Sparks1957
New member
This thread has been most interesting. I had no idea this was on the books, and it should be fun informing some of the anti-2A folks of its existence.
The Militia Act of 1903
- Thread starter randersonabq
- Start date
Simple really.
Testing in several different tests is required to meet SOL standards for Federal Funding. One of the approved tests is the ASVAB. If you are in a poor school district do you buy a test from a testing agency or do you get the free one from the military?
It backfires on them sometimes. The student finds out what it is for and then draws smiley faces on the test sheet getting a flunking score.
Then it double back fires. Years later the kid want to enlist but now has to retake the test or has such a low score the recruiter is not interested in wasting time testing the kid again. So because he failed to take it seriously back then he failed his future self.
That is because the pay is actually retainer pay. If you disqualify yourself for service under certain conditions (not medical) they take it away. So if you for example get sent to prison they are supposed to stop your pay.
In the colonial period maybe. After that (Revolutionary onwards) not so much. They also had a King in the Colonial Period, afterwards not so much.
Last edited:
aarondhgraham
New member
Hello Blue Train,,,
Our military needed bodies,,,
Wasn't this the only alternative to reinstating the Draft?
Also I think you folk might be forgetting the difference between a commissioned officer and an enlisted man.
I was active duty from 1970 to 1978,,,
I was told when I enlisted that every enlisted man had a six year commitment.
Draftees served 2 years active, 2 years active reserve, 2 years inactive reserve.
People in my branch (USAF) who enlisted for 4 years had an additional 2 years commitment to the inactive reserve.
Folk like me who served for more than 6 years active duty had no additional commitment.
I know for a fact that after 4 years active duty your First Sergeant could hold you to a clothing showdown,,,
You had to show that you had all of your uniform items or he wouldn't sign your separation papers,,,
Although this was only pulled on troops the first shirt wanted to hassle.
But I asked if I needed to do that and he showed me the regs that stated my military commitment was "paid in full".
Commissioned officers on the other hand had a more permanent commitment.
I won't even attempt to say that I know the ins and outs of that,,,
But a good friend of mine got out as a captain after 8 years active duty,,,
Desert Storm rolled around and he was informed by registered mail to report for active duty.
He tried to fight it but it was to no avail,,,
He ended up serving in a stateside supply hub for 2 years.
I truly don't think it was a Militia thing.
Aarond
.
Our military needed bodies,,,
Wasn't this the only alternative to reinstating the Draft?
Also I think you folk might be forgetting the difference between a commissioned officer and an enlisted man.
I was active duty from 1970 to 1978,,,
I was told when I enlisted that every enlisted man had a six year commitment.
Draftees served 2 years active, 2 years active reserve, 2 years inactive reserve.
People in my branch (USAF) who enlisted for 4 years had an additional 2 years commitment to the inactive reserve.
Folk like me who served for more than 6 years active duty had no additional commitment.
I know for a fact that after 4 years active duty your First Sergeant could hold you to a clothing showdown,,,
You had to show that you had all of your uniform items or he wouldn't sign your separation papers,,,
Although this was only pulled on troops the first shirt wanted to hassle.
But I asked if I needed to do that and he showed me the regs that stated my military commitment was "paid in full".
Commissioned officers on the other hand had a more permanent commitment.
I won't even attempt to say that I know the ins and outs of that,,,
But a good friend of mine got out as a captain after 8 years active duty,,,
Desert Storm rolled around and he was informed by registered mail to report for active duty.
He tried to fight it but it was to no avail,,,
He ended up serving in a stateside supply hub for 2 years.
I truly don't think it was a Militia thing.
Aarond
.
You are correct, Mr. aarondgraham, about the bodies. I believe the theory was that by integrating the national guard and the reserves more with the active army, it was thought that any deployment of national guard and reserve troops, at least overseas, would therefore only be done with the support of the people. Some kinds of units I think only exist as reserve units, so the integrated part has taken place.
The only problem is that since the military is now entirely voluntary, it apparently makes little difference to most people what the military goes off and does, even when guard and reserve units go along for the ride. In other words, not so many people have a dog in the fight anymore. In addition to that, when the guard deploys, the states lose that resource that is needed when there is an emergency and there's always some emergency somewhere, be it a big forest fire or a flood on the Mississippi (which happens with some frequency) or a major civil disturbance (which also happens now and again).
My point about the milita is that you cannot have a body of armed men responsible to none but themselves and accountable to no one. If you think there's no reason not to, perhaps some explanation might be in order. One could just as easily have a self-appointed police force. A few people could even get together and decide to build themselves a courthouse and go into competition with the one in town.
