Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why put all that on the New Orleans police? If I recall correctly, the first woman in that video had her gun taken by the California National Guard, and the next two gentlemen had their guns taken by the Coast Guard.

Your original question was whether the standing army was a threat to liberty. I'd say the Coast Guard definitely violated those citizens' rights, so yes. Would you agree?

Now your next question was whether or not to settle it on the spot with gunfire or later by other means. An individual choice, but I'd just say that trying to disarm me during the lawlessness after a hurricane might be hazardous.
 
I'd say the Coast Guard definitely violated those citizens' rights, so yes. Would you agree?
Click to expand...

Based on what I have read some LEO military folks were out of line to confiscate those guns. I think we learned a lot from Katrina and I think that many states (like TN) enacted laws to prevent that form happening again. To me that is the better way.

Now your next question was whether or not to settle it on the spot with gunfire or later by other means. An individual choice, but I'd just say that trying to disarm me during the lawlessness after a hurricane might be hazardous.
Click to expand...

Well, that would be your choice, however my prediction of the outcome of that would be: You would be dead or wounded, if wounded you would be prosecuted after you recovered and probably put in jail. The cops you shot would be called heroes and you would take a place in history alongside Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh. But then maybe you would want that. Not me.
 
I do consider the standing Army we have today to be an enemy of liberty. The IRS, ATF, FBI, US Army, DEA, all of these organs are the standing federal army, and are the antithesis of a free people.
Click to expand...

I would to if they were not under civilian control. Yet they are and your elected representatives can and do control them. Believe me, after answering several congressional inquires with the threat of no funding and other sanctions if I didn't, they are in charge. Now whether they answer to you is another matter.
 
What about the Kent State incident? I certainly saw that as the NG being a danger to "the peoples" liberty. As a matter of fact, they permanently took away the liberty of 4 students at Kent State. The NG was acting as a police force at the time, not a citizen's militia. Of course, the NG is part of the organized militia, which ultimately belongs to the Feds. I guess you could say that they were called upon to put down an insurrection, but that might be a stretch. Were the students armed? They may have had rocks. They were engaging in civil disobedience. Did we learn anything from Kent State? I agree that we did learn something in NO after Katrina, and we've now passed laws that forbid the governments from disarming law abiding citizens during or after national disasters. Another win for our civil liberties. Thank God no lives had to be lost for that to happen, as was the case at Kent State.
 
For that matter, the Army is under civil control, as well. Read Federalist Paper number 8, written by Madison on Tuesday, January 29, 1788:


Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Click to expand...
 
Also, The anti-Federalist papers 24 January 1788:

The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.

We are informed, in the faithful pages of history, of such events frequently happening. — Two instances have been mentioned in a former paper. They are so remarkable, that they are worthy of the most careful attention of every lover of freedom. — They are taken from the history of the two most powerful nations that have ever existed in the world; and who are the most renowned, for the freedom they enjoyed, and the excellency of their constitutions: — I mean Rome and Britain.

In the first, the liberties of the commonwealth was destroyed, and the constitution overturned, by an army, lead by Julius Cesar, who was appointed to the command, by the constitutional authority of that commonwealth. He changed it from a free republic, whose fame had sounded, and is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history, with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage; — The most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.

The same army, that in Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people, that liberty they had so dearly earned.

You may be told, these instances will not apply to our case: — But those who would persuade you to believe this, either mean to deceive you, or have not themselves considered the subject.
Click to expand...
 
TG posted:
I would to if they were not under civilian control. Yet they are and your elected representatives can and do control them. Believe me, after answering several congressional inquires with the threat of no funding and other sanctions if I didn't, they are in charge. Now whether they answer to you is another matter.
Click to expand...

Has there never been an occurance throughout history where a military, which was ruled by civilian control, didn't rise up and take over anyway? Certainly there have been military coups at different points in history. I'm honestly asking the question. I can't come up with a specific event, but I'm guessing one of our posters can.


Wow. Divemedic answered the question before I finished posting it. Good job, Sir.
 
Last edited:
What about the Kent State incident?
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, one of the commanders of the National Guard that day is someone I know pretty well. We will leave names out since this is the Internet but I asked him why his guys fired on those students. He said that his men were afraid for their lives. No opinion here on this and it is off topic but that is what he believed 38 years ago and today as well. They felt it was a violent insurrection.
 
Has there never been an occurance throughout history where a military, which was ruled by civilian control,
Click to expand...

If you mean the Roman Empire those "senators" were hardly liberal democratic representatives we have today. I think they were rich landowners and were held in check by no constitution.
 
What about Pakistan. Didn't the military take over from a democratically elected government? Wasn't Benizar Bhutto (sp?) ruling Pakistan as a democratically elected civilian ruler? Wasn't Pervez Mushariff (sp?) the head of the military who took over the nation through a military coup?
 
Al,
Very interesting article, thanks. Here is one quote I find interesting:

The argument for the constitutional right of self-defense is, in other words, an argument from living constitutionalism. Justice Scalia is well known to despise the idea of living constitutionalism. But what he has given us in Heller is actually a living constitutionalist argument disguised as law office history.
Click to expand...

Seems to go against what most here have said viz-a-viz civilians having access to military weapons. What I mean there is how warfare has changed as well as the weaponry. I am also looking at this quote.

There is also a third principle that the text might have been created to protect: It might have been designed to constitutionalize the common law right of self-defense using generally available weapons.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what Gura argued that upset the full auto crowd? Full auto isn't generally available to civilians. So, they can't assert a right to have one.

to prevent the federal government from disarming citizen militias that were not organized by states, but that might arise spontaneously to fight a tyrannical federal government, tyrannical state government, anti-republican insurrection, or foreign invasion. Call this the principle of republican insurrection.
Click to expand...

Payton does disagree with this by saying the fear was of a standing army and so the notion was to have a small standing army and a large militia. Now that idea is gone. A really good explanation for this can be found in President Eisenhower's farewell speech:
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea...But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions...Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
Click to expand...

Using the argument many use here of original meaning the military we have today would be anathema to our founding fathers. I say the militia is no more and I think that as Balkin would say this is a permissable construction
 
As I said, IF Balkin is correct, and since it is mentioned in at least two places in the Heller decision - he just may be, the republican insurrection principle answers your question.

Now, as for his quote as regards Scalia and the inclusion of self-defense as a principle, he does say that this is one of the correct interpretations.

If you also read the Larry Solum piece, then you can see how he responds to Balkins misguided (in Larry's eyes) principle, in that it is actually a valid construction from original meaning.

This philosophical debate notwithstanding, the law of the land is currently that the right protected in the 2A is an individual right and self-defense is part of the construction/principle of that right.

As I have said before, too much (or too little - POV) is being made of this 5-4 decision. That decision rests almost solely upon the scope of the right. It is a battle that will be fought in courts throughout the US for the next 20, 30 or 40 years.

What should be noted is that the decision for an individual right was in fact, 9-0. That's the biggy. That's what we gunnies have said for 70 years. Now the SCOTUS has finally admitted it. This will not be overturned.

The fleshing out is the scope of the right and whether or not the right has any strength to it. Thats' the 5-4 part that could be rendered moot.
 
Based on what I have read some LEO military folks were out of line to confiscate those guns. I think we learned a lot from Katrina and I think that many states (like TN) enacted laws to prevent that form happening again. To me that is the better way.
Click to expand...

If they were already out of line based on existing laws, how do new laws help that situation? Wouldn't they just break the new ones as well?
 
If they were already out of line based on existing laws, how do new laws help that situation? Wouldn't they just break the new ones as well?
Click to expand...


I've started reading "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When Government Breaks Their Own Laws" by Judge Andrew Napolitano. So far it's a great read. This is exactly the main point he is discussing. The government breaks their own laws all the time in an effort to catch citizens or entrap citizens into breaking the law. The government also violates the constitution and their oath to uphold and defend it in order to maintain control over the citizens and the public at large.

I'd suggest buying or checking it out of the library if they have it. I bought the paperback which was relatively cheap.
 
Last edited:
Just think how badly behaved they'd be if we didn't all have guns.
Click to expand...

And since it's liberals who seem to be the biggest pushers for taking our guns away, what future behaviours do they have planned, in case they would ever be successful? :mad:
 
^ We can barely imagine what would have happened in the past if they had done so much earlier. We can only look to other countries to see what happened, so it's easy for those in the opposition to simply say "Well, that couldn't happen here/now, it's different," but there's absolutely nothing to say that it didn't happen here at any point in time because they couldn't try.
 
There is at least one instance here in the United States....

where the militia, in it's "unorganized" form, restored law an order when the local government went bad.

This happened in Athens, Tennessee in the year 1946. The local government had become corrupt and were rigging the elections to stay in power. A group of veterans staged and armed rebellion and returned the rule of law to the county. I won't post links as there are numerous sources out their for information on the subject. Just google "battle of athens"
 
Militias predate the Decleration of Independence and our colonies. From various readings imo the milita is volunteers from the local community who do not constitute a standing army paid by the government. You can imagine that the British Army was not popular with a large majority of the colonists due to some of the actions taken against the colonists. You can thank them as one of the reasons for a Bill of Rights. So a standing army was not popular. A militia was made of local folks and was considered a safeguard agains a professional standing army controlled by the Governement.

The Decleration of Independence and the Constitution are like a cold cola and a moon pie on a hot summer day. They are both pieces of the puzzle. The Decleration explains why we were just in breaking with a standing government. The Constitution puts into action the remedies needed from the violations in the Decleration of Independence to ensure that the People never need resort to another armed insurrection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top