So we havent heard of State Militias resurging


PDA






nathan
February 2, 2013, 04:09 PM
They were so prominent in the 1990s when Clinton enacted the 1994 AWB . So far in this fight for our 2A, the MSMs havent mentioned of their resurgence which i believe is going on now. At least the NRA is taking the high road to counter the misconceptions of antigunners and offering sensible solutions to gun violence.

If you enjoyed reading about "So we havent heard of State Militias resurging" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
February 2, 2013, 04:15 PM
Hmmm...I think the militia movement was a thing of that time, and isn't likely to reappear. They didn't seem to do any good for almost anyone and managed to create quite a sideshow distraction by attracting a lot of questionable folks and drawing too much very negative scrutiny.

Honestly, grass-roots activism is fantastic. Guys getting together to dress in camo and give each other rank titles and such really isn't going to help our cause. If it ever could, its chance to do so died with the unfortunate '90s examples.

yokel
February 2, 2013, 04:17 PM
The right to keep and bear arms was a deadly serious issue back in the critical formative years of the United States of America, from the days of colonial unrest through the Revolution and into the Constitutional era and the War of 1812.

Nowadays, however, the Second Amendment has been for the most part relegated to just another form of recreation, entertainment, sport, pastime, play, leisure activity, diversion, hobby, distraction, and relaxation.

For all intents and purposes, that warrior ethos -- the foundation of what it means to be an militiaman-- has dissipated.

Solo
February 2, 2013, 04:19 PM
You can still join state militias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force).

Sam1911
February 2, 2013, 04:23 PM
Actually, the militiaman was not exactly what most folks think.

Read Kyle Zelner (http://www.usm.edu/history/faculty/kyle-f-zelner)'s Rabble At Arms (http://www.amazon.com/Rabble-Arms-Massachusetts-Militiamen-Philips/dp/0814797342/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1). BullfrogKen and I got to hear Dr. Zelner speak on that book at the Army Heritage and Education Center last year and he was riveting. Gave a whole new insight on the idea of what constituted the militia as understood by the founders.

"Warrior ethos" would be a misapplied term.

OptimusPrime
February 2, 2013, 04:39 PM
I think Sam is very correct; what we would view as "militias" were a product of the times back then and have been treated like a dirty diaper ever since; nobody touches or goes near it.
But, saying that, human nature also does not change too often and I'm sure the same types of people are conducting the same types of thoughts/meetings/campouts/exercises as they did back then.
The new word for "militia movement" is "doomsday preppers".

AethelstanAegen
February 2, 2013, 04:45 PM
As Sam said, the word militia meant something very different back in 1776. Back then you were in the militia if you were an able-bodied man 17-45 years of age (ie anyone of fighting age/ability was expected to be able to turn out in times of need). So essentially, if you're eligible for selective service, you're in the militia in 1700s terminology.

yokel
February 2, 2013, 04:49 PM
A noteworthy fact is that the same Congress which passed the Second Amendment also saw fit to pass the Militia Act of 1792. This law required every free male between the ages of 18 and 44 to own the same type of rifle that was used by soldiers in the Revolutionary War and to own ammunition as well.

ScrapMetalSlug
February 2, 2013, 04:54 PM
So what happened with the militia act of 1792? This is the first I've heard about it. Was it repealed, or is it just commonly ignored?

Sam1911
February 2, 2013, 04:57 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

There were several militia acts. One superseding the next.

The last, the Militia Act of 1903 created the National Guard.

yokel
February 2, 2013, 05:01 PM
Thanks to media stereotyping, the average American probably associates the term militia with tax-protesting, bogus-lien-issuing crazies, and may even think that the National Guard is the militia that the Constitution talks about.

Alas, the classical notion of the militia as it existed 200 years ago and the virtues of an armed citizenry seem to have fallen by the wayside due to public apathy and elite dissatisfaction.

Of the two, the latter was more decisive. The militia system was designed to make foreign military adventures difficult, and it did. As recently as 1912, when the federal government tried to send state militia units into Mexico, the attorney general opined that such an order was unconstitutional: Militias could be called into federal service only in cases of invasion or insurrection, not in the service of quasi-imperial ambitions abroad. Earlier efforts to invade Canada had encountered similar difficulties. This problem, coupled with a jealousy from professional military men that dated back to the Revolutionary War, led to the replacement of the militia system with the National Guard, a federally controlled force far more amenable to superpower demands.

Ehtereon11B
February 2, 2013, 08:02 PM
Personally I think the rag tag militias such as Oathkeepers are about as organized and well trained as a boy scout troop. Dressing up in camo and mocking firefights in the woods. I can't tell you how many times I saw videos of militias fumbling with weapons and making all sorts of mistakes such as loading it wrong, shaking it upside down to clear it etc.

Old Fuff
February 2, 2013, 08:20 PM
"The Militia" is still with us.

Its established by nothing less the a U.S. Law, which makes it "The U.S. Militia."

10 USC 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The classes of the militia are—

(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So with a few minor exceptions, all able-bodied males who are at least 17 years of age, and under 45 years of age, who are or intend to become U.S. citizens, and not members of the National Guard (or regular military services) are members of the unorganized militia - which is the one cited in the Second Amendment.

Oh, and you are expected to provide your own small arm and ammunition.

mastiffhound
February 2, 2013, 10:04 PM
State militias still exist. Recently on either National Geographic or Discovery they did a show on state militias. Some are kind of sad. When you see a 32 year old mobidly obese 450 lb man saying he trains hard to fight you kind of die a little inside. Other state militias were very organized, patrolling the mexican border and calling law enforcement when they see things. These were also the types that didn't just accept somebody because they wanted to join. They trained together and seemed more like a cohesive unit. Mostly they are ex-military and police, and friends and family of ex-military and police. Some good some bad but they do still exist.

HorseSoldier
February 3, 2013, 02:06 AM
While there were obviously people who actually were card carrying members of militia groups back during the Clinton years, that whole thing was somewhere upwards of 90% media hype. It was a trope that sold papers, etc., more than it was ever a significant political movement.

And, as others noted, angry overweight white dudes turning out in camo with scary black rifles to play army in the woods as a way to stand up for the Constitution or anything else probably did more harm than good for the 2nd Amendment.

krupparms
February 3, 2013, 02:49 AM
It would seem the government propaganda has done it's job! Even here on a pro 2nd. Amd site! We see citizens putting down the Militia! They have devided us on one of the most important issues! You are the Militia! You make it what it is! Not what some reporter says it is! Quite watching tv, at least the 400lb. angry white guy is doing something! Maybe if you were there he would not be misguided! If it's on tv it must be true!

fallout mike
February 3, 2013, 03:17 AM
After reading a couple of threads today on here im feeling kind of demoralized by supposed like minded people here. Between this one and the one where most everyone said they would probably give their guns up im starting to realize that we have no hope. This country is finished.

Artigas
February 3, 2013, 04:27 AM
A big blow to the militia came in 1825 when the first volunteer or select militia was created and the common militia, that is, the people, was put on the backburner. This happened in Massachusetts, cradle of the Revolution. It was what Richard Henry Lee warned against:

...to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.

Jesse Wales
February 3, 2013, 07:00 AM
well u could join the National Guard:
if u meet the criteria , age background ,
maybe they will condider taking some of us old guys back
as far as unorganized malitias I kind, of relate them to paint ball games
not sure if they should have rubber bullets or real ones , and certainly not
M 16's
when I joind the NG i thought i was joining a group that I would not leave the USA but in reallity , I soon found out that they are reserves of the US Army , and would go directly into combat , along side the Army
not what I thought I had signed up for , I thought in a War we would stay here and defend this country , and deal with Disasters and keep order
so u might ask whoos gonna stay here and protect our own soil ,
the answer is the police ! now we dont have enough police , and the sentiment of the the ARMY is not what it used to be , and weve got guys coming back from this war were in now (police action) that I dont see being treated as well as they should be , and they have to go find a job in an environment of job loss and unemployment

