Hurricane Katrina? There you go.

If the organized militia is busy, the unorganized militia will have to handle things. How they organize is up to them, isn't it? Or haven't you had this discussion with your armed friends before?

Winzeler
January 10, 2006, 09:13 AM
1.) There are militias out there. I don't think there are any national ones, but there are regional/state ones.

2.) The governments armed forces do not consist of mindless yes-men or robots. In the event of some unforseeable break down of rule of law that resulted in civil war, you'd have to assume that half of the men and women in the armed forces would go to each side. They would just blindly take commands from the president or whoever.

hso
January 10, 2006, 11:53 AM
A more likely scenerio is that the 2nd amendment was created not to make sure that the citizens could over-throw the government but rather to keep them happy.

You've fallen prey to a poor understanding of history. The 2nd wasn't a sop to the 18th C Americans. The guarantee of armed citizenry wasn't mearly to raise fodder for the Army, but as a counter-balance to the government should it raise an Army used to oppress the citizenry. Also, the malitia wasn't 'relevant' just at the birth of the country. It was in use all they way to the beginning of the 20th C. Malitias were certainly raised by the colonies and cities and towns to create the U.S. They would soon use malitias in 1812. Malitias raised by private parties, cities and states would fight in the Civil War and even in the Spanish American War just before the opening of the 20th C (Teddy Roosevelt's First United States Volunteer Cavalry "Rough Riders"). As pointed out, armed citizens restoring order in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita are a classic example of unorgainized malitias. We've lost sight of what the malitias were and did in this country.

carlrodd
January 10, 2006, 12:05 PM
seriously though, if someone actually wanted to start an organized militia in a state that did not have one, how would he do that? is it legal? are there actually laws pertaining to what one can and cannot do? do you have to tell any authority?

Pilgrim
January 10, 2006, 01:54 PM
Check your state's laws carefully. Some actually prohibit private militias.

The PDRK has laws authorizing the governor to arm the militia, but so far he hasn't chosen to do so. The PDRK also has a law banning para-military organizations.

You are probably better off organizing a small group of like minded neighbors and forming instead a mutual assistance pact.

Pilgrim

Gordon Fink
January 10, 2006, 02:01 PM
My question is this, where is this “militia”?

The militia was replaced by a large standing army on a permanent wartime footing.

~G. Fink

WT
January 10, 2006, 02:40 PM
The NJ Naval Militia performed heroically on 911. The 3 battalions of former sailors and coasties saved lives. The NJNM was disbanded by the governor in 2003.

Our local Coast Guard cutter has been transferred to Iraq, protecting Iraq's coast, not our coast.

Our local Army National Guard outfit left last week for a year in Afghanistan.

We are worse off now than in 2001.

Stiletto Null
January 10, 2006, 04:03 PM
You are probably better off organizing a small group of like minded neighbors and forming instead a mutual assistance pact.

Pilgrim...so basically forming a militia.

WT: That's really sad, man. :(

El Tejon
January 10, 2006, 04:19 PM
Dev, the answer is all around you.:p

The militia is the people. At ratification many states, e.g. Virginia, defined the militia as the "whole body of the people."

Federal law defines it as all males between 17 and 45. My state, Indiana, by Constitution defines the militia as all persons 17 and older.

Take a look at a Georgia case, Nunn v. State (Georgia), in which the Supreme Court of Georgia does a wonderful job of answering your question. In essence, they describe how a militia springs forth from the people thus it is necessary to educate all persons in society how to handle weapons.

DevLcL
January 10, 2006, 04:45 PM
Dev, the answer is all around you.:p

The militia is the people. At ratification many states, e.g. Virginia, defined the militia as the "whole body of the people."

Federal law defines it as all males between 17 and 45. My state, Indiana, by Constitution defines the militia as all persons 17 and older.

Take a look at a Georgia case, Nunn v. State (Georgia), in which the Supreme Court of Georgia does a wonderful job of answering your question. In essence, they describe how a militia springs forth from the people thus it is necessary to educate all persons in society how to handle weapons.

Thats very interresting...

