AlexanderA
Member
I think the top age in Virginia is 65. Your point is well taken, though.
What the Militia is all about...
- Thread starter Poper
- Start date
Militia isn't a trademark. It is another word that has been weaponized over the years, co-opted by groups whose only qualification is hatred or ignorance, but a concept that I think fits well into the universal national service model. Its meaning may change over the years, but a work team needs the proper tools, and the Swiss model seemed to work well for them.
I feel like where a lot of us fail to understand the Second Amendment and the militia, is by not reading the documents that preceded the Constitution. As we all should know, Alexander Hamiliton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers to tell people why we needed a Constitution. Alexander wrote Federalist Paper 29, Concerning the Militia.
To give the Spark notes version, Hamilton states that every able body person is the militia, who is to be well trained and well armed. We are to be trained by the state (government) for defense of the country.
We are the militia. However, somewhere along the way, no one had the Government to start training the people to be the militia. Instead now we have a standing Army (which by many of the founding fathers was considered and affront to freedom).
I highly encourage everyone to read the Federalist Papers, especially 29. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
I tried to copy and paste the whole thing but, apparently there is a character limit on here that prevents the whole thing from being shared.
To give the Spark notes version, Hamilton states that every able body person is the militia, who is to be well trained and well armed. We are to be trained by the state (government) for defense of the country.
We are the militia. However, somewhere along the way, no one had the Government to start training the people to be the militia. Instead now we have a standing Army (which by many of the founding fathers was considered and affront to freedom).
I highly encourage everyone to read the Federalist Papers, especially 29. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
I tried to copy and paste the whole thing but, apparently there is a character limit on here that prevents the whole thing from being shared.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
It couldn't. But that's OK. The legal and constitutional framework is what remains of the militia idea. And that's more important than a working militia itself. It fits perfectly with the Bruen case's "text, history, and tradition" test.
Bottom line: The ordinary citizen (an ipso facto member of the militia) is entitled, under the 2nd Amendment, to the common weapons in use by the military. Accordingly, "assault weapon" bans (and even, perhaps, the NFA) are unconstitutional.
(You don't get that result by ignoring the Militia Clause.)
theotherwaldo
Member
The militia is not primarily designed to protect our citizens from foreign enemies - that is a task for our standing military.
No, the militia is intended to protect our law-abiding citizens from domestic enemies of all sorts... .
No, the militia is intended to protect our law-abiding citizens from domestic enemies of all sorts... .
Shanvanvocht
Member
While I agree that everyone should read The Federalist Papers ( my copy is beside my chair,) I am afraid that Jefferson was not one of the authors. Hamilton wrote most of the articles, while others were by James Madison and John Jay.
plainsdrifter
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 606
Right, 2A is about protecting the republic from domestic enemies for instance a President/party who believes the election was stolen and there is no true relief from the courts or the other two branches of government. Of course there should be reasonable evidence. lol
Or a military commander who tries a coup. Stuff like that.
It was a long night when I had wrote that. But all the same either way. Still gives the context needed for who is the militia, who trains them, and whatnot.
RIght. So who directs this universal militia towards the actual enemy? It isn't like these domestic enemies will self-identify as enemies - no more redcoats.
If I take action against a member of an extremist group who wants to overturn or disrupt the elected government, am I in the clear as a militiaman?
Probably so. The National Guard at the start of WW2 was more of a good old boys club. The 28 ID took about 2 years of training before they went into combat and fought gallantly.
However, this is hardly the case for some time
Well the President is the commander in chief, so he would authorize use of the militia as needed, with approval of Congress. As it was always a volunteer base, I'm sure it probably work the same way as it does now. Probably with way more members and a lot more training. Would still have the same officers controlling at all levels. Though this would be more of a life long thing, rather than the current 4-8 years or 20+ year careers.
AlexanderA
Member
I don't think that even the Founders were clear in their own minds on how the militia would actually be used. We can reasonably conclude, though, that two things were uppermost:
1. They didn't want a repeat of the incident in which the British (who were, after all, the duly constituted government at the time) marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the colonists' guns, and
2. They needed an army, but didn't have the money to fund one. They figured the populace would supply the manpower and weapons.
If anyone takes self-directed action against an alleged "extremist" etc., he's going to be in a lot of trouble. Membership in the universal militia provides no protection in a situation like this.
