The Milita issue and incidents

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
I recently went to the meeting of the Academics for the 2nd Amend. chaired by Don Kates and Joe Olson. We had a rousing discussion of what the militia clause meant.

One interepretation is that the militia was a necessary component in the defense against government tyranny and illegal actions (it is not the National Guard). But one might argue that this is not necessary in modern times for the USA (not Afghanistan or Germany) and is obsolete.

So the question is - if you were arguing the "defense agains tyranny and government actions" line, what incidents in MODERN times in the USA would you cite?

Of course, we all know the obvious two.

Thanks

Gm
 
IRS activities, DOE activities, INS activities, BATF activities, etc. Also, the failure of such agencies to enforce the law, thereby dumping additional burden(s) on unsuspecting U.S. Citizens.
 
The battle of Athens comes to mind.

I don't really think the milita concept is obsolete; First, if you go a year without a spark curtain on your fireplace, and don't burn the house down, does that mean they're obsolete? No. Though most of the people who say it's obsolete really mean that they LIKE burning the house down...

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
The current controversy over Jarbridge South Canyon Road through Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest - see www.elkodaily.com - may well become a militia matter.

[This message has been edited by Slowpoke_Rodrigo (edited June 22, 2000).]
 
1)A little before my time- Kent State Shootings.
2) LA Riots (Pt 1)
3) LA Riots (Pt 2)
4) Although WACO was not a happy outcome, they held their ground against BATF
 
Hmmm. Academics huh?

I'm always skeptical of people who make thier living by disecting the law, literature, the Constitution, pop culture, frogs, etc. After all, academics have a vested interest in setting themselves up as "experts" in their field then reaping the benefits. So its in thier best interest to keep controversy brewing, IMHO.

That said, the 'militia clause' in the 2nd is NOT a qualifier. No evidence that it is. No "interpretation", except those by people who would love it to mean something else, can be construed that makes it a qualifier. It may set a pre-eminent reason for the RKBA, but it doesn't exclude others. Even if it did, the 9th protects your RKBA for every other purpose than militia duty.

In other words, it does NOT say, implicitly or explicitly, that the ONLY reason for the RKBA is to have a militia. If I'm wrong, correct me, but no reading of the text, even with 40 the commas added, changes that. Nor does it change the clear intent of the BOR, which is to curb the FED gubmint, not the people, nor does it change the fact that it is a right retained BY THE PEOPLE.

That said, the militia is active right now in North Dakota (maybe South Dakota) where the tribal council of the Sioux was embezzling and siphoning off tribal funds for years. Complaints to the Feds fell on deaf ears, so the *militia* took over the tribal offices by force, seized the records and called the Feds for an independent audit. Not sure what's happening now.

Nobody in the media will call it a "militia action", but what else do you call a group of armed citizens who take over when all gubmint options have failed?
 
BLM land grabs under specious labels
Declaration of national monuments to limit access by the very people who own them - us
Executive orders
Bombing of sovereign nations and other "Wag the Dog" actions
The UN on US soil
Re-election of Clinton
Gun control
No knock raids
Devner SWAT team failure to respond for HOURS
Remarkably high incidents of deaths of Clinton associates/critics
Failure of the US Senate to do the right thing
Allowing the Stars and Stripes to be forbidden to fly over government buildings in El Cenizo, TEXAS, USA
Increasing murder by SWAT of innocent victims with no punishment of those who do this on a now nearly weekly basis across the nation
Kidnapping a 6 year old boy while brandishing an MP5 just because someone didn't like where his father lived, and in spite of a judicially issued delay until all factors could be taken into account
Promoting the Ruby Ridge assassin Lon Horiuchi within the ranks and then sending him to Waco
Ordering en masse vaccinations of anthrax to all military personnel
Depleting our country of its police and military by deployment to pissant third world countries, leaving us defenselss against government incursions against us
Ordering IRS audits of those who would tell the truth about this administration
To name a few
 
Most state constitutions have the right to bear arms in them. Most also say, for the protection of ones self, and for the protection of the state. It's their I think www.packing.org has the quotes from each states constitution.
 
With respect, Clinton's re-election was the act of the electorate, not the government, notwithstanding that it might have been the product of a corrupt and biased political system.

In other respects, I think Nancy and others have done a good job in enumerating incidents that call out for the citizenry to resist or fend for themselves by force of arms.

Other recent instances include the closure of millions of acres of public land to the public in the name of conservation and the recent federal bill that allows property to be searched without the knowledge of the owner.

The issue is not merely that these incidents occur, but that they are occurring at an ever increasing rate. As the rate at which they increase will continue until our individual liberties are diminished to a shadow of what they are now, more people are buying and learning to use (and maintain) more guns. And so it shall proceed. Throughout history, most recently in the Soviet Union, unions of states have always eventually dissolved.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
I agree with Jack99. And besides that, according to English grammar, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...." is a subordinate clause, and is dependent on the main clause, "... the Right of the People....."

Not vice versa.

Plus, I own my life, not King Klinton and his communistnazi toadies. I therefore have the unalienable RIGHT to protect my life and health, with whatever tools I deem necessary. FWIW. J.B.
 