-Dev

StopTheGrays
January 10, 2006, 04:48 PM
The PDRK also has a law banning para-military organizations.
Like the police and their SWAT units or are they only quasi-military and so do not count? ;)

El Tejon
January 10, 2006, 04:49 PM
In today's news, El Tejon learns about technology, amazes his secretary, women swoon. I found the citation without having to go to Westlaw and even have a link thingy (thanks to the guys at APS for teaching me how).

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt (second paragraph from the bottom). Note that the state supreme court applied the Second Amendment to the states. This case is also wonderful as it puts to rest the inane notion that before the 14th Amendment that states did not believe that the federal BoR applied to them.:)

neoncowboy
January 10, 2006, 05:33 PM
Any organization that could come close to fighting the government in terms of training and firepower (which is really none) is or would be labeled with the ever-popular term "right wing militia" and thus, is unrespected by LOTS of people.

...which means that the feds have effectively won the war using no more than a few operations (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and a massive PR/media campaign. By casting 'militia' in a very bad light (and granted, some members of the militia aided in accomplishing this...hmm, wonder if those accomplices were FBI/ATF stooges), the feds were able to generate a groundswell of public support *against* the militia...which they were able to use to justify harsh laws prohibiting the 'well regulating' of the militia...which they were able to use to make felons out of the militia members who would take their membership seriously enough to organize and train...which would in turn allow them to break into said militia members homes, shoot them, lock them away in prison, deny them the right to arms or the political process, ad infinitum.

Neat how that works, huh?

Kodiaz
January 10, 2006, 08:07 PM
I have to disagree. On the feds winning already. Now if you take the best twelve THR guys against a squad of vets from Iraq well there's no chance of the militia winning. Now if the gov made some huge grab at freedom that riled everyone up(by everyone I mean all of the gunowners) that would be about 1/4 of the countries population and we would be all over the country that would be different story. What could the .gov do then nuke everyplace except for the northeast and **********?

Well Regulated
January 10, 2006, 09:35 PM
If you want the answer to your question then go here: http://www.virginia1774.org


The militia of the Constitution of Virginia and of the United States no longer exists in violation of these Constitutions. A Militia is "composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms..." And is under the control of the civil authority. Call your county government and ask who the county lieutenant is and where can you enroll in the county militia and why hasn't the county lieutenant been around to enroll you?

azredhawk44
January 10, 2006, 09:53 PM
seriously though, if someone actually wanted to start an organized militia in a state that did not have one, how would he do that? is it legal? are there actually laws pertaining to what one can and cannot do? do you have to tell any authority?

Texas Rangers (essentially state police now) were started out of a need to combat the apache tribe, and the official troops not helping out at all. They organized and regulated themselves, eventually becoming an official arm of texas law enforcement.

The MinuteMen Project is another example of this. I would expect the Border Patrol / ICE to embrace them within the next 5 years much like local police and sherriffs' offices use Posse or deputization powers.

peoria46
January 11, 2006, 05:23 PM
My take is that membership in the general militia is one of three basic mechanisms we, as citizens, have to form and restrain the government: We vote in the lawmakers, we judge the laws they make during a jury trial, and we retain the power to overthrow those lawmakers if they try to subvert the people's rights. The "power" used by local government when applying posse comitatus (power of the county) is the militia--local, armed, able-bodied citizens. We've all seen westerns where the sherriff forms a posse from local citizens--that's posse comitatus and the militia in action. As is Barney Fife when he deputizes and arms Gomer, Goober, and Ernest to put down some Mayberry disturbance. We, as citizens, have decided that out-sourcing our protection to various law enforcement agencies (the local version of a standing army) achieves various efficiencies that benefit us. That doesn't mean the we can't reign them in. Or require that LEOs use the militia as augmentation. If local law enforcement agencies are not in tune with the mores, sensibilities, and attitudes of the citizens they are sworn to protect, nothing says that they can't be overthrown and replaced. The National Guard is a state's standing militia that retains its effectiveness only so long as the members--typically drawn locally--feel the local residents are being treated fairly. If they don't, then you need a bigger army--the standing (out of town) army--which is exactly why our ancestors wanted the bulk of any local, state and national defense force drawn from local men. Local gangs, clubs, and organizations that call themselves "militias" are only that if and as long as they are sanctioned by the people's representatives and performing a task sanctioned by "the people."

If you enjoyed reading about "Well regulated militia?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!