What is a real Militia?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
Jaycolo...
How does the Swiss model (everyone's in the Army, issued military weapons by the government, and regularly drilled) fit into the American conception of the Militia?
Obviously, Switzerland is not the model I'd choose for American gun rights, as outside their duties as members of the Army, Swiss citizens are pretty restricted, gun-wise. But I wonder if that model can be fitted into ours, and if anything useful would result, either in terms of the national defense or individual gun rights.
--Shannon
How does the Swiss model (everyone's in the Army, issued military weapons by the government, and regularly drilled) fit into the American conception of the Militia?
Obviously, Switzerland is not the model I'd choose for American gun rights, as outside their duties as members of the Army, Swiss citizens are pretty restricted, gun-wise. But I wonder if that model can be fitted into ours, and if anything useful would result, either in terms of the national defense or individual gun rights.
--Shannon
Last edited:
Welcome AFTV2005 ,
and one of the best posts I have read in legal and political.
Give me liberty or give me death.
No but sometimes I wonder if a couple of mandatary years in the military wouldn't stop a whole lot of what happening in this country. Give young people another look at life and liberty other than higher educations slant or the hood etc. Seems to mature guys/gals and give them a different outlook on life in general.
and one of the best posts I have read in legal and political.
Give me liberty or give me death.
No but sometimes I wonder if a couple of mandatary years in the military wouldn't stop a whole lot of what happening in this country. Give young people another look at life and liberty other than higher educations slant or the hood etc. Seems to mature guys/gals and give them a different outlook on life in general.
Hugh Damright
New member
The way I understand it, Virginians have a right to rise up as one and alter/abolish government in Virginia, but Americans do not have a right to rise up as one and alter/abolish the US government. I think this is an important distinction.
Hugh Damright
New member
deleted
Last edited:
Thank you for the welcome, Bob and Rem, and the kind words.
Hugh...you said, "Americans do not have a right to rise up as one and alter/abolish the US government". I don't recall that our Founding Fathers had specific permission from the mother country to rise up either, but rise up they did and you know the rest of the story.
Have you ever watched any films of the Jewish people being herded like sheep into railroad cars to be transported to the death camps? As I have watched these films, I often noticed that the number of Jewish victims was vastly greater than their German guards. I used to wonder why these people didn't overcome their guards and try to escape. I suppose, if your premise were right, that it would explain why these people went so meekly to their slaughter, rather than demonstrate any resistance towards the representatives of the government.
The "distinction" lies between government that governs rightly and the government that doesn't. Just and legal laws should be obeyed and we have no moral right to rise up against a government that fulfills its duty to protect our God-given liberties. On the other hand, a government that does not fulfill its obligations, but rather seeks its own good at the expense of the liberties of the people has no moral protections.
Consider this please...if we the people have no right to overthrow a tyrannical government, then there is truly no God, no reason to value life and certainly no need of a Constitution. We would do just as well to hand our chains to the first taker.
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." John Locke
Yours in liberty,
Diana
Hugh...you said, "Americans do not have a right to rise up as one and alter/abolish the US government". I don't recall that our Founding Fathers had specific permission from the mother country to rise up either, but rise up they did and you know the rest of the story.
Have you ever watched any films of the Jewish people being herded like sheep into railroad cars to be transported to the death camps? As I have watched these films, I often noticed that the number of Jewish victims was vastly greater than their German guards. I used to wonder why these people didn't overcome their guards and try to escape. I suppose, if your premise were right, that it would explain why these people went so meekly to their slaughter, rather than demonstrate any resistance towards the representatives of the government.
The "distinction" lies between government that governs rightly and the government that doesn't. Just and legal laws should be obeyed and we have no moral right to rise up against a government that fulfills its duty to protect our God-given liberties. On the other hand, a government that does not fulfill its obligations, but rather seeks its own good at the expense of the liberties of the people has no moral protections.
Consider this please...if we the people have no right to overthrow a tyrannical government, then there is truly no God, no reason to value life and certainly no need of a Constitution. We would do just as well to hand our chains to the first taker.
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." John Locke
Yours in liberty,
Diana
Welcome to TFL Diana.
Ever wondered why the Courts don't recognize the Declaration as having any legal value?