230RN
February 3, 2013, 07:19 AM
Ehtereon11B opined (Post 12):

Personally I think the rag tag militias such as Oathkeepers are about as organized and well trained as a boy scout troop. Dressing up in camo and mocking firefights in the woods. I can't tell you how many times I saw videos of militias fumbling with weapons and making all sorts of mistakes such as loading it wrong, shaking it upside down to clear it etc.

Isn't that what excercises are for? You should have seen me, a civilian, zero-point-zero military training, fumbling around with a borrowed Springfield rifle my first time out on the range (ca 1956). That magazine cutoff sure had me fooled. "On?" "Off?"

And the sights...

There's an old range saying, "The match goes to those who solve their problems best."

But the problems have to come up first, in order to solve them.

Oh, never mind. I'm just glad Youtube wasn't around at the time.

:o

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

hso
February 3, 2013, 09:31 AM
The state militias/defense forces/guards are organized and under the sole control of their states. Joining is easy, but there are requirements and there are regular responsibilities.

303tom
February 3, 2013, 09:35 AM
The right to keep and bear arms was a deadly serious issue back in the critical formative years of the United States of America, from the days of colonial unrest through the Revolution and into the Constitutional era and the War of 1812.

Nowadays, however, the Second Amendment has been for the most part relegated to just another form of recreation, entertainment, sport, pastime, play, leisure activity, diversion, hobby, distraction, and relaxation.

For all intents and purposes, that warrior ethos -- the foundation of what it means to be an militiaman-- has dissipated.
For you maybe.................

OptimusPrime
February 3, 2013, 09:35 AM
Please allow me to alter my earlier statement a bit. When the thread started I was under the impression that the OP's question was about the stereotypical and cliche "militia movement" from the early 90's that was over-hyped, camo-wearing (before it was cool), tough-talking, fringe groups that did get all the media attention. Since then the conversation has steered into the constitutional rights of militias. Same word, different contexts.
For the record, I would absolutely support any gathering of citizens to defend our cities/states as necessary and supplied by ourselves as allowed by many laws described above.

Kansan
February 3, 2013, 10:45 AM
For the record, I would absolutely support any gathering of citizens to defend our cities/states as necessary and supplied by ourselves as allowed by many laws described above.

Militias are a double-edged sword & depend upon the character of its members. In Afghanistan, I've seen that local militias can be very effective in securing their communities against outside threats. With training & proper equipment, they are the ultimate neighborhood watch. However, if that militia decides to misuse its power or if it views the .gov as an outside threat, it can become an enemy of the state. That's what gave some militias a bad name back in the 90's. The citizen-soldier concept is a good one, though, in its proper time and place.

krupparms
February 3, 2013, 01:04 PM
The words & works of our founding father's give us the time &place to use the citizen -soldier concept. We just need to read their words & warnings! I am 53 &100 % disabled, but I will be doing whatever I can if needed! That includes sharing my knowledge or skills so that we can remain free! And keep our Republic safe! By the way. We live in a Republic! Not a Democracy! Look it up they have already taken our Republic from us &no one seems to notice or care!

SuperNaut
February 3, 2013, 01:07 PM
Regulate yourself and keep communication open; social systems self-organize.

Cosmoline
February 3, 2013, 01:07 PM
They were so prominent in the 1990s when Clinton enacted the 1994 AWB

I think you may be confusing the so-called "militias" that sprung up with the actual state militias. State militias still exist, but are typically underfunded and overshadowed by the National Guard. I suspect we may indeed see a resurgence of true state militias as budget cuts continue and there are fewer federal resources available to clean up after storms, earthquakes and so on.

