A thought on the common topic of general militia usage

[zukiphile]

Al, please, you are above broad brushing and I challenge you to debate their facts as presented not their reptutation within the gun world.

Tennessee Gent, how do you ask Al not to assess the bias of your offered authority, and call it "broadbrushing" when your own incisive analysis at post #22 reads,

BINGO! Many of the folk who are "pro-militia" and post on TFL don't really understand what the militia was. Many are couch potatoes who just want to own scary weaponry to impress themselves and others. The militia is a MILITARY organization not a mob with guns. And those who want these weapons want no part of any military discipline in the main.

If you want specific review of the problem with your "go to" authority, I've provided it.

 

[publius42]

TN Gent,

The problem with your source is that you are trying to support this original argument:

In fact during that period (1789) many in the militia owned no private weapons and were supplied such by the states they resided in.

With things that happened in 1792 and beyond, and in poor frontier states at that. How about if we talk about the 13 original states and the state of affairs before and during the Constitutional Convention? We already know that New York and Mass required citizens to arm themselves. How about other states?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

We already know that New York and Mass required citizens to arm themselves. How about other states?

I believe that most all of the colonies militia laws had provisions to equip those with weapons who were too poor to own them and that includes MA (I can provide you a source if you wish). Also, in some colonies like VA you could if you were rich pay a substitute to do militia duty. This practice continued until the Civil War.

Do you believe that every single person in those states eligible for the militia owned a private firearm? My source provides that indeed those laws were impractical and problematic. In fact even after the Militia Law of 1792 states did not comply with that act either in toto.

What the real issue was in my post was whether the COTUS established that private ownership of firearms was the only way a militia could be armed. Do you think the COTUS says that a militia may only be armed by privately owned weapons?

Did you know that during the first real test of the militia, The Whiskey Rebellion, that the Fed had to provide more than 2/3's of the weapons used by the 13,000 rank and file who owned no weapons?

I must ask then what is your point is bringing up those laws which have all been repealed today? I agree that in that time (1789) arms were scarce and expensive and the young governments didn't want to have to pay for them so they tried to "pass" that burden on to the public at large but as we have seen it didn't work and in fact is one of the reasons the militia failed.

 

[Hugh Damright]

the only way a militia may be called out is by the state government ... and the militia will answer to state authorities only (not themselves)

But the state authorities have to answer to the people of that State, and the people are the militia, so it seems to me that there could be situations in which the militia i.e. the whole people of a state are the final authority and would answer to themselves ... securing a free state.

To that I give you United Airlines flight #93. Those people acted as and were the militia.

It seems to me that Virginians could be a conquered people under military rule with no free State and the death penalty for any who form militia, yet we could still defend ourselves against something like flight #93.

 

[zukiphile]

I must ask then what is your point is bringing up those laws which have all been repealed today?

As has been pointed out to you many times, repeal of a state law subsequent to adoption of the COTUS does not amend the COTUS, whereas practice and law prior to adoption may lend context.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But the state authorities have to answer to the people of that State, and the people are the militia, so it seems to me that there could be situations in which the militia i.e. the whole people of a state are the final authority and would answer to themselves ... securing a free state.

That would be rebellion. A state without government is not free but an anarchy. The militia was created by law (the state) and functions under law (the state) and answers to law (the state). There is no militia outside the state or law. That is a mob with guns and we are a nation of laws not men.

 

[zukiphile]

That would be rebellion. A state without government is not free but an anarchy.

I think a state that answers to its population would more commonly be called a republic.

The militia was created by law...

This is incorrect. The state may "call forth" the militia. One only calls forth a thing already existing.

...and functions under law (the state) and answers to law (the state). There is no militia outside the state or law.

I function under the law of a state, and I answer to the law. Yet to suggest that I do not exist except within the state and the law does not seem to be a sound statement metaphysically. How would the militia differ?

That is a mob with guns and we are a nation of laws not men.

Yet you argue that our laws should have no effect or influence where you find them antique. So which is it? A nation of laws, or one where your anxieties about people not under the authority of the state prevail?

I challenge you to respond without using the word "mob".

 

[Hugh Damright]

That would be rebellion. A state without government is not free but an anarchy. The militia was created by law (the state) and functions under law (the state) and answers to law (the state). There is no militia outside the state or law. That is a mob with guns and we are a nation of laws not men.

The people of a free State are not a "mob", they are a sovereign body i.e. they are the ultimate authority.

 

[Master Blaster]

Well Regulated, means they drill and practice and are well trained in the use of arms and military tactics.

 

[Don Randall]

Tennessee -

Thanks for the note. I didn't have to go far into your linked article before finding a rather obvious and glaring flaw:

1.10 What is a militia?

A. A militia is a body of armed citizens, with some military training, who may be called to temporary active military service in times of emergency.

The author can claim to be absolutely right, just as long as everyone accepts HIS definition. I object to his claim on the following grounds:

1) There is no shortage of examples of purely civilian militias throughout history that were not supported by or under the authority of any government. Even today, you will occasionally read of this militia or that militia fighting government troops in this or that country.

2) Parliamentarian, Andrew Fletcher, the author of A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias makes it very clear, very plain and very obvious that he refers to only armed individuals apart from govenment sponsorship or command as being a "well regulated militia". He does so after a rather thorough discussion of standing armies, government sponsored militias and mercenary troops.

Do you deny that Fletcher used that term in only that one very limited and specific meaning?

Do you deny that the framers were literate men of their time and had an understanding of the language and terminology as used and as understood in that time?

Do you say the framers used the phrase "well regulated militia" in a manner that was something other than the long accepted understanding of people of that time? If so, why the hell would they do that?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The people of a free State are not a "mob", they are a sovereign body i.e. they are the ultimate authority.

They are not a law unto themselves and they are a mob if they act in a lawless fashion. That is why I believe that the proper redress against a government we disagree with is the vote, failing that the courts. Use of a lawless "militia" has no business in the discussion. I sort of like that John Locke Social Contract thing.

Well Regulated, means they drill and practice and are well trained in the use of arms and military tactics.

I agree and would add that they answer to legitmate authority.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

just as long as everyone accepts HIS definition. I object to his claim on the following grounds

That was the definition I believe the Founding Fathers understood. I believe that because the historical facts showing what the militia was then is plain. I think you would be at odds therefore with the Founding Fathers.

Do you deny that Fletcher used that term in only that one very limited and specific meaning?

I believe that Fletcher used the term as he believed it to mean and not the way it was in the early US. Furthermore I disagree that Fletcher's definition was the predominate view of what a militia was at that time. In fact I think he was rather fringe in that regard.

Do you deny that the framers were literate men of their time and had an understanding of the language and terminology as used and as understood in that time?

Yes they were learned men and they fashioned the militia to be a body of armed citizens, with some military training, who may be called to temporary active military service in times of emergency. Furthermore, they gave the Congress unprecendented control over the militia which alarmed the states and hemce the second amendment was ratified to reassure them of their local control over their resepctive militias.

Do you say the framers used the phrase "well regulated militia" in a manner that was something other than the long accepted understanding of people of that time?

No I do not. However, I do not think either you or Mr. Fletcher are using the common and proper understanding of what a militia was during that period of time.

I recommend you continue to read the other parts of the source. Lots of good info and references.

 

[Don Randall]

The issue we are discussing is not the private ownership of guns but the militia.

I believe we are having some difficulty accepting that similar phrases may have different meanings. Consider two similar sounding terms, "Lightning Bug" and "Lightning Bolt". Now consider that you are riding down the road at 65 mph on a motorcycle. Does it make any difference which of the two might strike you?

In Article 1, Section 8, the framers discuss "Militia" and it is mentioned exclusively as an organ of each individual state.

In the 2nd Amendment, the framers discuss the "Well Regulated Militia" which is linked directly to "The People" and not the state. As the supreme court has stated, the term "the people" always means the same thing in every instance it is used.

I would rather doubt you believe that, under the 1st amendment, that it is the militia which has a right to free speech, to worship freely or to publish without censorship. I am sure you would agree that the term "the people" assigned those rights to people as individuals.

 

[Don Randall]

Master Blaster wrote:

Well Regulated, means they drill and practice and are well trained in the use of arms and military tactics.

I have offered a link to a historical document that shows - not merely guesses or states, without any evidence, but shows unequivocally - that the framers had a very particular understanding that was common among the people of that time and long before.

Do you have anything to refute that or are you going to hold stubbornly to what you believe simply because you wanna believe it in the face of evidence to the contrary?

 

[Don Randall]

I recommend you continue to read the other parts of the source. Lots of good info and references.

I have done so. I believe that as human beings tend to do, they tell the truth... From their own perspective. As a friend of mine used to like to say, when they paint, they use their favorite colors.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Other than the definition, Where are they wrong in your opinion?

 

[zukiphile]

I believe that as human beings tend to do, they tell the truth... From their own perspective.

Don, some of the conflation of terms in the ADL article when coupled with the stated mission of the article suggest to me that the ADL exercise was more a matter of polemics than historical inquiry. Would you disagree?

Other than the definition, Where are they wrong in your opinion?

Tennessee Gent, I do wonder why you ask what is wrong with your article when it appears that you are actually uninterested in discussing it.

 

[Don Randall]

Tennessee Gentleman wrote:

I do not think either you or Mr. Fletcher are using the common and proper understanding of what a militia was during that period of time.

Interesting.

You place yourself above and superior to Andrew Fletcher in your understanding of the words, phrases and language of that time - Fletcher's discourse dates back to 1698 - although Mr. Fletcher was/is widely regarded as one of the great thinkers and political minds of that time.

He was widely traveled, well educated and intimately involved in the political events of the time. He was particularly well educated in the history of Europe with a keen understanding of the British Isles especially as regards their relationship with France.

As for me, I only know what I read and for the purpose of this conversation, I am reliant upon Mr. Fletcher as an historical source of information.

 

[Don Randall]

Zukiphile wrote:

Don, some of the conflation of terms in the ADL article when coupled with the stated mission of the article suggest to me that the ADL exercise was more a matter of polemics than historical inquiry. Would you disagree?

It appears to me that they are rather selective in their facts.

I'm trying without success to remember an amusing little story I once heard about how one can carefully choose which facts are included and which are ignored in an effort to dramatically change the way anyone hearing their report would understand it. The idea being that one can offer certain absolutely truthful statements to report on an event while omitting others - The net result being that the one hearing the report would be thoroughly deceived by hearing absolutely truthful statements.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

In the 2nd Amendment, the framers discuss the "Well Regulated Militia" which is linked directly to "The People" and not the state. As the supreme court has stated, the term "the people" always means the same thing in every instance it is used. I would rather doubt you believe that, under the 1st amendment, that it is the militia which has a right to free speech, to worship freely or to publish without censorshipI am sure you would agree that the term "the people" assigned those rights to people as individuals.

Don have you read Heller? I think that might clear up the difference between the prefatory and operative clauses of the amendment.

Do you have anything to refute that or are you going to hold stubbornly to what you believe simply because you wanna believe it in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Don have you read this passage 3.22 here: http://www.adl.org/MWD/faq3.asp?

What is wrong with their facts?