What is the purpose of the Militia?

[ctdonath]

I had always thought that the Militia had been kept to protect the people from rogue government.

Just one reason of many. The core of our nation is our Constitution; a rogue* government is not submissive thereto, so it is not our government but a domestic enemy. It is the enemies of the people, foreign and domestic, for which the people are armed and from which a militia may be raised on short notice.

When the whole world was using a variety of muskets, some swords and cannon, it was not hard to train everyday people to use and fight with them. Now there is just too much tech stuff for anyone but a specially trained operator with months of training and experience to use properly. A pickup truck filled with guys with AR15s is not going to stand up to a F22 with GPS guided bombs.

That "tech stuff" is largely geard toward other formal armies with lots of "tech stuff". Others have noted above that such equipment & skill is not a magic talisman against a bunch of guys with ARs in a pickup truck. Yes we may be winning in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Vietnam had not the politicos stepped in), but it's taking a huge effort over many years by the most powerful military on the planet willing to inflict significant collateral damage on a different continent. This in contrast with, say, using that F22 with GPS smartbombs against a target who is sharing an apartment building with the pilot's brother, or to take out the infrastructure supplying his child's daycare. We're not talking about targets among a different culture speaking a different language in a different country on a different continent, we're talking about a military using that "tech stuff" against their own home.

The other point of a militia (as the whole people, armed - not a ragtag bunch of fringies) is the sheer number. Every year we Americans run operation "Deer Season", where some 18,000,000 militiamen self-equipped with sniper rifles and other serious & effective gear spend weeks engaging in live-fire lethal exercises against live targets. Now, with that in mind, go read about the Swiss aphorism "shoot twice and go home". The militia, as the Founding Fathers intended, should garner awe from even the professional military.


* - be wary of tossing 'round the term "rogue government" lightly. Many seek to apply it where it does not apply.

 

[Jeff White]

Militias are a joke militarily. Militias have never been able to stand their ground against regular forces. it wasn't the militia that won the revolutionary war, it was the Continental Army, professional soldiers trained and drilled by von Steuben and reinforced by Lafayette with French troops and supported by the French navy. If the revolution was fought by the militia, we'd all still be subjects of the crown.

The only time militias win is when the government backing the regular forces loses interest (Vietnam, Somalia) or when other nations recognize the militia as a legitimate government, provide aid and other assistance to the militias and legitimize their revolutionary government. History is not exactly full of successful revolutions without those other factors. There are a lot of insurgencies currently being fought that have been ongoing for the last 20 years or more.

The militia that is provided for in the US Constitution is part of the government, not any kind of check on an oppressive government. The militia would be used to support the government, not overthrow it.

Jeff

 

[RioShooter]

I had a few relatives who served in militias in Connecticut. Family records indicate that they mainly defended their villages from Indian attacks. One of my great-grandfathers was killed in pursuit of a war party.

 

[yokel]

In regards to being a well trained, armed, equipped and combat ready outfit capable of engaging significant forces in battle, the militia is essentially kaput these days.

For all practical purposes, contemporary private gun ownership means personal protection and the pursuits of hobbyists, sportsmen, collectors, and recreationists.

 

[hugh damright]

The militia would be used to support the government, not overthrow it.

I think it's both ... to support free/desired government, and also to overthrow arbitrary/undesired government.

 

[Harve Curry]

Of course the militia system is intended for supporting your state and then federal goverment. Also to protect it from internal strife. That should be all to obvious. It's was all part of the original checks and balances to keep our form of a repubilcan-democracy government safe. Militia laws, USC, are listed above in post no. 6.

 

[wyocarp]

I think it currently ought to overthrow this pathetic government that wants to bail out everyone.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

]The militia that is provided for in the US Constitution is part of the government, not any kind of check on an oppressive government. The militia would be used to support the government, not overthrow it.

This is correct. As for throwing off an oppressive government, our armed status to that end is assured by the Second Amendment.

U.S. casualtys are way down, and conditions are improving enough to warrant troop withdrawals.(I'm not trying to go political, I'm pointing out that this insurgent type of thing hasn't worked.)

Yes it has, since we are indeed going to leave and they are indeed going to waltz right in and take over when we do. Victory is being the last man standing in the field. The Taliban and insurgents will be there when we are gone.

We will be leaving behind a functioning government with sufficient forces to handle the Taliban and the insurgencies when we leave. That's the deal. Though it seems off topic, this does make the case for a well armed populace with equal or better arms in kind and number for both purposes: A well armed/regulated militia for national defense of We the People, and a well armed and well regulated We the People capable of throwing off a bellicose and oppressive government. The better armed we are, the less likely our government is to become oppressive, and the less likely we are to be invaded. The more freely we carry arms, the less likely terrorists will be successful in hijacking airliners, and the less likely deranged people will succeed in a massacre, and the less likely criminals will prevail.

Woody

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Granted, but that is not why they are protected by the constitution.

I thought about this, and I think they are protected beyond the militia.
"The right of THE PEOPLE (the people is seperate from the militia, or else only the militia can speak freely)to keep and bear arms". I just thought this needed to be posted, before someone reads this and thinks something such as "heller should be overturned"

 

[TEDDY]

look up milita in the library having the federal code.

US 10 has the answers there were no NG untill 1906.before that it was militia.
the civil war was fought by regular army and "voluntiers.in WW! the guard could not fight out of country so it was inducted into the regular army after WW1 the soldiers were released and rejoined the NG.in 1934 the NG was made a componant of the army reserve.It is called the army national guard.
before it was called [state]guard.the state guard was supposed to be supplied by the state.the government now supplies the guard.indeviduals can own tanks planes cannon.and MG.

 

[Harve Curry]

Teddy,
Thanks for that info, explanation.
I wondered about the use of the word unducted in that era.
My Grandfather's 1917 military papers read that way; "inducted into the National Army" .
But he was not in the National Guard beforehand, he just went directly into the Army to go to WWI France.

 

[unspellable]

Organized militia

The organized militia was in existance at least as late as WWII. A distinction lost today is that between states which have a "state police" force, and those that have a highway patrol or public safety officers. In Michigan, the state police were originally organized as a para military force. (The Texas Rangers are probably the oldest para-military state police force in the US.)

During WWII the National Guard was called up and shipped overseas. My father was a member of the Michigan State Militia. These troops were uniformed and under the command of the Michigan State Police Commander. (The militia uniform looked similar to an army uniform, not like the state police uniform.) My father's unit was shipped down to Detroit to put the lid on the WWII race riots there. They were also assigned aircraft spotting duties which lasted into the Korean War era.

I think this is a good example pointing out that the National Guard, what ever its other merits may be, is NOT the organized militia.

 

[Jeff White]

I think this is a good example pointing out that the National Guard, what ever its other merits may be, is NOT the organized militia.

This is true in Iowa where you live now:
http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT...ot/codeandsupp.htm?f=templates&fn=default.htm

29A.6 Military forces of state.
The military forces of the state of Iowa shall consist of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the militia .
[C51, §621; R60, §1002; C73, §1039; C97, §2167; S13, §2215-f1; C24, 27, 31, §432; C35, §467-f1; C39, § 467.01; C46, 50, §29.1; C54, 58, 62, §29.6; C66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §29A.6]
2001 Acts, 2nd Ex, ch 1, §8 , 28

However it's not true nationwide. In the example you used from Michigan, the National Guard is by law the organized militia:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(we...ame=mcl-32-509&query=on&highlight=militia#top

MICHIGAN MILITARY ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 150 of 1967


32.509 State military establishment; composition; organized and unorganized militia.

Sec. 109.

The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.


History: 1967, Act 150, Imd. Eff. June 30, 1967

You will note that it doesn't mention the state police at all. Since the enactment of this law on June 30, 1967, the national guard has been the organized militia in Michigan.

I think that if you were to check the laws in all 50 states, you'd find that most of them designate the National Guard as the state's organized militia.

The militia isn't what someone thinks it should be. It's defined by law.

Jeff

 

[Loosedhorse]

(a) 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.

It would seem to me that, although not legally tested, our various sex-discrimination and age-discrimination statutes would render the above restrictions meaningless in regards to the unorgainzed militia.

you'd find that most of them designate the National Guard as the state's organized militia.

Yes. But there is also a recognized unorganized militia--otherwise, there would be no need for the term "organized" in front of militia.

Militias are a joke militarily. Militias have never been able to stand their ground against regular forces.

It is true that the militia forces at Lexington and Concord did not triumph. But the British were subject to harrowing sniper fire as they retreated to the safety of Boston.

It is also true that in large part the Continental Army was originally militia volunteers, responding to the call.

The Battle of Bunker Hill (aka Breed's Hill) took place before the Declaration of Independence, and 3 days after the Second Continental Congress, over 300 miles away in Philadephia, had established the Continental Army. It is unlikely that any of the American militia volunteers that fought that day realized they were part of that Army.