So essentially, if you're eligible for selective service, you're in the militia in 1700s terminology.

Most of those laws are still there, still on the books. So technically that hasn't changed a bit. In practice of course states just rely on Uncle Cheddar.

carbuncle
February 3, 2013, 01:11 PM
Hmmm...I think the militia movement was a thing of that time, and isn't likely to reappear. They didn't seem to do any good for almost anyone and managed to create quite a sideshow distraction by attracting a lot of questionable folks and drawing too much very negative scrutiny.

Honestly, grass-roots activism is fantastic. Guys getting together to dress in camo and give each other rank titles and such really isn't going to help our cause. If it ever could, its chance to do so died with the unfortunate '90s examples.

I agree with this, my run ins with local examples of this breed in WA were less than impressive.

herkyguy
February 3, 2013, 01:50 PM
A funny aside on militias -

I completed a Masters Degree at Norwich University in Vermont. It's half military (ROTC)/half civilian, but all the professors have to be part of the Vermont Militia, complete with rank structure and all. The requirements goes back to the school's beginnings in 1819 or so. It bothers some of the more sheltered academic types up there. But I thought it was pretty cool.

mastiffhound
February 3, 2013, 05:05 PM
In response to krupparms,

We see citizens putting down the Militia!
I thought very highly of some of the militias. I thought that was clear.

at least the 400lb. angry white guy is doing something!
Getting out with some of those other types would be counter productive. A bunch of morbidly obese people sitting around drinking and shooting airsoft guns isn't doing anything.

Maybe if you were there he would not be misguided!
I doubt it. I was fair to the militias. Some are serious and are a credit to our freedom, and some are just a sad bunch of alcoholics.

If it's on tv it must be true!
I never said it was, but the show seemed pretty honest. It wasn't anti-gun or anti-militia. The militias were shown to be like most americans, some good and some not so good.

hso
February 3, 2013, 05:20 PM
I wouldn't be so sure that we won't see a resurgence of groups that identify themselves as "militia", but I do not think we'll see the same sorts that existed in 1990s. This time I expect the militias will be antigovernment groups composed of more mainstream citizens who are willing to engage in court actions as well as civil disobedience to proposed restrictions on gun owners as opposed to armed resistance that was the core philosophy of the 1990s.

The Administration and the Anti politicians have provided a spark to revive the militia movement, but I think the approach these militias will take will be more like a PAC with civil disobedience added.

Sam1911
February 3, 2013, 06:19 PM
This time I expect the militias will be antigovernment groups composed of more mainstream citizens who are willing to engage in court actions as well as civil disobedience to proposed restrictions on gun owners as opposed to armed resistance that was the core philosophy of the 1990s. This I can see happening, and maybe even soon. I'll be curious to see if (m)any of those groups adopt and try to renovate the title of "militia" or if that's taken too big a hit in the shenanigans of recent memory.

For a great many people, especially outside observers, that title itself will be a distraction and stumbling block to what they're trying to achieve.

hso
February 3, 2013, 06:27 PM
Sam,

I expect some will use "militia" with the full intent of sending the message that they recognize the "last resort" aspect of the debate and others will because of the older historical link. Many will call themselves something else not wanting to "muddy the waters", concerned that they'll not be taken seriously politically if they identify themselves as a militia.

Cuomo's War On Gunowners has provided a lot of motivation for people to speak out and threaten to act out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTdhVxva5KU&feature=youtu.be

SharpsDressedMan
February 3, 2013, 09:17 PM
It has been rumored that less than 10% of the men of able age in the 13 Colonies participated in the American Revolution against the British. I suspect that less than 10% of the people on this site (along with a like percentage among the rest of the populace) would truly stand up together against a government out of contol that was subverting the Constitution. The "milita" woiuld be the place to gather for such a purpose.

