What the Militia is all about...

Corpral_Agarn said:

I always thought the okay symbol was a troll joke. No way anybody took that seriously?

Click to expand...

It may have began that way, but I recall instances of folks being ostracized for flashing the symbol. A guy was banned from Wrigley Field for flashing it and being caught on broadcast TV, and some Navy Cadets were investigated for doing it on College GameDay. Seems some cops got in hot water for it during protest season a couple years ago,too IIRC. So the trolls got trolled apparently.
S

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?" " It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

George Mason.


My father in law signed into the Noorvik Alaska Militia when Japan invaded Alaska.
Brought his rifle and counted out his rounds, made his mark, elected leaders and kept his eyes open while on the land and seas, hunting.
The Army came later and inducted the whole group, with rank, pay and arms. 30-06 1917 Enfields all around. They were formed as the Alaska Territorial Guard, "ATG"
They were given ammo to muster with and more ammo in a time when it was scares and encouraged to take their rifles everywhere and hunt, make a living and continue to provide for themselves, all the while keeping an eye out and training regularly.
He spent most of his duty time in Nome, as he worked there in the summer and a transfer in the ATG was not hard.
When the war was over, they were payed, discharged and took their rifles home.

AlexanderA said:

Scalia, in the Heller case, went out of his way to decouple the RKBA from any connection with the militia. But by the same token, he de facto overruled the 1939 Miller case, which implied that weapons in common use by the military would be protected under the 2nd. (Miller was convicted under the NFA of possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The Court said it wasn't protected because -- as far as the Court could "judicially notice" -- it wasn't part of the ordinary military equipment. The strong implication was that if Miller's crime had been possessing an unregistered machine gun, his conviction would have been overturned as violating the 2nd.)

ETA: It's true that as a practical matter, the Court in the Miller case would probably have found a way to uphold the NFA. But that's speculation. According to the words and reasoning of the opinion, weapons having a reasonable connection to the military would be protected, while weapons not having such a reasonable connection (such as a sawed-off shotgun) would not be.

Click to expand...

I disagree with several of your points.

Scalia references “Miller” to:

1. Affirm that the second amendment is an individual right and is not reserved ONLY when participating in military activity as a part of a corporate group such a militia
2. Miller opinion affirms that 2nd amendment is applicable to firearms in common use

Scalia does not decouple the second amendment from the Militia, but rather makes the opinion that the right to bear arms is not exclusive to Militia activity and in addition to Militia activity, the right extends to personal defense and provides evidence of this intent. In addition, I believe (please correct me if I’m wrong) Miller was not convicted of possession of a sawed off shotgun but rather of transporting it across state lines. I also don’t see any “over-ruling” of Miller precedence but rather utilizing it as a precedence to clarify his opinion and disagreement with Justice Stevens opinion that Miller established that this right was only relevant to active participation in a Militia.

shafter said:

People can split hairs regarding the definition of who the militia is all they want, but in modern times of standing armies and law enforcement, any unit that doesn't have official governmental standing is likely to be irrelevant concerning foreign threats, and crushed if they attempt action domestically.

We've moved so far past meeting with muskets on the village green that I wouldn't associate myself with the term militia for anything.

Click to expand...

Considering that the extremely low-tech mountain militias of Afghanistan, to a an extent, found success against both the Russian and United States armed forces for 20 years, I believe there is evidence contrary to your argument.

ColoradoMinuteMan said:

Considering that the extremely low-tech mountain militias of Afghanistan, to a an extent, found success against both the Russian and United States armed forces for 20 years, I believe there is evidence contrary to your argument.

Click to expand...

I'd say there is a massive difference between goatherders with a network that spans generations and doesn't rely on technology, and western softness and bickering and infighting.