Perhaps part of the reason is the direct tie to the militia as the means to "dissolve the political bands... to alter or to abolish it [the government]..." Yet the Courts have no problem when engaged in establishing the peoples right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It's off-topic to this thread, but it is something to consider.
Ever wondered why the Courts don't recognize the Declaration as having any legal value?
Perhaps part of the reason is the direct tie to the militia as the means to "dissolve the political bands... to alter or to abolish it [the government]..." Yet the Courts have no problem when engaged in establishing the peoples right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It's off-topic to this thread, but it is something to consider.
.
I've asked myself many times why there wasn't more resistance and the only conclusion that I could draw was they didn't believe that anyone, or any government, could be that cruel and despotic. What scares me is that some people today don't believe it can happen again.
What's the saying "Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it" or somthing that effect.
badbob
I don't think it was legal at the time to rise up against Merry ol England.
I think, no I mis spoke I KNOW it is a God given right of any people anywhere to rise up and become a free people. Whats legal or law have to do with becoming free? My posts aren't stated near as elegant as some but you all get the idea.
"
I wonder what this man and others like him would say if they could see the government we have in this country today. How laws and the constitution has been twisted in the courts, freedoms lost and we just take it. Sad when you really get to thinking about it..
One thing I feel so lucky is that I have lived when I did where I did. I fear we are at a turning point in history such as modern man can't for the most part imagine.
We have had most of the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for, with the bonus of modern technology, to see and do things they never in their wildest dream could have imagined.
I hope and prey I am very wrong but I fear my grand children or there children will grow up in a different world than we have all had the benefits of.
We are living in the greatest country this old world has ever seen We are the descendent's of those great men. I hope when push comes to shove we will once again stand as one and keep alive such a precious thing this freedom is.
Well said, Rem. The words that are both a toast and a curse is "May you live in interesting times". I think the events of the next few years are going to decide America's fate. Let's hope that freedom wins. Interesting times indeed.
Antipitas, to answer your question, I think the Courts fear their loss of control if the People (the real militia) decide they have had enough. The Constitution is a safty valve they can gradually close, hoping nobody notices until it's too late. The Declaration, on the other hand, signifies rebellion against bad government.
badbob
Antipitas, to answer your question, I think the Courts fear their loss of control if the People (the real militia) decide they have had enough. The Constitution is a safty valve they can gradually close, hoping nobody notices until it's too late. The Declaration, on the other hand, signifies rebellion against bad government.
badbob
The American Revolution
was only legal because the colonists won.
Had they lost, all of them would have gone to the gallows, and we would now revile them as traitors instead of hailing them as heroes.
Revolution is only a right if you win. Well, I guess everyone has the right to try, but it's likely to be ugly for them if they lose.
Revolutions have a strange place in the law. Revolt against the government is illegal in just about every country I can think of. But laws only have meaning in the context of a specific system of government. Overturn the system, and you throw all the laws out with it. That's why you have to write all new ones if you win.
--Shannon
was only legal because the colonists won.
Had they lost, all of them would have gone to the gallows, and we would now revile them as traitors instead of hailing them as heroes.
Revolution is only a right if you win. Well, I guess everyone has the right to try, but it's likely to be ugly for them if they lose.
Revolutions have a strange place in the law. Revolt against the government is illegal in just about every country I can think of. But laws only have meaning in the context of a specific system of government. Overturn the system, and you throw all the laws out with it. That's why you have to write all new ones if you win.
--Shannon
Somebody once said, supposedly, that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Now an interesting thing here is that the militia is a tool of the government, in a manner of speaking. That's fine as long as the government really is of the people, by the people, etc. But for it to be otherwise, it would be a government of foreigners. You see, in reality, even the Nazis and the Communists were supported by most of the people (most of the time). The problems associated with those forms of government mostly have to do with minorities in the countries, either political, racial, religious, ethnic and sometimes even national, when the country is large enough. The fact that the government in whatever form it is might be supported by most of the people (most of the time), does not mean that the government won't be brutal. It seems that in many instances the time when government really gets in trouble with the people is when those in government become really corrupt, meaning when money is all that counts and only the wealthy and well connected matter.