Ole Coot
February 3, 2013, 10:13 PM
Bad mistake for anyone including the government to underestimate a loosely formed state militia. Those old fat white boys know the territory, can leave the "concrete pounders" in circles in the woods. They don't brag or threaten anyone as long as they aren't pushed and from this area most are better than decent shots. Old guys from WV & KY have held their own in every war, maybe a little older like me but 60yrs of shooting gave me enough practice to hit what I want.

Kansan
February 5, 2013, 12:19 PM
I'll be curious to see if (m)any of those groups adopt and try to renovate the title of "militia" or if that's taken too big a hit in the shenanigans of recent memory.

In the "Shot Heard 'Round the Word" thread, the OP (Mac66) mentions:

Because the crown banned public meetings and militias the colonists set up "Committees of Correspondence"

Looks like they had to resort to calling it something else in the days leading up to the original Revolution.

USAF_Vet
February 5, 2013, 12:34 PM
Here in Michigan, the militia has always been pretty active. In recent months, there has been a lot more activity.
I've got a buddy who runs a military surplus store, and he can't keep his shelves stocked. The volume of sales he's had since opening last year has already made him outgrow the shop he had and move to a larger location.
They might be unorganized survivalist preppers, but they consider themselves a militia.

I don't think the prepper types are planning on fighting the Government, more likely these are the bug out types. They train to defend themselves and their family and get off the grid and stay low key.

Why has this resurgence not been covered by the MSM? It doesn't push their agenda. Not until some group comes out and does something stupid. People in the militia, especially here in Michigan, know the MSM is not their friend. There was the Hutaree debacle a few years ago, and they were lumped in with all the other militia groups. The name Timothy McVeigh still stings with the Michigan militias, even though be was not ever a member. The militias still remember Waco and Ruby Ridge, and how the government treats people who did not toe the line. How did the media spin those incidents? This leftist state controlled media will never give the militias a fair shake, even if in all fairness they are just a bunch of middle aged fat white guys sitting in the woods telling lies.

gossamer
February 5, 2013, 12:37 PM
Alas, the classical notion of the militia as it existed 200 years ago and the virtues of an armed citizenry seem to have fallen by the wayside due to public apathy and elite dissatisfaction.

So has the fact that the elites in the Federal Government at that time required regular inspection and cataloging of all the privately owned guns of those militiamen. A Federal gun registry and inspection that - if even proposed today - would inspire a venom that makes the current reactions look tame.

A fond remembrance of a bygone is venerable; nonetheless, that era of militia wasn't completely so.

gossamer
February 5, 2013, 12:41 PM
Old guys from WV & KY have held their own in every war,

With respect; so have young, "concrete pounders" from the Bronx, Atlanta, Washington DC and Chicago.

JustinJ
February 5, 2013, 12:58 PM
Militias, as in those of the 90's, are a potential self fulfilling prophecy. What better way to motivate the government to come for your weapons than to make them believe you intend to use them against it.

Cosmoline
February 5, 2013, 01:12 PM
The test for whether the militia is legitimate or not is pretty simple. If the membership is around 95% enlisted and 5% officer, then it's legitimate. If everyone is an "officer" then it's an armed political club.

palmrose2
February 5, 2013, 01:30 PM
As alluded to by USAF_vet, there have been no recent recent events that compare with what happened at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco.

The OP seems to connect the 90s militia movement with Clinton's AWB. I believe it was more related to federal government tactics at the time. It was the behavior of the feds that led McViegh to his murderous idiocy.

I think that the Waco Siege led to the formation of many militias. I also think that the Oklahoma City bombing was responsible for many to put distance between themselves and the movement.

Robert
February 5, 2013, 04:14 PM
sometimes I think I am on a brady gun control site
You have been here two days and think that THR is a Brady gun control site... :rolleyes:

Maybe have a look around at all the calling, writing and other things the members of this site have done in defense of the 2nd Amendment before passing judgment.

Take a look at the number of members who run or help run competitions or who mentor others with hunting skills. Clearly Brady type things.