Yep. The militia forces lost that one, too. But they inflicted the most British losses that day of the entire war, with over 1000 British casualties, including 100 officers. British General Henry Clinton wrote, "...another such victory, and we are utterly undone."

I'm therefore not sure we should be so quick to dismiss the significance of the unorganized militia. Militias may be a joke, but I doubt they heard the British laughing. JMO.

 

[Jeff White]

The militia won ONE battle in the revolutionary war. ONE out of a war that lasted what 7 years. Hardly a sounding endorsement of the military prowess of an unorganized militia.

No militia has ever won a war militarily. Never, not once. All successful insurgencies have evolved into governments that were recognized by at least some foreign powers and eventually fielded regular troops that engaged in conventional combat against the opposing army.

A loss in which you inflicted a large amount of casualties on the enemy is still a loss. Militias have always been militarily insignificant. JMO, backed up by thousands of years of history.

Jeff

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The militia won ONE battle in the revolutionary war. ONE out of a war that lasted what 7 years. Hardly a sounding endorsement of the military prowess of an unorganized militia.

No militia has ever won a war militarily. Never, not once. All successful insurgencies have evolved into governments that were recognized by at least some foreign powers and eventually fielded regular troops that engaged in conventional combat against the opposing army.

A loss in which you inflicted a large amount of casualties on the enemy is still a loss. Militias have always been militarily insignificant. JMO, backed up by thousands of years of history.

Jeff

I think if We the People had to mount an offensive or defensive position and lost, it would be as a result in part of the onerous infringements upon our right to arm ourselves. We'd lack the training, too, but that, again, would be as a result of the infringements. You can't train with what you don't have or is too limited and expensive as a result of the infringed supply of new arms - meaning machine guns.

All that said, and in spite of the infringements, has there ever been a populace as well armed as we are now? I don't see any invaders challenging us. Even during World War II, the Japanese feared a land invasion on the continental United States because of how well armed We the People are.

JMO as well.

Woody

 

[qwert65]

Militias work because they harass and make conditions unsuitable for the enemy. No militia can stand toe-toe with a proffessional, for that matter no amatuer in anything can stand toe-toe with a competent proffessional.

That being said if you look at the revolution the militia harassed the brits enough till we raised an army this can still happen in todays world, also there is a great difference in a large power invading a country and a civil war when a militia takes on its own goverment(assuming many militias and not one) That is a civil war. no country can stand to be fighting itself for long, the united states are strong bc they are united(not sure why we need HI though )

My point is in an insurrection if it is popular, traditional style militas are a potent weapon

 

[unspellable]

"The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act."

What does the "and the defense force when ..." part mean? Seems to be something other than the National Guard. I would also point out that making something a law, does not make it so. (Witness the multitude of laws in violation of the 2nd.) The militia was defined as excluding officers and agents of the federal government. You can make a pretty good argument that members of the National Guard fall under that exclusion.

My original post was meant to point out the situation as it was at the end of WWII.

BTW: I'm no longer in Iowa. Just took a job in Alabama and am currently sitting in a hotel room. I expect to move into an apartment on the 24th. Wife and dogs are still back in Iowa getting the house ready to sell.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The militia won ONE battle in the revolutionary war. ONE out of a war that lasted what 7 years.

And then the militia did what? Hang up their cleats as "undefeated" and head home?

Or did they form the backbone of the organized army (after appropraite training), win the war--and then go back to being unoraginized militia at war's end? Seems like you're playing a bit of a shell game--take the militia troops, add a uniform and a few weeks training, and poof! Now you have an army, so the militia was never important to being with?

Just because the unorganized militia can and does transform into regular troops during a time of need is no reason to consider them unimportant. Heck, that WAS their importance in a time when a standing federal Army was not present outside time of war.

The no-draft, all professional armed services is of relatively recent coinage. And that minting did not suddenly invalidate the unorganized militia's role, both as emergency irregulars and eventual uniformed troops in time of crisis.

(One wonders, if GWB after 9/11 had told us--instead of to continue shopping at the mall--to prepare because we are going to war, how many more unorganized militia would have fulfilled that traditional role and become regular troops in response to the attacks.)

 

[Jeff White]

And then the militia did what? Hang up their cleats as "undefeated" and head home?

Engaged in a brutal civil war against their Torie neighbors in South Carolina. Broke and ran in countless battles when they tried to fight alongside the regulars. You need to put away your DVD copy of The Patriot and break out the history books for the real story of how the militia performed in the revolution. The idea that the revolution was won by citizen soldiers who grabbed their Kentucky long rifles from over the hearth and beat the superpower of the 18th century is a quaint myth.