The only problem is that since the military is now entirely voluntary, it apparently makes little difference to most people what the military goes off and does, even when guard and reserve units go along for the ride. In other words, not so many people have a dog in the fight anymore. In addition to that, when the guard deploys, the states lose that resource that is needed when there is an emergency and there's always some emergency somewhere, be it a big forest fire or a flood on the Mississippi (which happens with some frequency) or a major civil disturbance (which also happens now and again).
My point about the milita is that you cannot have a body of armed men responsible to none but themselves and accountable to no one. If you think there's no reason not to, perhaps some explanation might be in order. One could just as easily have a self-appointed police force. A few people could even get together and decide to build themselves a courthouse and go into competition with the one in town.
carguychris
New member
Re: Bluetrain's last couple of posts, IMHO the private, unsanctioned groups that have recently sprung up in the USA and started calling themselves "militias" clearly are not militias in the traditional American legal sense. They are paramilitary groups.
From Bing:
IMHO the Constitution and state laws in the colonial period make it clear that the militia is strictly subject to the command of the state and (later) federal governments. A state may sanction a private militia group outside of the National Guard - the Militia Act of 1903 makes this point explicitly clear - but in doing so, the group is brought under the umbrella of the government.
IOW a private group may not officially appoint itself to be "the militia" under US law. The 1A allows groups to use this title, but the title has equal validity as me calling myself "Judge"- that is, none.
From Bing:
(emphasis mine)
IMHO the Constitution and state laws in the colonial period make it clear that the militia is strictly subject to the command of the state and (later) federal governments. A state may sanction a private militia group outside of the National Guard - the Militia Act of 1903 makes this point explicitly clear - but in doing so, the group is brought under the umbrella of the government.
IOW a private group may not officially appoint itself to be "the militia" under US law. The 1A allows groups to use this title, but the title has equal validity as me calling myself "Judge"- that is, none.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Your knowledge of American history is sadly lacking. The writings of the Founders clearly showed that they viewed the Militia (post-Revolution) as entities of the individual states, and they considered that the officers of the various state militias would be appointed by the governments of the states. However, how each state was to choose the officers of its militia was left up to the individual states.BlueTrain said:
These same writings made it abundantly clear that by saying the militia should be subject to civil authority they meant "state" authority rather than the Federal government. The Federal government was to be allowed to call up the state militias only to protect the new republic against foreign threats, only with the consent of the states, and only until a temporary regular army could be raised to combat the threat.
And, lastly, these same writings also made it abundantly clear that "regulated" meant trained and uniformly equipped; it did not mean "subject to a bunch of written regulations."
For example, here's a citation from Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius in The Federalist No. 29:
Here's a link to the entire article: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
We already covered this before. When I said (and what George Mason wrote) was that the militias must be subject to civil authority, I nowhere suggested that meant federal authority. As far as the bunch of written regulations, that was already covered, too, and someone even posted the reference earlier. Whatever was published in the Federalist Papers is not a proper reference in that it was not an act of congress. But you miss my point in that in fact the militia was in fact regulated by government, as you yourself point out in the quote.
Why do people have a problem with this?
You realize that one of the federalist papers suggested there was no need for a bill of rights. And you also realize the the federalist papers were just the opinions of some men and not something actually voted for by any judicial body.
Why do people have a problem with this?
You realize that one of the federalist papers suggested there was no need for a bill of rights. And you also realize the the federalist papers were just the opinions of some men and not something actually voted for by any judicial body.
Last edited:
I've been thinking some more about this. I didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea here. I am a supporter of the national guard (one of my roommates for a while was a recruiter for the national guard, in fact). And in fact, I think the states should have greater control over the guard in the sense that the federal government should not rely on it so much.
There are also other state forces of a home guard nature but they're really what you might call fourth line and well behind the national guard. From what I've read, they really don't have a lot to do and you might say they are operating well below the radar.
I don't think my knowledge of history is all that bad, Mr. Blanca.
There are also other state forces of a home guard nature but they're really what you might call fourth line and well behind the national guard. From what I've read, they really don't have a lot to do and you might say they are operating well below the radar.
I don't think my knowledge of history is all that bad, Mr. Blanca.
That's not quite true. My wife was retired and was was called back and deployed (Feb 2003), She was a clerk, she worked for C-2 CFLCC and worked out of Camp Doha running back and forth between Baghdad (after we took it)
I however tried to volenteer but they didn't take old infantry officers.
I did deside to go to Kuwait and stay with my wife. I met a lot of retired guys who were called back. Use to hang around a Chaplain who was older then I was.
