The Militia Act of 1903

I was under the impression that even state schools recieved large federal funding.

Furthermore, most people I know make use of Federal student loans.

I would highly recommend giving "Starship Troopers" a read. Very good.

I would say that it is a mix of both the Spartan and Atheian ideal.

I'm still a proponent of small government, but even with a small government, I make use of the post office, go to school, and drive on the interstate, so I recognize the need of the Federal government.
 
I wouldn't worry about it going away, although we may devolve into a "Commonwealth of Independent States." But I don't see that happening either. In the meantime, here is a part of the Virginia state constitution relating to the militia:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
 
Discussing the Founding Father and thier views on the standing Army, I always found it funny that we as Americans are very proud of our "militia tradition", and heck we encourage it in the National Guard, but the Miltia preformed poorly during the War for Independence and as such, atleast form my understanding, led much to the foundind of a standing Army.

THat being said, I think in today's military, as previously stated, it needs to be all volunteer, I also like to think that the amount of training and time invested in a Soldier shouldn't be so casually disgarded after four years.

In a personal example, the girlfriend doesn't want me to deploy again. She says the first time was hard enough and hat I got enough trinkets. I say that I'm a Soldier. We sorta kinda compromised and I'm now IRR, still get a few benefits, get to keep my stripes, and if "THE BIG ONE" ever comes down the pike, I will be allowed to do my duty, but, and a big but to her, as Afghanistan draws down, that becomes less likely, but the concept remains that I'm still avialable if need be.

Now that being said, the notion of a modern militia conflicts me. One) The word militia leads to ugly notions of white supremacists running around in fatigues armed with the ever popular Mini-14. Two) In the modern battlefield, a force of lightly armed, little trained, yet well motivated forces will inflict numerous casualities but recive many themselves. I have moral problems with that.
 
BlueTrain said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are wrong again. Just after the Revolution, being a member of the militia was mandatory upon reaching the prescribed age. (I don't recall if it was 17 or 18.)

Just like the draft. Except that there were no deferrals for attending college or pretending to be a kindergarten teacher.

Read it for yourself:

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Click to expand...

Source:http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
 
Last edited:
I was referring to the regular army, Mr. Blanca. I stand by my statement. But nevertheless, thanks again for posting more regulations.

Strictly speaking, there is a draft today, since you have to register for selective service, though not universal service. Yet the armed forces are composed entirely of volunteers and has been now for a few years. In the history of the country, how many years have we had an army of draftees anyway? Perhaps 40 years total? So I'd still say we have a tradition of a volunteer armed forces.
 
Last edited:
Militia and ASVAB

Ohio also has a State Militia, which is separate from the ANG.

And I took my ASVAB a lonnnggg time ago--and did well enough to get my MOS of choice (95B20) and be asked to take the entrance test for West Point (which I declined). :)
 
There is a Virginia defence force, which I think I mentioned already, but it isn't called the militia. The functions aren't quite the same, either, it being more of a local security force, as I understand it. It certainly isn't well known.

Regarding the militia during the American Revolution, I have no references to any of their activities but they were only one component of the land forces of the United States, the others being regular troops of the states, regular troops raised by congress and volunteers. I really don't know anything about the volunteers.

But regarding the soldiers of today, it's a young man's game. Not many men past age of fifty would make good soldiers.
 
But regarding the soldiers of today, it's a young man's game. Not many men past age of fifty would make good soldiers.
Click to expand...

But when it comes to the defense of the nation, everybody makes makes a good enough soldier
 
SPEMack618 said:
I would go so far as to say that war is a trained young man's game...
Click to expand...
Which is why the 2nd Amendment reference to the militia says "A well regulated militia beiing necessary ..." The well regulated means well trained, NOT "severely constrained by a lot of foolish laws."
 
Naturally, you have just re-read the amendment and noted that it says none of those things, merely "well regulated." You can say whatever you want it to mean but what it says is no more than what it says. I am afraid that only the supreme court can say what someone thought it meant two hundred and some odd years ago.
 
I was actually referring more to what I spoke on earlier concerning the morality of sending un-trained "militia-men" against trained regulars.
 
BT, SCOTUS did say what it means...it means you don't have to be in the militia to have a firearm.:cool:
I guess I am out of the Militia, turned 45. Oh well, guess it's time to turn the rifle and gear over to someone younger...NOT!
 
BlueTrain said:
I am afraid that only the supreme court can say what someone thought it meant two hundred and some odd years ago.
Click to expand...
Correct.

And they agree with my understanding of what "A well regulated militia" meant at the time the words were written.

Read the COMPLETE Heller and McDonald decisions for yourself before you tell me again I'm wrong. I have read them.
 
We have the biggest army in the world.It's just the point of putting it together and making it worth while.For me at the age of 39 if the time came for me to fight I would.Thats even if I am a real man of armer of just a man who can fight.

and it want take some one like the Pres to say we are at war either.just let it come my way and I'll give them all the hell I can till I take my last breath.

around here we already have a good idea to who will fight or want.PLus we know our neck of the woods pretty well.
 
Well, Mr 5R milspec, I do believe you are from South Carolina.

And, Mr. Blanca, I stick to my own opinions, as you do yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top