Howland937 said:

It doesn't help that the word "militia" itself HAS been co-opted by the types the media portrays. Remember a couple of years ago when the hand symbol to suggest things are "ok" was also connected to white supremacy? Not sure if that's still a thing or not, but when such things occur and the correct meaning isn't supported and clarified, we all run the risk of falling under the broad brush strokes.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm getting at. Hollywood too. They're part of the left's weaponization of words.
Every single time you every hear of the word "militia" in some crime show... it's an anti-government group trying to "take back" or "save" the country, or some group of nutbag racist white supremacists.
(plotting something right in line with what you hear every day from the talking heads on the left)

shafter said:

I'd say there is a massive difference between goatherders with a network that spans generations and doesn't rely on technology, and western softness and bickering and infighting.

Click to expand...

That’s very true in the initial setting, but once the “metal meets the meat”, the wheat gets separated from the chaff and things change, as they always do.

Isn’t the term “well organized militia” in the 2A a reference to a military unit under a state’s control - in contrast to what was then the Continental Army? Thus, RKBA was affirmed in the 2A as both a right by a State (to organize a military unit), and a right by an individual (to own and use armaments).

ColoradoMinuteMan said:

Considering that the extremely low-tech mountain militias of Afghanistan, to a an extent, found success against both the Russian and United States armed forces for 20 years, I believe there is evidence contrary to your argument.

Click to expand...

I think the Afghans cut their teeth on the British, much like we did.

kwguy said:

That’s very true in the initial setting, but once the “metal meets the meat”, the wheat gets separated from the chaff and things change, as they always do.

Click to expand...

There's barely enough wheat left in this country to make a loaf of bread. One percent has served in the military and an even smaller fraction of that has real experience.

Any invading force, or other force, would flip the switch and shut down comms for most of the remaining hold outs.

There is no meaningful infrastructure for one if by land two if by sea and an evening gallop across the countryside. Times change.

shafter said:

People can split hairs regarding the definition of who the militia is all they want, but in modern times of standing armies and law enforcement, any unit that doesn't have official governmental standing is likely to be irrelevant concerning foreign threats, and crushed if they attempt action domestically.

We've moved so far past meeting with muskets on the village green that I wouldn't associate myself with the term militia for anything.

Click to expand...

Ukraine, Afghanistan, look at what's going on in Haiti right now. Use whatever term you want, but a community that is armed and able to protect and provide for itself is better off than one that needs to be protected and provided for. Change is inevitable, the status quo is always temporary.

Zendude said:

Isn’t the term “well organized militia” in the 2A a reference to a military unit under a state’s control - in contrast to what was then the Continental Army? Thus, RKBA was affirmed in the 2A as both a right by a State (to organize a military unit), and a right by an individual (to own and use armaments).

Click to expand...

To get a full view of what "the militia" entailed in 1791, you have to read the Militia Clause of the 2nd Amendment in conjunction with Article I, section 8 of the main body of the Constitution. That provides (a) that Congress (i.e., the federal government) shall have the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, and to command them when called into federal service, and (b) that the states retain the power to appoint the officers, and to train the militia according to the guidelines prescribed by Congress. So, this presupposes a partnership between the states and the federal government, with a certain amount of uniformity throughout the country. It also presupposes that Congress would pay for most of the guns to be handed out to the militia.

Now, what would happen if Congress, lacking funds, refused to pay for the arming of the militia? Or if the funding was discriminatory as between the states, favoring one over another? This is where the 2nd Amendment comes in. It provides, in effect, that if the government won't provide the guns, then the people's privately owned guns can fill the gaps in arming the militia. It was also understood that the militia included practically everybody. For purposes of the 2nd Amendment, "the militia" is synonymous with "the people."

What was behind all this was the Founders' fear of a standing army, and (perhaps more importantly) their inability to pay for one. They wanted to set up a defense system on the cheap. It didn't take too long to find out this was unworkable. Nevertheless, we are left with the legal structure that underpinned the obsolete system. Something, of course, that we as gun owners can take advantage of.

I dont belive my father in law got paid when he musterd for the Noorvik Militia.He did have a Winchester M70 in 30-06, and a pistol of some sort.
They were paid as military when "Muktuk' Marsten mushed in with the Army and inducted them.
To be clear, none were drafted, as men were in WW2, but inducted as a group, trained, equipped and disciplined together by the US Army.

