Need a new Militia Act

[copenhagen]

A source of embarrassment recalled with pride. Well, I believe that sounds like a spin that I just don't buy.

 

[Al Norris]

Jon, it took me a day to remember who you are. A belated Welcome to the Firing Line, Jon. I've always been impressed with the amount of (sometimes obscure) information your site contains. My hat is off to you and your organization.

Folks, for those of you that don't know, Jon is the founder of the Constitution Society and its website, Constitution.Org. Jon is also (among his many other credits) a published constitutionalist, with a paper at SSRN.

There are parts of the framework that have been done, but the dereliction in implementation is due to officials rather than militia activists.

So why didn't the various activists pound on their State Legislatures? Or their Local CLEO's? The answer is that they didn't trust their State leaders. Heck, they didn't even trust their own locals. Pity, 'cause after 9/11, it would have been a shew-in.

Jon, you are still failing to deal with things on a local level. What the Feds may or may not have done, is irrelevant to what the States responsibility was supposed to be.

I also remember when AWRM went down and ConSigCor took it over. So the NMS was never really completed and stayed much the same as my copy. STRATIOTES apparently got his way. sigh.

However, having said all I said about militias, there is one very good reason for the States to have competent Defense Forces.

Given that in smaller States, like Idaho, most of our National Guard is active and overseas. Should a disaster strike (natural or otherwise), where does the immediate manpower come from to deal with it? - something the militia folks at AWRM really never considered.

A SDF could be mobilized on a moments notice (just like the Guard) to deal with it, when the Guard is not available or even to supplement the Guard.

In larger States, perhaps the various police agencies, firefighters and medical units could move in, without detracting too much from their local responsibilities... perhaps. But in smaller States, this would pose a major problem. A problem solved by an active SDF.

Too, this would be in accord to the traditional and historical purposes of the militia. Which was not an exclusive police/military unit: The National Guards traditional role in helping their State during disasters, was subsumed from the traditional role of the militia. A role the SDF could still play.

Should I also mention that each and every city, town or village is supposed to have a Homeland Defense Force? Tell me that the SDF couldn't fulfill this role, if there were SDF units for each city, town and village.

So yes, the militia could still be put to good use, in todays day and age. As I have said, the problem is that the militia movement has failed in basic implementation.

 

[Stagger Lee]

In larger States, perhaps the various police agencies, firefighters and medical units could move in, without detracting too much from their local responsibilities... perhaps. But in smaller States, this would pose a major problem. A problem solved by an active SDF.

It's not a problem even in the smallest states. What happens these days is that firefighters, paramedics, police officers and other professionals are sent in to problem areas to help, even across state lines. New Orleans had professional help from as far away as California and New York. These days, there will always be a sufficient pool of professionals available to do the sort of work that they're best-suited to do. Yes, there will always be a need for volunteers to do a lot of the scut-work, such as filling sandbags, handing out food and other supplies, cleaning out buildings and creating usable shelter, moving relief supplies around, doing essential repairs, etc. But it's pretty well established that the "community spirit" of the average militia wanna-be stops short of doing that sort of work. They just want to step into an enforcement role where they can tote guns and do macho stuff, or else they'll stay home. It's been admitted at least tacitly in threads here. But just as utility restoration in disaster areas is best handled by the influx of professional power company personnel who will be sent in from other areas (you wouldn't want just any joe hooking your house up to power lines, would you?), law enforcement is also a job that can't be turned over to any Bubba who shows up wearing camouflage and carrying a gun. That's why we now have mutual aid compacts, to ensure that public safety professionals will be brought in to supplement the ones already working in the area.

So that being the case, there's no need for an ARMED militia group/self-defense force/whatever they want to be called.

 

[HKuser]

Here's more from Mark Pitcavage:

Why don't you just post Sarah Brady quotes while you're at it. I know Mark Pitcavage well from nearly 15 years of debates on usenet, he's one of the most venomously anti-gun individuals around, and straight out of the Michael Bellesiles school of history.

 

[HKuser]

Jon, you are still failing to deal with things on a local level. What the Feds may or may not have done, is irrelevant to what the States responsibility was supposed to be.

How about on an individual level. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that if the training and arming of militia was neglected, especially purposely neglected in order to raise a standing army, by the states or the feds, that the general militia could still muster from the populace bearing their own arms. A well-regulated militia would also be, ideally, trained and with combat veterans as their officers, but it was expected that if all else fails the people would take up the slack. That's why the right is a right of the people and not made dependent on state powers. I agree that the various Bubbas calling themselves militias was and is silliness, but there is a nugget of truth there that the founders wanted the people to learn military discipline and be able to rise to the defense of the state and the nation quickly. Standing armies were abhorred as the destroyers of republics such as Rome, and the engines of empires.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Why don't you just post Sarah Brady quotes while you're at it.

Why don't you read and comment on the post and its implications rather than dismiss it with a political litmus test? Only narrow-minded people do that.

I agree that the various Bubbas calling themselves militias was and is silliness

I agree.

the founders wanted the people to learn military discipline and be able to rise to the defense of the state and the nation quickly.

But the American people don't want to do that today. They'd rather have professionals do it. I pass no judgements on that but how many people even serve today? Did you? This isn't a slam but if you read the post I made it shows that the real reason the militia went away is because the vast majority of america doesn't want to play soldier, plain and simple. Hell, my son in college today tells me they are GIVING away ROTC scholarships! Maybe you don't like this state of affairs but that is the way it is. People don't like military discipline and that is what you MUST have to be an effective military force which is what a militia is. That is why the old militias declined and went away. The world has changed maybe better maybe not but the militia is no more.

Standing armies were abhorred as the destroyers of republics such as Rome, and the engines of empires.

Yet we have one today and have had one since WW II none of that has happened has it? The military report to and serve the elected civilian government without question.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Let's not lose perspective. George Washington himself stated later in life that a standing army was necessary, as during the Revolution, the citizen militias were always last to arrive--if they arrived at all--and first to break and run...in short, they were unreliable and often useless. Nice idea, but it didn't work.

Thomas Jefferson also, as President, established a standing Navy for the first time.

The very people that are constantly cited as justification for some sort of (totally redundant and unneeded) militia are the ones that discarded that concept and established the standing professional military forces that our country now relies one.

 

[MedicineBow]

I'm puzzled.

What are all these "militia" supposed to do? Mobilize in case Toronto decides to invade New York, and our military and National Guard can't handle the hordes of crazed Canadians?

I suspect it's largely an excuse for some guys to use when explaining to the wife why they just spent $1200 on night-vision goggles.

 

[copenhagen]

People should be armed. Men should know how to use Battle Rifles. When the people are armed with the arms of the modern infantry, they can never be enslaved by their government. Bombs? Infrared? Doesn't work if every able-bodied male is armed. There are way more of us common folk. Assuming actual tyranny exists, it can only be hidden for so long . . . and then the people will rebel. It is not only our RIGHT, but it is our DUTY to bear arms. Militia? It's a name. Armed citizens? Well, one day when the ballot box has failed, the jury box has failed, it's comforting to know that American's still have the cartridge box...

 

[Stagger Lee]

What are all these "militia" supposed to do?

Well, some are non-hackers who couldn't make it in the military for physical or emotional reasons but still want to feel like warriors, albeit "warriors" who never have to do K.P., pull guard duty, or do calisthenics...just stand around and pose with guns. Those are the benign ones.

Others are the domestic versions of al Qeada. They hate our government and our way of life and long for the day when they can "do something about it". They think that the only reason the 2nd Amendment was written was to allow them to overthrow the government that the founding fathers that they idolize set up, and they're just waiting for someone else to take the lead. They hate politicians, fear and despise the police (although a lot of that is jealousy too) and are just miserable people who make the overwhelming majority of gun owners look bad.

But both groups have one thing in common--they can't explain who is supposed to call them out and when or give a realistic scenario in which they'll ever be sought as any sort of "fighting force" by the rest of society.

 

[MedicineBow]

Stagger Lee:

I was afraid of that.

I was foolishly hoping the "excuse to buy night-vision goggles" thing was correct. At least that I could understand.

I mean who, deep in his heart, doesn't want a nifty pair of those babies?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

George Washington himself stated later in life that a standing army was necessary,

Here is what he said:

To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when oppsed to Troops regularly train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows...if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter."

And here is one I found that shows what happens when you don't have a disciplined and well-regulated that reports to legal authority::barf:

 

[copenhagen]

But both groups have one thing in common--they can't explain who is supposed to call them out

First of all, sure, those groups exist, but the great object is that every man be armed (Patrick Henry), and actually, then, you would have a very large group. It is sort of like Democracy's version of a fail safe. Trust the collective intelligence more than that of a few. If the stink really were to hit the fan, it is quite comforting to know that American's are armed with battle rifles, knowledge of their home turf, and each one brings something to the table. I've been in the Marine Corps for awhile now, and I harbor no ill will towards anyone who didn't want to pull garbage duties so they didn't join. I encourage everyone I know to arm themselves same as I encourage them to wear seat belts and refrain from drinking and driving.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

copenhagen, see photo above.

 

[copenhagen]

I did. TnGent, Drunks drive cars too. I am talking about the big picture here, and that is that we should have as many armed men and women (in my opinion) as we have drivers. In my opinion, they would be/are the citizen's militia. The standing army that we already have, that is the 'well regulated' militia.

It is my belief that the 2a backs this up. It realizes that a government has to have a standing army. It realizes that because of that fact, that the people will also be able to be similarly armed. See my signature.

My opinion of course. I understand I'm no genius, but that's how I see it. If all citizens were armed, liberty would be harder to steal. Bottom line, if the government started doing crazy enough stuff, people would see, notice, take heed, and stamp it out with the will and man power to do so.

 

[copenhagen]

Also, to further explain my stance on the question of who is supposed to call them (the 'militias') out... Well, I figure that whoever tries to disarm them, that is who will call them out. I seem to remember a little something... "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson In my thinking, that answers the question quite nicely.

 

[Al Norris]

HKuser, I agree with much of what you said. However a few comments:

The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that if the training and arming of militia was neglected, especially purposely neglected in order to raise a standing army, by the states or the feds

The Anti-Federalists were afraid that it would be the central government that would fail to provide for, and therefore neglect the militia. I've never read anywhere that they dreamed there would be a failure at the State level. Heck, they thought this of protecting most rights. Fact is, both the Feds and the States failed. Much to the surprise of everyone.

Fast forward, post civil war. It was precisely the reason that the States failed that the 14th amendment was proposed and passed. And yes, this forever changed the entire character of the various relationships between the Feds and States, as well as the nature of the Federal Government itself. As we know, the Court rebelled against this. See the Slaughterhouse Cases.

Standing armies were abhorred as the destroyers of republics such as Rome, and the engines of empires.

Yet we have one today and have had one since WW II none of that has happened has it?

Um, nope and yup.

We have had a standing (permanent) Army ever since the conclusion of the civil war.

Read up on the Bonus Army. Granted it was one time....

Thomas Jefferson also, as President, established a standing Navy for the first time.

No, Constitutionally, the Navy was and is the only permanent military force (Art. I, sec. 8, clause 13). Continental Navy created Oct. 13, 1775. Congress orders 6 Frigates in 1794 and Dept. of the Navy established Apr. 30, 1798.

Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd President, 1801 - 1809, well after the beginnings of the permanent Navy.

It was the Army that was not supposed to be permanent (Art. I, sec. 8, clause 12). Continental Army created Jun. 14, 1775 but disbanded shortly after the Revolutionary War. A small brigade sized standing army, The Legion of the United States, was authorized by Congress in Nov. of 1791. It completed its mission in 1796 and its size was severely reduced, but thereafter remained active.

What are all these "militia" supposed to do?

Essentially, the same thing that the National Guard does, when not in service to the Federal Government. Please try and understand, that the Federal Government, began co-opting the State militias as early as 1892. But it (Congress) couldn't do away with the little ditty that the States could in fact have their own militias, over and above anything Federal. That's all hard-wired into the Constitution. Never been amended. Google the Mass. State Militia. It is active and has a job, to see what I mean.

.sigh. Copenhagen, the militia, any militia is subordinate to civilian control. That's not only in the U.S. Constitution, but in every State Constitution that recognizes its own militia. Ya can't get around that little factoid.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Um, nope and yup.
We have had a standing (permanent) Army ever since the conclusion of the civil war.
Read up on the Bonus Army. Granted it was one time....

Al, we have really had no strong peacetime standing army before WWII. Between the world wars was about 100K and they were pretty unprepared as WWII showed. Oh, I know a lot about the bonus army but I am not sure I get your point. copenhagen said the fear was the standing army would break our liberties. The bonus army incident didn't do that any more than Katrina did. And Hoover paid for it in 1932.

If all citizens were armed, liberty would be harder to steal. Bottom line, if the government started doing crazy enough stuff, people would see, notice, take heed, and stamp it out with the will and man power to do so.

Maybe and maybe if they all served in the military they might have a greater appreciation of many things. BUT, they don't want to do that and we can't make 'em so I think what you envision won't happen. However, we still need security and that falls to those who volunteer.

 

[copenhagen]

However, we still need security and that falls to those who volunteer.

Sure does, but the fail safe is still the right of those who volunteered and those who didn't combined.

.sigh. Copenhagen, the militia, any militia is subordinate to civilian control. That's not only in the U.S. Constitution, but in every State Constitution that recognizes its own militia. Ya can't get around that little factoid.

.sigh. Antipitas, The President of these United States is a civilian, controlling the well regulated militia of the USMC, US Army, USAF, USN, and Coasties. Doesn't change the fact that I'd rather that the general populace have the right to be comparably armed if they are so inclined. And... I think I speak in line with our Founders' vision.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Copenhagen,

Since you are a Marine and all Marine's primary MOS is rifleman think more about this mob with guns you are talking about.

Imagine you deploy to Iraq or Afganistan with a group of people who don't know each other and have never worked together, have no idea of military discipline, woodcraft, tactics, and just plain living out there in the field. They do however, have guns and may be reasonable shots but have said the only orders they'll take are the ones they like and answer to no UCMJ, but you can sue them I guess if they really mess up. They are just people off the street with guns.

Now are you going into combat with these clowns? :barf:

This TEOTWAWKI scenario you keep referring to isn't going to happen and we know all really know that.

The American people mainly do not want to be in the military or militia and they are not going to train to be in it. The states aren't going to pay for it. Try being a state politician in most states and propose that tax! You will have a short political life.

The only people that will take this remotely seriously and really train are people that Stagger Lee talks about and are the stereotypes we laugh about on here(see photo in post #52).

Without the blessing of our elected officials (and these types ain't gonna get it) then I really see no practical use for these "militias that ain't". As long as they keep the peace and break no laws they can go play in the woods for all I care but they provide nothing of any value to our society that I can see.

The militia from circa 1790 is long dead and buried.