Or did they form the backbone of the organized army (after appropraite training), win the war--and then go back to being unoraginized militia at war's end?

No they didn't. Certainly some individuals who were members of the militia enlisted in the Continental Army, but militia units served until the end of the war and outside of one victory, their service was poor and in many cases a disgrace. The militia did not form the backbone of the Continental Army.

Seems like you're playing a bit of a shell game--take the militia troops, add a uniform and a few weeks training, and poof!

It takes more then a uniform and a few weeks of rudimentary training to make a soldier.

Just because the unorganized militia can and does transform into regular troops during a time of need is no reason to consider them unimportant. Heck, that WAS their importance in a time when a standing federal Army was not present outside time of war.

It hasn't happened on any scale in this country since the 1860s.

(One wonders, if GWB after 9/11 had told us--instead of to continue shopping at the mall--to prepare because we are going to war, how many more unorganized militia would have fulfilled that traditional role and become regular troops in response to the attacks.)

There wasn't a big increase in recruiting after 9/11. A possible use for the unorganized militia might have been to call up some people, cadre them with military retirees and use them to secure infrastructure in CONUS. However with our current litigious society, no elected leader is going to arm ill trained civilians and put them to work. The unorganized militia is strictly a doomsday force.

We now have a USSC ruling that doesn't tie RKBA to membership in the militia. It's time we dropped the entire militia argument and worked on expanding Heller.

Jeff

 

[qwert65]

The militia was very effective in the civil war, esp the southern units. The militia has excelled in all wars as a defensive force, but has a pretty poor record as an offensive force esp outside of home areas(see war of 1812)

I agree that modern equipment precludes standing toe to toe with a force but militia today is basically only useful in guerilla warfare which is still ver viable in todays world of combat- look for example on how long it took to subdue fallujah when the marines/army got serious took them about a week, remember the united states is vast compared to most countries the military of any opposing force would be streched really thin

I'm not condonig nor saying that a militia could defeat a modern army I am stating that it is a proven fact that guerilla warfare is still a potent weapon on the battlefield

 

[Loosedhorse]

You need to put away your DVD copy of The Patriot and break out the history books....The idea that the revolution was won by citizen soldiers who grabbed their Kentucky long rifles from over the hearth and beat the superpower of the 18th century is a quaint myth.

I appreciate, Mr. White, your identifying my need; I have even put away Red Dawn and Charlie Wilson's War. My history books, unfortunately, seem also to spout that old myth. It would be more helpful to me, if I may respectfully request it, if you were to cite your history books, so that I can (once again) fight the battle against my ignorance.

I am most interested in the references that mention that very few or no persons who were irregular volunteers in 1775 joined the Army afterward, so that the Continental Army troops were ever composed, for the duration of the War, of only the pre-existing British Colonial forces, who--like George Washington himself--simply switched sides, without new, non-military blood ever replenishing their ranks.

It does make me wonder, if a militia is so clearly useless, why the Founding Fathers considered one (if well "regulated") necessary to the security of a free State. Perhaps, if they had only broken out their history books...

We now have a USSC ruling that doesn't tie RKBA to membership in the militia. It's time we dropped the entire militia argument and worked on expanding Heller.

Agreement. Heller accepted what has been commonly called the second prong of Miller, the "in common use at the time" test for 2A-protected arms. It did not at all rely on the first prong, protecting arms "useful to a militia," and seems to have subordinated (inactivated?) that prong, in favor of a new "useful for self-defense in the home" test. For now.

'Course, this discussion is perhaps a bit far afield from the OP's question.

 

[SuperNaut]

an hero

Isn't this meme out of style yet?

 

[Steve Raacke]

What does the "and the defense force when ..." part mean? Seems to be something other than the National Guard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

 

[Jeff White]

It would be more helpful to me, if I may respectfully request it, if you were to cite your history books,

Army Lineage Series INFANTRY Part: I Regular Army by John K. Mahon and Romana Danysh published by the Office of the Chief of Military History, United States Army Washington DC 1972

Paraphrasing from the first chapter:

The Continental Army was raised separately from the militia. Militia units were not absorbed into the Continental Army although just as I stated, militia veterans were individually enlisted. Units were raised from the states and the officers were appointed by congress. These units (now called the Continental Line after the reconstitution of the Army in 1776) shouldn't be confused with state regiments that were raised on a permanent basis for local service only.

HTH
Jeff