Citzens to Militia to Military in short steps

Space Ghost said:

That's exactly what I'm getting at. Hollywood too..
Every single time you every hear of the word "militia" in some crime show... it's an anti-government group trying to "take back" or "save" the country,)

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Go take a look on some forums, and you’ll see that many people who also misuse the term militia actively advocate for Civil War and the replacement of this government because they choose to believe the obvious lie that our elections and laws can be ignored when convenient if enough BS is spread as cover. After a thundering series of repudiations via laws and due process, the vaporous lies of the election deniers are still passed around like free beer.

Oath Keepers, anyone? Will we pretend that Jan 6th didn’t happen? It doesn’t help when the loser of the presidential election promises to pardon Jan 6th insurrectionists carte blanch.

I’m not making this up, and you all know exactly what I’m talking about. If you’re not working against this type of craziness than your tacitly accepting it and it amounts to making our elections irrelevant.

Zendude said:

Isn’t the term “well organized militia” in the 2A a reference to a military unit under a state’s control - in contrast to what was then the Continental Army? Thus, RKBA was affirmed in the 2A as both a right by a State (to organize a military unit), and a right by an individual (to own and use armaments).

Click to expand...

Article 1 of the constitution forbids the states from keeping troops.

Jeff62 said:

I really like Colion Noir and I really like the store owner. I do not like the “militia” connotation. Maybe time and context will change my mind, I’m in Arkansas so hold off on the flame and shade. I have talked with “militia’s “ , beer gut, racism and ALL THAT GOES WITH makes me strongly dislike.
I’m glad the store owner kept well. I’m always glad when bad guys get their just deserve. My take.

Click to expand...

Militia is us

Necessary_Nutrient said:

I’m not making this up, and you all know exactly what I’m talking about

Click to expand...

The game was rigged, the referees/umpires were biased, their whole team is on PED's, they're stealing signs, we was robbed...

It's just easier to assign blame than come to terms with our own shortcomings or those of the teams/entities we support. Dismissing failure because it's someone else's fault helps people sleep better I guess.

danmc said:

Article 1 of the constitution forbids the states from keeping troops.

Click to expand...

"Without the consent of Congress." Federal law authorizes states to keep troops, for example, the National Guard.

But "keeping" troops means active duty. A militia that's only on paper is not "keeping" troops. Nor is mustering periodically for drill. What the Founders intended was for states not to have permanent garrisons without the consent of Congress. That was deemed to be a federal responsibility.

shafter said:

There's barely enough wheat left in this country to make a loaf of bread. One percent has served in the military and an even smaller fraction of that has real experience.

Any invading force, or other force, would flip the switch and shut down comms for most of the remaining hold outs.

There is no meaningful infrastructure for one if by land two if by sea and an evening gallop across the countryside. Times change.

Click to expand...

One percent? Where did you get that? There are over 16 million veterans in the US. The 1.5 million people in the military and the 660K law enforcement officers are outnumbered.

Not that everybody has to be highly trained to resist the police when they're as vastly outnumbered as they are.

shafter said:

There's barely enough wheat left in this country to make a loaf of bread. One percent has served in the military and an even smaller fraction of that has real experience.

Any invading force, or other force, would flip the switch and shut down comms for most of the remaining hold outs.

Click to expand...

Actively serving it’s closer to .4%, 7% if we include living that have served.

That said, we can look at Ukraine for modern invasions, remember everyone that was a “expert” said the war would only last weeks if not days.

I don’t think we have to worry about that situation though. I figure we just let enough people walk across out borders and vote in the .gov they want. No shots fired and we not only allowed it but facilitate it currently…

wayneinFL said:

One percent? Where did you get that? There are over 16 million veterans in the US. The 1.5 million people in the military and the 660K law enforcement officers are outnumbered.

Not that everybody has to be highly trained to resist the police when they're as vastly outnumbered as they are.

Click to expand...

I was quoting the percent that currently serves. If you tally up total veterans it would be a higher number like you say but total veterans includes a lot of very old and very out of shape people though.

Active law enforcement and active military will do what they're told for the most part.

Times are different now. Imagine if the British had the ability to turn off the colonists power source. No more heat, no more light, no more electricity pumping water from the ground. Cell phone turned off or listened to, bank accounts drained, facial recognition everywhere.

Times have changed.

What seems to get lost in all the discussion about militias is the true organized militia. It ain't the National Guard. During WWII my father was in the Michigan State Militia. (The National Guard having been pretty much called up for the war effort.) The Michigan State Militia were uniformed, had barracks, chain of command and the whole nine yards. Among other things they were used to quell the riot in Detroit.

shafter said:

I was quoting the percent that currently serves. If you tally up total veterans it would be a higher number like you say but total veterans includes a lot of very old and very out of shape people though.

Active law enforcement and active military will do what they're told for the most part.

Times are different now. Imagine if the British had the ability to turn off the colonists power source. No more heat, no more light, no more electricity pumping water from the ground. Cell phone turned off or listened to, bank accounts drained, facial recognition everywhere.

Times have changed.

Click to expand...

Times ahead changed but people haven't. The police and military need the power grid as much as we do.

shafter said:

I was quoting the percent that currently serves. If you tally up total veterans it would be a higher number like you say but total veterans includes a lot of very old and very out of shape people though.

Active law enforcement and active military will do what they're told for the most part.

Times are different now. Imagine if the British had the ability to turn off the colonists power source. No more heat, no more light, no more electricity pumping water from the ground. Cell phone turned off or listened to, bank accounts drained, facial recognition everywhere.

Times have changed.

Click to expand...

The military and police need power, food, and water. They can't shut it all down. We just shut down everything for the pandemic except for the police, and hospitals, and roads, and road work, and gas stations, and grocery stores, and liquor stores, and gun stores, and next thing you know everything was open.

And you're correct, the police will do what they're told, and when they're told to steal food from the federal government, they will.

Old and fat? How much does it matter? I just watched a video of some old, fat, drunk hillbilly shooting two highly trained cops in the face, and he didn't have to do any elite commando type stuff to do it. He didn't even put his shoes on.

The government has a hard enough time stopping localized civil unrest. Imagine Hurricane Katrina nationwide. Imagine it nationwide, along with states going against the federal government. Biden has control of the most expensive military in the world, but he's not a God. 1.5 million people aren't going to control 340 million people without the consent of a majority of them.

"Militia" had a negative connotation even in the 18th and 19th Centuries. it conveyed an image of untrained, undisciplined wannabes and pretend they ares who were prone to panic, scattered at the first volley from an enemy, wouldn't stand, wouldn't fight outside their home area-the Battle of Queenston Heights in the War of 1812, e.g. During the Civil War the militia in the Confederacy were usually the under- and over-age, led by officers seen as draft dodgers.
Before the Revolution the militiaman was required to provide his own firearm, only requirement was that it could not be of "bastard bore", i.e. anything other than the .75 of the Brown Bess. Though I suspect that wasn't that rigorously enforced.
At the Battle of Cowpens Daniel Morgan put his militia in the front line, his Continentals in the second. He told the militiamen, "Give me two volleys and then you can run." his intent was l they could was slow down, harass the enemy, he didn't expect them to stand.

BLACKHAWKNJ said:

At the Battle of Cowpens Daniel Morgan put his militia in the front line, his Continentals in the second. He told the militiamen, "Give me two volleys and then you can run." his intent was l they could was slow down, harass the enemy, he didn't expect them to stand.

Click to expand...

Actually, that battle is one of the finest examples of rifle tactics in history -- rifles were too slow to reload, had no bayonets, small caliber and so on. Morgan combined rifles with smooth bore muskets to form a winning combination. The British learned about rifles -- the hard way -- from this and similar battles, and adopted their own rifles during the Napoleonic Wars.