Back to the point.
My experience with militias has been very limited so I am not trying to paint with broad strokes, only to what I have seen. I am confused as to how a bunch of guys that can barely make it up a flight of stairs armed with 70 year old bolt action rifles or an AR they never shoot are going to accomplish very much at all. Now let me be clear, I am not saying that all militias are like this, but this has been my experience. I have no issue with the concept of a militia, but the execution sometimes leaves something to be desired. And as others have pointed out it does tend to make one a very clear target for the government.

Outlaw Man
February 5, 2013, 04:59 PM
Oh, and you are expected to provide your own small arm and ammunition.

I keep trying, but that same Congress won't let me. :D

Ken70
February 5, 2013, 07:37 PM
They are staying under the radar...

Highland Ranger
February 5, 2013, 09:26 PM
There may or may not be more militia activity - everything you "know" is fed you through the lens of the media - no good way to judge that.

I can tell you that from my perspective, there are more people than ever shooting, buying guns and keeping extra ammo on hand. It also ok to discuss in polite corporate Northeastern conversation these days as well so if anything, seems to me everything that is going on has awakened many who were sleeping on the issue.

barnbwt
February 5, 2013, 10:06 PM
Bear in mind that any "well-run" (or well-controlled, as the case may dictate) government has (understandably) little tolerance for rival military factions in its midst. The govt made it pretty clear in the '90s that "serious militias" (i.e. the scary kind, with motivated people that have resources and are actually capable of doing things; Regardless of their motivations/membership) are no longer tolerated. Instead, they are to be ridiculed and marginalized, if not quashed outright (if too threatening). This state of affairs is our (and our forefathers) fault for not maintaining the militia.

Milita was once a civic duty (do we still have those, or is that concept "outmoded", too?) but it was allowed to fall by the wayside as the "regular" armies gained prominence over the years. Precisely the standing armies we were warned about; that would gather all the motivated, resourceful people who can actually do things for Federal service. Not local/state service.

The Republic was founded with great faith in mankind (and a heavy acceptance of our failings), but the capacity for locals to maintain a "well-regulated militia" themselves throughout peacetime for any period was apparently heavily overestimated. IIRC, militia were broken up early in the 1800s in many states because they'd become a fraternity of alcoholic, rowdy, reckless jerks who did more harm than good, and cost a lot of money. Who knows, the original militia may have been closer to that description than the white-washed histories indicate ;)

Luckily, the militia was merely the desired byproduct of the Second Amendment, not the sole item protected by it. Our right to keep and bear arms is recognized --that we may form disciplined militia to guarantee our liberty. No promise, request, or stipulation that we actually do so. Even at the time, many citizen-soldier groups (ultimately groups of revolutionaries) were politically inclined, and actively worked to turn the public against the crown. They didn't just drill away anonymously in secret, waiting (at least, while they were still legal). Groups that do that are more like mere insurgents; more a destabilizing force aimed against authority than a pillar for residents to proudly gather about and secure their way of life.

TCB

Silent Bob
February 6, 2013, 08:30 AM
Maybe because they will get deemed a "terrorist" by the Obama administration and receive a little visit from a Predator drone that will send a Hellfire missile into their home or Dodge pick-up.

AlexanderA
February 6, 2013, 08:59 AM
Keep in mind that the "constitutional" militia is supposed to have a universal membership (to the extent of all able-bodied male citizens within certain ages, etc.). When you have a self-selected membership (as all modern organized militias do), it becomes a "volunteer" militia instead of a "constitutional" militia. (BTW, this is exactly the change that took place in the militia system prior to the Civil War.) The only "constitutional" militia that we have now is the unorganized militia, as defined in the U.S. Code. So, a group of private individuals -- or even a state-sanctioned group, for that matter -- who form a militia voluntarily cannot claim constitutional protections. If you're going to claim a RKBA in a militia context, you have to remain unorganized.

If you enjoyed reading about "So we havent heard of State Militias resurging" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!