Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Revitalizing the militia tradition?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by mikearion, Feb 17, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mikearion

    mikearion Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    So. California
    I would like to hear some thoughts on revitalizing a universally recognized militia tradition throughout the U.S. A militia in the context of modernizing the tradition to fit the world we live in today. A “security-network†of citizens that is supported by the general public is the concept.

    With the assistance of a former Army Master Sergeant and U.S. Historian I have contributed to a militia charter system that could lay the basis for such a modernized tradition. The system could work as is but really needs more input from those that would support such a system.

    Here is the link to the current charter construction I posted. Be warned the system is involved and takes a little reading to grasp the whole system.

    http://geocities.com/mikearion/chsc
     
  2. VaughnT

    VaughnT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,009
    Location:
    Western SC
    Well, that was definitely an interesting read! You are to be commended on the amount of time it must have taken to research and write that thing.

    Personally, it sounded a lot like the State Guard. Would I join such an organization? Probably. However, it would have to be recognized by local, state and federal governments as something more than a good-ole-boy's club. The biggest hurdle is the lack of pay.

    Like the volunteer fire fighters, you have to give up a lot of your time and energy to make this work. If you were tangibly compensated, it would be more interesting to a lot of people...but that contradicts the purpose.

    Definitely an interesting idea.
     
  3. cheygriz

    cheygriz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,245
    Location:
    High up in the Rockies
    A great idea, as long as it remains "well regulated" as the constitutoin rerquires. i.e., under control of the governor of the state.

    An idea that is long overdue, IMHO
     
  4. telewinz

    telewinz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,305
    Location:
    Ohio
    The State of Ohio already has a STATE sanction militia, its called the Ohio Reserve. I almost excepted a commission from them a year ago but due to the long driving distances involved, wisdom won out over emotion and I declined. Its a very professional organization with a large contingent of prior military enrolled. If you live near Columbus or west of that city check it out. If they ever open a post within 50 miles of my home, I'll join.
     
  5. MitchSchaft

    MitchSchaft member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    So "well regulated" means it has to be under the control of a State governor?
     
  6. telewinz

    telewinz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,305
    Location:
    Ohio
    being regulated by the state would go a long way towards keeping you out of jail.:uhoh:
     
  7. 4thHorseman

    4thHorseman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Right Here
    It must not be under the control or have involvement from the federal government.
     
  8. mikearion

    mikearion Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    So. California
    put in good order!

    Actually "well regulated" had nothing to do with government "regulations" but rather the "method or form" of the militias. This is actually well known in the context of the 2nd amendment. Historic militias were never placed under state control except during an emergency. They were only local entities for community defense purposes. This tradition goes back to first English colonies. Just folks trained to protect themselves.

    So "well regulated" doesn't translate to "under government control" in this context as some, suppose.

    REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions. Webster's 1828 Dictionary

    States are not allowed to have full time paid armies but may only call the People. This was because the military was placed under control of the Federal government. So states made sure to add the 2nd amendment so that at least they could call on the People of their state. If the People were disarmed then they would have nothing at all, not even the police that also derives armed authority from the 2nd amendment.

    Until the National Guard there is no history of full time state run paid militia in the U.S. Actually the National Guard is an Army reserve that was formed from militia but has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.

    I am always amazed how most folks do not understand this very basic history and the Constitution. This needs to be corrected.
     
  9. cheygriz

    cheygriz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,245
    Location:
    High up in the Rockies
    I think that it is pretty well recognized by constitutional scholars that the "well regulated" portion of the Second Amendment meant that whenever the militia was ** "actively engaged in legitimate militia activity,"** whether actually fighting, engaged in training, or putting out forest fires, it would be under the control of constituted local authority, i.e., the governor of the state involved or his designated representative. This is true whether the "militia" is paid or unpaid volunteers. In most of our history, they were unpaid volunteers.


    "Militia activity" by private individuals or groups not "well regulated" would fall under the definition of private armies, and not be covered by the 2ND Amendment.

    While the founding fathers did not completely trust centralized government, they certainly didn't trust anarchists.

    If you read their writings, and American history, they found anarchy to be anathema. Many anarchists were hanged in the 19th century!
     
  10. MitchSchaft

    MitchSchaft member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Well regulated basically means well armed.
    Has absolutely nothing to do with governmental control at all. Federal or State.
     
  11. MitchSchaft

    MitchSchaft member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
  12. Apple a Day

    Apple a Day Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,055
    Location:
    Virginia
    Internet Militia

    I skimmed the whole thing.
    Personally, I would favor something more oriented towards passing information and emergency relief help. Emphasis should be placed more on cell phones and comm. procedures than rank.
    I liked the idea of the only uniform being a khaki shirt. Maybe throw in a local unit patch. I don't see the need for officers farther than a single "captain" and an executive officer. Members should be organized in loose squads depending on where they live, mostly due to ease of muster and communication. Each squad should elect their own squad leader.
    Also, mandating what kind of firearms the troops should have seems snobbish and silly. A lot of folks would turn their noses up at a mini-14, anyway. I'd rather stick with an AR or AK variant by far. Each local unit should be encouraged to first have a common cartridge, then a common rifle due to ammo supply and spare parts issues. Group buys should be encouraged towards that purpose but not mandated.
    I think mandating a cell phone would be higher on the list than a rifle, esp. of a particular type.
    Range time should be encouraged but on an honor system. Again, local units should be encouraged to make bulk buys of ammo. Anyone finding good buys on the Internet should post prices and source towards that purpose.