The mere existence of HUD, DOE, DOL, DHHS, FDA, DOA, ATF, FBI, CIA, and all the other lettered agencies not specifically called for in the U.S. Constitution, but specifically prohibited by the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We might also address other unconstitutional laws aside from gun control such as the War on Drugs (where is the declaration of war?), and the massive ammounts of Americans in debtors prisons throughout the nation. The militia is needed today more than ever, the bodies need to be present, and hopefully a leader will present himself. Our forefathers revolted long before King George got this dastardly. We needn't even revolt. Just restore! :)
 
I have to answer the challenge in this manner.

Why does one "interpret" an Article? Why can't the Article in question just be understood for what is says?

A short course in History should explain clearly enough the meaining of militia, and it's context in text of the period in scrutiny.

Consider some things. We generally change the meaning's of some words or saying over a period of time. Such as:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> Gay meant someone was happy.
<LI> You were a little hard on the Beaver last night, weren't you Ward. ;)
<LI> Cigarettes were called Fags.
<LI> Nasa was the only people who shot the moon
<LI> Butch was a wax men put on their hair.
<LI> Madonna was Holy, and revered.
<LI> Our Teachers, Police, Firemen, and Military were honored.
<LI> A slide rule wasn't posted in the park.
<LI> Disney was Family oriented
<LI> Tinkerbell was a ficional Disney character.
<LI> The drag queen was usually Linda Hurst
</UL>

Is it so hard to see why so many people have such a difficult time realizing the real meaning of their own Constitution, and BOR? With all the contorted use of language over the years, influenced by changing political postures, we have a shift in meanings in a generation or two, as some I'd mentioned above.
One thing that aggrivates that situation, is the apparent willingness of our learning institutions to shift the understanding of certain concepts to a particular perspective. That perspective would, of course, be from a posture where political power is to be granted to a specific entity. In this case Federal power. It follows the logic that, if Federal money(taxpayers money) were being funneled into State educational programs, with the understanding that the States' focus upon specific teaching patterns, this shift of teaching manner will be implemented.

Does that bring us to our problem about a common understanding of the Articles of the BOR, or our Constitution. If the masses are taught very little, or not taught at all, about the rationale of why there is even mention of firearms in our BOR, then you will have confusion about it's intent. Couple that with the international influences, such as nations that have never trusted their people to have firearms.
Which brings us to why we, as Americans, are a unique breed from our international contemporaries. We're apparently the only tribe left that still adheres to the notion of sovereignty. And the ability to arm ourselves, to confront our government if necessary.

Why do(did) we have a militia? Many reasons, primarily to protect ourselves from invading hordes. That would include the British, intent upon taking the Colonies back. And the remote possibillity that our government might somneday entertain the possibillity of taking absolute control of the country. Also from criminals who we're here, among us. Lest we forget, many of our ancestors we're of dubious character. Australia was originally a penal colony, if my memory serves me correctly.

These were the reason we required a militia. And the very reasons we stil need and have one.
Our police can only do the possible, as allowed by law. They are fighting a losing battle with the Judicial system, and lawyers intent upon twisting the system for monetary, and political gain.
Our jails are full. We have more people in prison than any other country on the planet, yet more laws won't protect us from those who chose to ignore them.

It appears our system is near the point of collapse, and the only thing that will allow honest people to prevail, is the ability to protect themselves with arms. If our system does collapse, it will also be the armed citizen who will be called upon to protect their individual State, and therefore the Union, from foreign invaders. For only a fool would believe we wouldn't be under threat of attack from hovering vultures.

Best Regards,
Don


------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited June 23, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited June 23, 2000).]
 
Why would we need a militia today? Without getting into the political aspects, the answer that comes to mind is natural and man-made disasters. Tornadoes, earthquake, riots, floods, etc. The National Guard is usually a relatively late responder only after formal channels have been passed.
 
Thread drift is rampant here.

This was the question - one reason for the RKBA and the militia cause has been postulated to be a defense against possible governmental tyranny.

What are good examples that this is a viable reason in modern times?

Natural disasters, LA riots, crime are not part of this particular nuance.

I am looking for specifics and not polemics which would be useful in debate.
 
A tad controlling today, aren't we, Dr. Meyer?

------------------
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. -- Ambrose Bierce
 
Glenn,

What is this "MODERN" you speak of? The assumption that people are more civilized than 200 years ago is a load of dingo's kidneys.

The 20th century was the bloodiest one yet, with more wars, atrocities, genocides, and grass-roots tyrants than any other.

One cannot make the underlying assumption that 'we have progressed too far' for what happened then to happen now. People have not changed for the better.

Look at the last 40 years. 40 years ago you could buy inexpensive guns from hardware stores and through mail order in this country, and school shootings and drive-by's were infrequent at most. What kind of social "progress" brings us more violence? Should I believe that arriving at "MODERN" times yields more bloodshed, more oppression, more violence, yet somehow magically keeps tyrants from getting into power?

In antiquity, I am,

der Schueler
 
There is only one example that I can think of, and that is the incident that took place down south shortly after WWII. Armed veterans had to forcibly remove a corrupt sheriff from his post, I believe, after he took office in a fraudulent election. Don't have specifics at hand here at work. Even then, I'm not sure if the ad-hoc group of vets meets the criteria of a "citizens militia", except in retrospect. They certainly were not particularly organized, AFAIK.

Unfortunately, I believe other concrete examples are rare-to-nonexistent. I think that is the point you are driving at, is it not?

[This message has been edited by DocH (edited June 23, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top