Now about the so-called Swiss model. I wouldn't call that a militia at all but rather a reserve army system which includes conscription. Since the end of the cold war the Swiss model is not so popular in Switzerland. You might say that military service, at least on land, from the militia and home guard up to the standing army and palace guard come in a wide variety and there are overlapping aspects. Rarely were they ever designed all at once and all previous systems thrown out. More likely new things just get piled on top of the old, no matter what you're talking about.
It still bothers me that where it is legally defined in local or state law, I seem to always be above the age limit. Now just what does that mean to me?
Now about the so-called Swiss model. I wouldn't call that a militia at all but rather a reserve army system which includes conscription. Since the end of the cold war the Swiss model is not so popular in Switzerland. You might say that military service, at least on land, from the militia and home guard up to the standing army and palace guard come in a wide variety and there are overlapping aspects. Rarely were they ever designed all at once and all previous systems thrown out. More likely new things just get piled on top of the old, no matter what you're talking about.
It still bothers me that where it is legally defined in local or state law, I seem to always be above the age limit. Now just what does that mean to me?
IMO the threat of the Militia has been tested in our lifetime. If you recall early in the Clinton administration when gun control legislation and liberty reducing conversation was in discussion there was a rise in the reports of Militia activity in virtually every state. The ideals of these small but somehow visible contingent became very apparent to the Clinton administration and the public in general. This movement grew over a 2 or 3 year period during which time the OKC bombing occurred. The combination of the rise of the militia and the occurrence of OKC along with other higher profile incidents scared the Clintons away from gun rights issues. They quickly passed watered down (significantly) leislation with pork attached. The whole militia represented a very small portion of the population who are on the extreme right end of the gun rights issue. The movement caused many who were left of those active, to begin examining their own patriotic responsibility. This reflection set standards in virtually everyone's belief system at what point they themselves would be willing to rise in arms against tyranny and loss of liberty.
Also IMO, the Founding Fathers considered the Revolutionaries (of whom they were) Militia Men. I think the line between Militia and National Guard, LEO, and Military lies in the bearing of arms freely in defense of liberty over being paid to enforce laws (beliefs) you do not personally always agree with. It is much harder to hold down those fighting from their heart from a position of Patriotism.
Also IMO, the Founding Fathers considered the Revolutionaries (of whom they were) Militia Men. I think the line between Militia and National Guard, LEO, and Military lies in the bearing of arms freely in defense of liberty over being paid to enforce laws (beliefs) you do not personally always agree with. It is much harder to hold down those fighting from their heart from a position of Patriotism.
Hugh Damright
New member
Regarding the right to alter/abolish government ... I think I may be able to make my point more clearly if we imagine a simplified model of the US, which consists of only California, Kentucky, and Wyoming. I pick these three States because California is the most populated State, Wyoming is the least populated, and Kentucky is right in the middle. And I like to suggest that we all live in this three State Union in the State of Kentucky.
Now, if our State of Kentucky is a free State, then the sovereign or final authority in Kentucky is we Kentuckians, and we have a right to alter/abolish government in Kentucky. In contrast, to suggest that the people of the whole US have a right to rise up as one and take over the US is just another way of saying that the final authority in Kentucky is not the people of Kentucky but rather the people of the whole US. And in this simplified model of the US, 85% of the people are Californians. I do not recognize Californians to have a right to alter/abolish the government in Kentucky.
The idea that the people of the whole US have a right to rise up as one and alter/abolish government seems to be antithetical to our frame of government. The federalist papers say that, if the US were a wholly national government, then the people would have a right to alter/abolish it, but that is not the form of government framed by our Constitution. Also, Madison's proposed USBOR had for it's first amendment the declaration that the people have a right to alter/abolish government ... when he presented this to Congress he conceded that many thought it improper and dangerous to declare in a federal system, and the amendment failed.
Now, if our State of Kentucky is a free State, then the sovereign or final authority in Kentucky is we Kentuckians, and we have a right to alter/abolish government in Kentucky. In contrast, to suggest that the people of the whole US have a right to rise up as one and take over the US is just another way of saying that the final authority in Kentucky is not the people of Kentucky but rather the people of the whole US. And in this simplified model of the US, 85% of the people are Californians. I do not recognize Californians to have a right to alter/abolish the government in Kentucky.
The idea that the people of the whole US have a right to rise up as one and alter/abolish government seems to be antithetical to our frame of government. The federalist papers say that, if the US were a wholly national government, then the people would have a right to alter/abolish it, but that is not the form of government framed by our Constitution. Also, Madison's proposed USBOR had for it's first amendment the declaration that the people have a right to alter/abolish government ... when he presented this to Congress he conceded that many thought it improper and dangerous to declare in a federal system, and the amendment failed.
However, abolishing the central government would not abolish the State governments.
We can see this in the fact that a constitutional convention was called (the only one we've ever had) to correct some of the things that were wrong with the central government under the Articles of Confederation.
What happened there was a complete dismantling of the central government and another placed in its stead, via the U.S. Constitution. That was hardly what the delegates were supposed to do!
But that wasn't an armed revolt. Such things are unlawful in any and every country you would care to name. By the same token, Shannon has it correct. Revolution becomes valid, only if you win, otherwise you are a traitor.
The founders saw the militia as the means to keep the central government from usurping the powers of the State... To keep the feds in check. The final check when all other lawful means had been exhausted. When the normal checks and balances of this tripartite system were overtaken and failed to reign in the power of the central government. This is the implication written into the Constitution, wherein the Congress had the power to call forth the militia, but it had no power to appoint the officers of those militia. That was left to the States alone (another argument by which the National Guard is not the militia of the Constitution). The implication is rather simple. If the officers were appointed at the State level, then it is to the State that allegiance is owed, not to the central government.
This was pretty much dealt a death blow in the War Between the States. Scarcely a hundred years after the founding of this great nation, and one of the bedrock principles were swept away.
Another power grab was the 17th amendment. This stripped the States of their control of the Senate.
It is important to remember that one of the founding principles were a bicameral legislature. One house directly supported and beholding to the people, and another that owed its allegiance to the State. This balance between the interests of the people and those of the States was a watermark of Republican thought. With the direct election of the Senate, we no longer have this check against the fickleness of the general population.
Up until the passage of the 17th, how a State handled the selection (appointment or election) of its federal Senators, was always a State matter.
It really was an ingenious plan. No laws could be passed that did not truly embody the will of the people and the will of the States. The idea of shared sovereignty between the States and the central government was dealt a death blow.
So, while we can reason the whys and wherefores of the Militia, in our modern times, the militia has become all but irrelevant. As have the idea of State sovereignty itself.
Time and politics will tell....
We can see this in the fact that a constitutional convention was called (the only one we've ever had) to correct some of the things that were wrong with the central government under the Articles of Confederation.
What happened there was a complete dismantling of the central government and another placed in its stead, via the U.S. Constitution. That was hardly what the delegates were supposed to do!
But that wasn't an armed revolt. Such things are unlawful in any and every country you would care to name. By the same token, Shannon has it correct. Revolution becomes valid, only if you win, otherwise you are a traitor.
The founders saw the militia as the means to keep the central government from usurping the powers of the State... To keep the feds in check. The final check when all other lawful means had been exhausted. When the normal checks and balances of this tripartite system were overtaken and failed to reign in the power of the central government. This is the implication written into the Constitution, wherein the Congress had the power to call forth the militia, but it had no power to appoint the officers of those militia. That was left to the States alone (another argument by which the National Guard is not the militia of the Constitution). The implication is rather simple. If the officers were appointed at the State level, then it is to the State that allegiance is owed, not to the central government.
This was pretty much dealt a death blow in the War Between the States. Scarcely a hundred years after the founding of this great nation, and one of the bedrock principles were swept away.
Another power grab was the 17th amendment. This stripped the States of their control of the Senate.
It is important to remember that one of the founding principles were a bicameral legislature. One house directly supported and beholding to the people, and another that owed its allegiance to the State. This balance between the interests of the people and those of the States was a watermark of Republican thought. With the direct election of the Senate, we no longer have this check against the fickleness of the general population.
Up until the passage of the 17th, how a State handled the selection (appointment or election) of its federal Senators, was always a State matter.
It really was an ingenious plan. No laws could be passed that did not truly embody the will of the people and the will of the States. The idea of shared sovereignty between the States and the central government was dealt a death blow.
So, while we can reason the whys and wherefores of the Militia, in our modern times, the militia has become all but irrelevant. As have the idea of State sovereignty itself.
Time and politics will tell....