I was still in the Guard during GWI (Desert Storm). I volenteered for active duty but declined when I was offered a spot. "Company Commander of a Basic Training Company" at Ft Polk LA.
Sucks to be told you're too old.
Strafer Gott
New member
After the Viet Nam, sadly, very many servicemen were treated very badly. The country's excuse was VN was an unpopular war. Let's help the country out with their ethics when it comes to duty to it's service men and women. No more wars without a draft. No school exemptions, no BS exemptions, period.
Every son and daughter, fortunate or not, be given the privilege to serve.
How in the he double hockeysticks can an all voluntary force even be legal, considering where we started from. The government is the people is the militia is the army. Rant off.
Thanks for the eyes
Every son and daughter, fortunate or not, be given the privilege to serve.
How in the he double hockeysticks can an all voluntary force even be legal, considering where we started from. The government is the people is the militia is the army. Rant off.
Thanks for the eyes
How can an all-volunteer force be legal? Well, that's a twist. Your knowledge of history is sadly lacking, if I can borrow someone else's expression.
An entirely voluntary force is traditional in this country. The draft is the exception. Just because there was a draft within your memory does not make it otherwise. Which way is better is another matter, on which I have no opinion. I don't actually know.
A conscripted military force goes back a long way in European history, from which we derive much of our traditions. But then, so does a mercenary military force as well. So tradition doesn't really tell us anything and anyway, tradition is only what we did last year.
There remains even after these comments the problem of the standing army, which supposedly the founding fathers and mothers did not want for some reason. In any event, it wasn't long before they changed their minds, chiefly because of some disasterous failures on the part of some militia operations, although the militias did not go out of business, so to speak. But I'll leave it to the rest of you to work out the rest of the details about standing armies and the militias. You can talk about the navy, too, if you want.
You know, I still see "support the troops" bumper stickers and the like now and then and I've always wondered it that was anything more than an empty, feel good expression. I mean, no one asks anyone to enlist or buy war bonds. We don't even have scrap metal drives anymore. So exactly what does "support the troops mean?" Buying another fleet of very expensive airplanes?
An entirely voluntary force is traditional in this country. The draft is the exception. Just because there was a draft within your memory does not make it otherwise. Which way is better is another matter, on which I have no opinion. I don't actually know.
A conscripted military force goes back a long way in European history, from which we derive much of our traditions. But then, so does a mercenary military force as well. So tradition doesn't really tell us anything and anyway, tradition is only what we did last year.
There remains even after these comments the problem of the standing army, which supposedly the founding fathers and mothers did not want for some reason. In any event, it wasn't long before they changed their minds, chiefly because of some disasterous failures on the part of some militia operations, although the militias did not go out of business, so to speak. But I'll leave it to the rest of you to work out the rest of the details about standing armies and the militias. You can talk about the navy, too, if you want.
You know, I still see "support the troops" bumper stickers and the like now and then and I've always wondered it that was anything more than an empty, feel good expression. I mean, no one asks anyone to enlist or buy war bonds. We don't even have scrap metal drives anymore. So exactly what does "support the troops mean?" Buying another fleet of very expensive airplanes?
carguychris
New member
At the risk of serious thread veer, I don't think the Vietnam War was unpopular simply because there was a draft. It was unpopular because there was a draft AND the basic premises behind the war were fundamentally flawed AND these flaws made the war basically impossible to "win" in the traditional sense AND, early in the war, the USA used clumsy and overwrought tactics that were poorly suited to the task AND (perhaps most importantly) the LBJ administration lied to the American people about how long it would take and how many men would be needed.
Remember that there was a draft BEFORE 'Nam. Draftees were sent to 'Nam because that's what the military already had, and the system was designed to make it relatively easy to get more of them. Massive deployment of manpower and firepower had won WWII and had allowed us to fight Korea into a reasonable stalemate; why not use these tools again? “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”
Getting back to the topic at hand, I do not feel that forcing everyone (or nearly everyone) to serve in the military would have a positive effect. Military service is not for everyone. In European countries that have recently tried large-scale conscription, it has generally evolved into a system where so-called "soldiers" wind up doing non-martial but government-related drudge work like painting government buildings and manning roadway toll plazas.
(Switzerland is a notable exception, but it's a very unusual country, basically unique in the world.)Furthermore, I don't think the colonial-era concept of the "militia" is even remotely viable today, and I have trouble imagining how it could become so again in the future. It would not bother me if every reference to the militia was removed from the Constitution. It would certainly make the 2A more clear.
Last edited:
Well, what the concept of a colonial militia was has been an arguable point but I think there is still a need for something like that. Not a huge need and not something needed equally everywhere. I doubt you could even say Wyoming could support one. But along the southern border, I can imagine such a function.
The Canadians have such an idea in place and they use it. They call their reserve element of the armed forces the militia anyway but one unit in particular is different. They operate along the northern frontier of the country chiefly to maintain an armed presence there. They are recruited locally, wear very little in the way of uniforms, here meaning they don't wear regular army uniforms but they are armed, with No. 4 .303 rifles, no less. I think, without researching the point, they are styled "Canadian Rangers." There's a different unit "Rocky Mountain Rangers," but that someone else.
I've mentioned all that before and it didn't generate any interest then, even here, so I doubt it would fly in the real world.
However, if you wanted the militia un-mentioned in the constitution, don't forget that it is not just in the 2nd amendment but also in the original consitution. The wording suggests that the militias were assumed to be the state's troops or military bodies.
Regarding the Vietnam war, it was sort of popular in the beginning, at least the media supported it. But as far as massive deployment? That didn't happen. There were always more troops in Europe than there was in Vietnam at any one time, not to mention those in Korea.
The Canadians have such an idea in place and they use it. They call their reserve element of the armed forces the militia anyway but one unit in particular is different. They operate along the northern frontier of the country chiefly to maintain an armed presence there. They are recruited locally, wear very little in the way of uniforms, here meaning they don't wear regular army uniforms but they are armed, with No. 4 .303 rifles, no less. I think, without researching the point, they are styled "Canadian Rangers." There's a different unit "Rocky Mountain Rangers," but that someone else.
I've mentioned all that before and it didn't generate any interest then, even here, so I doubt it would fly in the real world.
However, if you wanted the militia un-mentioned in the constitution, don't forget that it is not just in the 2nd amendment but also in the original consitution. The wording suggests that the militias were assumed to be the state's troops or military bodies.
Regarding the Vietnam war, it was sort of popular in the beginning, at least the media supported it. But as far as massive deployment? That didn't happen. There were always more troops in Europe than there was in Vietnam at any one time, not to mention those in Korea.
Last edited:
SPEMack618
New member
As the armchair strategist in my fraternirty house, I was often as to whether or not I supported the draft, or by exstension the selected service system.
Might want to go to the bathroom and get a cup of coffee for this one....
And my answer was a resounding, unequivocal, NO. I was taught at WLC that as a modern day E-5, I was expected to preform at a level comparable to a WWII era O-3, and when you think about it, that's pretty much true. With the radio I carried, I could call in helicopter gunships, A-10s, or artillery fire. And did so as the occasion called for it. I was 20/21 years old. (Turned 21 as I flopped down into my cot after a long patrol and my watch beeped at me). I had three years of college under my belt and was directly responsible for the lives of nine men.
All of that was the result of good training, good trainers, good officers, and a motivation on my part to do my job and do it well. I will spare you the journal entry I wrote discussing how Pops and Grandpa had worn the uniform and proved themselves, and this was the only war I had, but the truth is, I was there because I wanted to be. Pops enlisted in the USAF so as to avoid being drafted as an infantryman and wound up coming home with three Purple Hearts and a DFC. Yet, I enlisted and volunteered to be a Cav Scout because I wanted to prove myself. Once again, I wanted to be there. We were all volunteers and even the youngest guy in my squad, who was 18, was capable, trained, and professional outside the wire. I once read somewhere that the American military is one of the smallest in history for the size of empire that it protects. And we do that by being technologically advances and exceedingly well trained. I don't won't to waste the effort, time, and money to bring someone in the Army who doesn't want to be beside me in the middle of the suck. I want to fight along side guys who want to be there, for whatever reason, just so long as they want to be there.
That being said, I wish it was mandated though that all citizens, after thier 18 birthday were required to do some form of government service if they were going to attend a public university. Not anything drastic or major, it could simply be working at a National Park for the summer or volunteering at the post office. Simply to instill the notion that this country requires work to survive.
Might want to go to the bathroom and get a cup of coffee for this one....
And my answer was a resounding, unequivocal, NO. I was taught at WLC that as a modern day E-5, I was expected to preform at a level comparable to a WWII era O-3, and when you think about it, that's pretty much true. With the radio I carried, I could call in helicopter gunships, A-10s, or artillery fire. And did so as the occasion called for it. I was 20/21 years old. (Turned 21 as I flopped down into my cot after a long patrol and my watch beeped at me). I had three years of college under my belt and was directly responsible for the lives of nine men.
All of that was the result of good training, good trainers, good officers, and a motivation on my part to do my job and do it well. I will spare you the journal entry I wrote discussing how Pops and Grandpa had worn the uniform and proved themselves, and this was the only war I had, but the truth is, I was there because I wanted to be. Pops enlisted in the USAF so as to avoid being drafted as an infantryman and wound up coming home with three Purple Hearts and a DFC. Yet, I enlisted and volunteered to be a Cav Scout because I wanted to prove myself. Once again, I wanted to be there. We were all volunteers and even the youngest guy in my squad, who was 18, was capable, trained, and professional outside the wire. I once read somewhere that the American military is one of the smallest in history for the size of empire that it protects. And we do that by being technologically advances and exceedingly well trained. I don't won't to waste the effort, time, and money to bring someone in the Army who doesn't want to be beside me in the middle of the suck. I want to fight along side guys who want to be there, for whatever reason, just so long as they want to be there.
That being said, I wish it was mandated though that all citizens, after thier 18 birthday were required to do some form of government service if they were going to attend a public university. Not anything drastic or major, it could simply be working at a National Park for the summer or volunteering at the post office. Simply to instill the notion that this country requires work to survive.
Strafer Gott
New member
Good point about the volunteer status, thanks for the correction. I was RA myself. My point of course is regarding the standing army. If you really want a war, you need to take your medicine with it. Vote for war and have a draft. Pretty simple concept with large implications. Just like picking up the tab for the war, you need to invest a little "national will".
aarondhgraham
New member
I hear the ghost of Robert A. Heinlein speaking,,,
That was the concept of Citizenry in Starship Trooper,,,
Every person needed to to government service to be a citizen,,,
The only extra right that citizenry gave you was the right to be a voter.
Aarond
.
That was the concept of Citizenry in Starship Trooper,,,
Every person needed to to government service to be a citizen,,,
The only extra right that citizenry gave you was the right to be a voter.
Aarond
.
SPEMack618
New member
Aarond, that is exactly where I got that notion. You know, minus the voting part. Starship Troopers was required reading at an NJROTC thing I went to in high school. Very influential on a 15 year old.
Several of fraternity brothers had no concept of what it took to keep the the country running, the scarifices of some, and I always thought that just the barest taste of civi service would help instill that understanding.
Starship Troopers was required reading at an NJROTC thing I went to in high school. Very influential on a 15 year old. Several of fraternity brothers had no concept of what it took to keep the the country running, the scarifices of some, and I always thought that just the barest taste of civi service would help instill that understanding.
Last edited:
Here we go getting lofty again.
I'm not sure there is an American empire now, though there certainly was in the past, before WWII. But when we have one, more than anything, we seem to Americanize people. The British pretty much did the same thing.
Ah, National Service. That's what the British called the draft or conscription, when they had it. But they never had a very large army either, given their world wide connections. But national service in order to attend a public university? Are there any national public universities. I think they're all state institutions, mostly. It's still a good idea. Novel, too. I never heard of Starship Troopers. Is that a novel, too? How did it compare to the Spartan idea of state or the Athenian idea? It is interesting nonetheless that the idea (or ideal) of government service has popped up here, given the impression of how I thought people saw government. Here's a couple of thoughts.
It requires the same thing marriage requires: some sacrifice, tolerance, the ability to overlook a few things now and then, and dedication.
Another view is that government officials are a little like white clothing. They are both best when new. When government officials are in office too long, they become subject to a host of evil habits. But then, perhaps not everyone with the government might be characterized as an "official." Is your mailman an official? Or a "civil servant."
I'm not sure there is an American empire now, though there certainly was in the past, before WWII. But when we have one, more than anything, we seem to Americanize people. The British pretty much did the same thing.
Ah, National Service. That's what the British called the draft or conscription, when they had it. But they never had a very large army either, given their world wide connections. But national service in order to attend a public university? Are there any national public universities. I think they're all state institutions, mostly. It's still a good idea. Novel, too. I never heard of Starship Troopers. Is that a novel, too? How did it compare to the Spartan idea of state or the Athenian idea? It is interesting nonetheless that the idea (or ideal) of government service has popped up here, given the impression of how I thought people saw government. Here's a couple of thoughts.
It requires the same thing marriage requires: some sacrifice, tolerance, the ability to overlook a few things now and then, and dedication.
Another view is that government officials are a little like white clothing. They are both best when new. When government officials are in office too long, they become subject to a host of evil habits. But then, perhaps not everyone with the government might be characterized as an "official." Is your mailman an official? Or a "civil servant."