The universal militia envisioned by the Founders is today an idea (a useful idea), but it's not an actual organization. We should never forget that.
Glad you brought this up.
There is a comma in the 2A after militia separating the militia from the right of the people. One has nothing to do with the other. The founding fathers knew punctuation.
The militia is brought up in Article I, Section 8 of the COTUS.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Let me point out that the Government's failure does not cancel our rights -- if the Government failed to empanel juries, would we lose the right to trial by jury?
plainsdrifter
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 606
The domestic enemies will declare they are not the enemy but the ones who took over say the congress building or white house the enemy. Both will declare they are within the constitution using 2A and people will have to take sides. This is called civil war.
There will be underground armies that will use subversive activities and terrorist like attacks with no uniforms.
We also have to be aware of a rouge President or official working with a foreign government. More than likely that one will be buddies with commies and authoritarian governments.
I'm with you on this point, but I'm afraid that you may be advocating a concept that is very unpopular with this demographic.
I see lots of comments that seem to reflect chest-thumping patriotism, but the only groups where "militia" activities and groups seem to work are extremists working against our government. It is following some patterns from the Reconstruction era: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com...surrection-in-louisiana-was-almost-a-success/
I can't imagine a scenario where the legitimate government would choose a militia over an existing team - National Guard, FEMA, DHS, but I can imagine - because it keeps happening - some anti-government extremists claim a higher purpose to motivate an armed group of citizens to threaten and kill their neighbors.
Much like the VC, the Taliban beat us in strategy, not tactics. Mostly because the leaders of the USA didn't include winning either war as a key part of their political goals. I encountered illiterate farmers (who thought I was Russian because they never learned geography), but their first question was always either "how long will you stay" or "when are you leaving." Once we announced that were not occupying the country and would leave "soon", they just needed to keep existing until that day. It isn't winning, it is just surviving.
I don't think it works that way inside our own country. Neither side can leave, so one side has to be beaten.
Charlie Martinez
Member
Great video and congratulations to Mr. Cope for having the courage to turn the tables on a criminal.
I only disagree with one thing he said. He said that "politicians don't have clue" about what is really going on. Politicians that are currently protecting criminals know exactly what is going on and they are doing it with a very sinister purpose.
The seemingly innocent , naive or well intentioned policy of making criminals "victims of our terrible society" is based on Mao-Marxist strategies to create chaos, weaken and ultimately gain complete control. Criminals are just another of several minority groups that are being treated as victims and encouraged to rebel. This strategy is based on Maoist/Marxist teachings and its purpose is to break down, weaken & gain complete control over our country.
Ironically, leftist governments are notorious for persecuting minorities due to the fact that individualism of any kind is very much discouraged. After complete control is achieved, the same politicians (at least those who survive the initial purge) that are now "protecting" these minority groups are going to persecute them relentlessly.
I only disagree with one thing he said. He said that "politicians don't have clue" about what is really going on. Politicians that are currently protecting criminals know exactly what is going on and they are doing it with a very sinister purpose.
The seemingly innocent , naive or well intentioned policy of making criminals "victims of our terrible society" is based on Mao-Marxist strategies to create chaos, weaken and ultimately gain complete control. Criminals are just another of several minority groups that are being treated as victims and encouraged to rebel. This strategy is based on Maoist/Marxist teachings and its purpose is to break down, weaken & gain complete control over our country.
Ironically, leftist governments are notorious for persecuting minorities due to the fact that individualism of any kind is very much discouraged. After complete control is achieved, the same politicians (at least those who survive the initial purge) that are now "protecting" these minority groups are going to persecute them relentlessly.
OP
OP
Poper
Member
I will offer a third path: A split / secession / a declaration of independence which is an admission of irreconcilable differences between the "Socialists" and the "Constitutionalists". Such a path need not devolve into armed conflict, though it very well could.
caribou
Member
'' All you need is an AK , some ammo and sheer will, and you can take down the f******** machine!" J Stark, 2021.
Its quite true, there are several examples of locals getting together when the enemy is coming to their neck of the woods or desert.
Here in Alaska, the last time the militia formed was when a clear enemy arrived, the Japanese. After awhile the Army showed up and inducted them.