    I guess, in a way, sites like Highroad.org are a loose form of eMilitia [Hey, I just coined a new word!].
     
  13. MitchSchaft

    MitchSchaft member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    eMilitia, good one![​IMG]
     
  14. blades67

    blades67 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,771
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona, USA
    Remember, most people go to Public schools.:barf:
     
  15. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    Wow.
    You have really put some thought into this. But I guess that is a good thing. I would join such an organization without hesitation. I think that it goes to the root of being an American.
    I wouldn't expect any compensation for my time or effort, but it would be nice to have someone buy my practice ammo.:D
    It would also be cool if you could work it so that militia service was a real activity that people couldn't have held against them, like the Army reserve. Most people wouldn't participate in an organization that would get them fired for missing work. But if the state said that militia service was to be excused, then that would be taken care of.
    Also, why the Mini-14? I've heard/read that they are kinda lacking in accuracy and I also know that good hi-caps for them are expensive. Who wants to fight with 10 round mags?
    But, I guess that if you were working for the state, then maybe you could get them to supply you with a few 30 rounders each.

    Also, have you contacted anyone in government with your ideas?
    If and when you get an answer, please let us know.
     
  16. MitchSchaft

    MitchSchaft member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    The mini-14 is still legal in CA.
     
  17. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    Cheygriz - Non-state-regulated militias would be perfectly legal, by way of 1st Amendment freedom of assembly. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any militias anyway, it protects individuals' right to own weapons, primarily because militias are required for the security of free states (standing Armies being abhorrent to free states) and militias require armed citizens. The Supreme Court has interpreted it slightly differently (ie, the amendment only protects weapons a militia would use, US v Miller), but they're wrong on plenty of other issues too.

    FWIW, I was reading reports of battles in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and apparently the Mujahideen rank system consisted simply of soldiers and "Commanders." The person in charge of a unit of any particular size was a Commander. In fights where multiple units were involved, the Commanders either worked together or chose an overall Commander for the battle. It seems to have worked fairly well for them.
     
  18. Navy joe

    Navy joe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,362
    Location:
    VA
    "well regulated" -Think well armed and trained. Zilch to do with what the governor thinks. The various Guard organizations are not militias, they are reserve elements of the federal armed forces formed in the old manner, that is units come from common geographic regions. Having a master in the statehouse and one in DC is not my idea of a free people's militia.
     
  19. mikearion

    mikearion Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    So. California
    Standard Rifles.

    Notice rifle standard in mini-14 is only "suggested." Anything semi-auto in .223, .308 or 9mm is acceptable. The charter was updated to make this more clear.

    http://geocities.com/mikearion/chsc
     
  20. Chipperman

    Chipperman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,572
    Location:
    Essex Co, MA
    The biggest hurdle here is the negative connotation that our beloved media has given to the word "Militia". The meaning, like "Assault Rifle" has been twisted beyond recognition.

    The Sheeple now think that militia members are paranoid anarchists who own a lot of guns, live in Wisconsin, and are plotting the downfall of the Federal Government. :uhoh:
     
  21. MoonMan

    MoonMan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    21
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into this document.

    I think it doesn't allow the local units enough autonomy-- things like term of office for the Captain could be determined by each county's unit. Perhaps this master document could include an ultimate limit.

    Such as: "...local unit would determine the term of office and limit the number of terms for the Captain. However, terms are never to exceed six years, and terms would never be permitted to exceed 3 consecutive terms or twelve consecutive years."

    This is one of several places where the national orginization should allow the local units more autonomy than is granted by the current document.
     
  22. Shweboner

    Shweboner Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    520
    Location:
    Newberg, OR
    I thought they all lived in Idaho, not Wisconsin?:eek:

    ~brian
     
  23. Strings

    Strings Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,031
    Location:
    30 miles from Everywhere, right in the middle of N
    hey...

    >militia members are paranoid anarchists who own a lot of guns, live in Wisconsin, and are plotting the downfall of the Federal Government.<

    Two out of four: do I qualify? :what:

    Sounds like an interesting idea, but I think a little less regimentation would be good. And I agree that a cell phone for this should be a higher priority...
     
  24. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    Mikearion said:

    "

    ...So states made sure to
    add the 2nd amendment so that at least they could call on the People of their state. If the People
    were disarmed then they would have nothing at all, not even the police that also derives armed
    authority from the 2nd amendment."

    The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with "granting authority" to anyone for anything. It is simply a prohibition on federal action. The RKBA existed prior to and independent of the USA or the federal government, and will outlive both. The RKBA is a law of Nature - it is self-preservation. Overturning the 2nd would only result in removing this prohibition, but would not make the seizure of arms legal.

    The 2nd is a brake on the fedgov's power, not a grant of rights. Does your right to free speech depend on the 1st Amendment? Your right to worship?
     
  25. MitchSchaft

    MitchSchaft member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    I think some people need to do a little research on the 2A. That's twice in this thread it has been taken in the wrong context.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page