In the Civil War, militias were also inducted, en mass,
The enemys were clear and present, much like Indians on the frontier back in the day.
Its hard for some to fathom the US being invaded, but we invade other countrys and look at how well they did.......
"When you leave, we win" was Ho Chi Min, I think.
Its quite true, there are several examples of locals getting together when the enemy is coming to their neck of the woods or desert.
Here in Alaska, the last time the militia formed was when a clear enemy arrived, the Japanese. After awhile the Army showed up and inducted them.
In the Civil War, militias were also inducted, en mass,
The enemys were clear and present, much like Indians on the frontier back in the day.
Its hard for some to fathom the US being invaded, but we invade other countrys and look at how well they did.......
"When you leave, we win" was Ho Chi Min, I think.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,135
The word "militia", like "assault weapons", was appropriated and then twisted around by some groups for their purposes.
Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill were battles where Regulars were opposed only by Militia.
Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill were battles where Regulars were opposed only by Militia.
AlexanderA
Member
Those were volunteer militias, not universal. Not what we're talking about in regard to the 2nd Amendment.
AlexanderA
Member
Not viable, because the two sides are so mixed together. For example, what do you do about Austin, Texas? Anyway, this is off topic for the forum.
caribou
Member
Can there be a "Universal Militia" that isnt all volunteer, as opposed to compulsory?? Are they not one and the same?
In a time of Peace can there be a compulsory militia? I can understand a compulsory military force during war time, draft and all, but Id like to see some examples of non volunteer Militia.
Please explain the difference between a "Universal Militia" and a "Volunteer Militia", if they are not one and the same.
The National Guard is a branch of the military. Everything, guns, laws, orders, pay and service is bought and payed for by the US Gov. None of the guns are they issue are legal for civilians to easily and readily ownd by the common populace.
Previous militias were formed by civilians who remained civilians, with their own weapons, elected officers and remained a civilian force until inducted (drafted or volunteer for military service, such as what happened in WWII, here at Candle and other Alaskan villages.
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms is so they may defend them selfs, personally, or, if needed, to form a Militia or join an existing one.
A Well regulated Militia is one that has practice and structure, and would be best formed in a time of Peace, which I find obvious.
The People and the Militia are one and the same....would that be the 'Universal part?"
For Definition, and not 'WikiBS"
mi·li·tia
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias
I, for one, would have no problem with those who have honorable military disharge to take their issue weapons home, or have the option to buy them.
Unlike Europe, we do not have a year or two of compulsory Military Service to perform.
This from Gov.com
What are the 7 branches of military in USA?
https://www.defense.gov › About › our-forces
In a time of Peace can there be a compulsory militia? I can understand a compulsory military force during war time, draft and all, but Id like to see some examples of non volunteer Militia.
Please explain the difference between a "Universal Militia" and a "Volunteer Militia", if they are not one and the same.
The National Guard is a branch of the military. Everything, guns, laws, orders, pay and service is bought and payed for by the US Gov. None of the guns are they issue are legal for civilians to easily and readily ownd by the common populace.
Previous militias were formed by civilians who remained civilians, with their own weapons, elected officers and remained a civilian force until inducted (drafted or volunteer for military service, such as what happened in WWII, here at Candle and other Alaskan villages.
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms is so they may defend them selfs, personally, or, if needed, to form a Militia or join an existing one.
A Well regulated Militia is one that has practice and structure, and would be best formed in a time of Peace, which I find obvious.
The People and the Militia are one and the same....would that be the 'Universal part?"
For Definition, and not 'WikiBS"
mi·li·tia
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias
- a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
- a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
- historical
(in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.
Can Militia service be compulsery? the above implies it. Who would arm the compulsed/drafted? If the Militia is compulsory or under Gov auspices, and the People are the Militia, should they (gov) not mandate universal firearms ownership? or at least provide standard military issue long arms and (CMP type) the ability to obtain them at cost?
I, for one, would have no problem with those who have honorable military disharge to take their issue weapons home, or have the option to buy them.
Unlike Europe, we do not have a year or two of compulsory Military Service to perform.
This from Gov.com
What are the 7 branches of military in USA?
- Army.
- Marine Corps.
- Navy.
- Air Force.
- Space Force.
- Coast Guard.
- National Guard
https://www.defense.gov › About › our-forces
Last edited:
