Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/12/2006 2:32:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 4:01:42 PM EDT by elbobo19]
Its turned into one of those it was meant for the militia vs its everyone's right kind of debates. I need some founding father quotes that clear it up.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:34:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 2:35:58 PM EDT by Ring]

Originally Posted By elbobo19:
Its turned into one of those it was meant for the militia vs its everyone's right kind of debates. I need some founding father quotes that clear it up.


US law.. EVERYONE 16 to 60 somthing IS in the militia

look it up...


www.gunfacts.info

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:36:04 PM EDT

Not a founding father - but he tends to make the antis stop and take notice:

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
~ John F. Kennedy,
April 1960
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:36:27 PM EDT
According to the United States Code Title 10, Section 311...
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

* (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
* (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:36:28 PM EDT
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:38:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:38:35 PM EDT
we need AR15.com US unorganized militia members cards :)
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:39:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:40:23 PM EDT
The Fifth Circuit laid it out pretty well in US v. Emerson.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:41:25 PM EDT
The Federalist Papers : No. 46; MADISON
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''


Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:42:48 PM EDT
The Federalist Papers : No. 46: James Madision
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:46:54 PM EDT
Ask them why "The People" means the people for the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, but it means national guard for the Second.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:49:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:53:45 PM EDT
OK the founding father quotes brought out comments such as "Yeah I heard he was an expert on modern society"
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:54:33 PM EDT
The National Guard wasn't around when the Constitution was written.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:55:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By elbobo19:
OK the founding father quotes brought out comments such as "Yeah I heard he was an expert on modern society"



Post the definition of militia. Doesn't really leave any room for doubt on who the members of the militia are and their right to keep and bear arms.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:56:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sp1shooter:
The National Guard wasn't around when the Constitution was written.



What's your point?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:58:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

Originally Posted By sp1shooter:
The National Guard wasn't around when the Constitution was written.



What's your point?



A lot of antis will say militia means the national guard but how could the constitution refer to something that didn't exist at the time?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:01:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ctprelude:


Post the definition of militia. Doesn't really leave any room for doubt on who the members of the militia are and their right to keep and bear arms.



that section 311 definition hasn't been changed for updated has it?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:07:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sp1shooter:

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

Originally Posted By sp1shooter:
The National Guard wasn't around when the Constitution was written.



What's your point?



A lot of antis will say militia means the national guard but how could the constitution refer to something that didn't exist at the time?



Be careful on terminology. There was the "organized militia" and the "unorganized militia".

Here you go for more info:

www.ngb.army.mil/ngbgomo/history/ngbhist.htm


The National Guard Bureau

The National Guard Bureau is the federal instrument responsible for the administration of the National Guard. Established by Congress as a Joint Bureau, of the Departments of the Army and the Air Force. It holds a unique status as both a staff and operation agency. Throughout its more than 80-year history, the National Guard Bureau has repeatedly proven that the National Guard can effectively perform its duties, with its own personnel, at a high level of professionalism.

The National Guard Bureau dates back to the turn of the century. After the Spanish-American war of 1898 which demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, as well as in the entire United States military. Secretary of War Elihu Root initiated a program of reform and reorganization in the military establishment. The impetus for reform led to the Militia Act of 1903, better known as the Dick Act.

The Beginnings of Federalization

United States Senator Charles Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard, sponsored the 1903 act, which gave Federal status to the militia. Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

The increase in Federal funding was an important development. In 1808 Congress had allocated $200,000 a year to arm the militia; by 1887, the figure had risen to only $400,000. But in 1906, three years after the passage of the Dick Act, $2,000,000 was allocated to arm the militia; between 1903 and 1916, the Federal government spent $53,000,000 on the Guard, more than the total of the previous hundred years.

With the increase in Federal funding came an increase in paperwork and bureaucracy. Before the passage of the Dick Act, militia affairs had been handled by the various bureaus of the War Department, as the subject dictated. But the 1903 act authorized, for the first time, the creation of a separate section responsible for National Guard affairs. Located in the Miscellaneous Division of the Adjutant General's office, this small section, headed by Major James Parker, Cavalry, with four clerks, was the predecessor of today's National Guard Bureau.

This section remained under the supervision of the Adjutant General's Office until War Department Orders on February 12, 1908 created the Division of Militia Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of War. The act also provided for "necessary clerical and official expense of the Division of Militia Affairs." Lieutenant Colonel Erasmus M. Weaver, Coast Artillery Corps, assumed duties as the division's first Chief. An increasing volume of business meant more personnel, and the four clerks had by this time increased to 15.

The Division remained a part of the Office of the Secretary of War until July 25, 1910 when the Chief was directed to report directly to the Army Chief of Staff. The Division continued to perform under the direct jurisdiction of the Chief of Staff until the passage of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916. Then the Division of Militia Affairs became the Militia Bureau of the War Department, under the direct supervision of the Secretary of War.

The Division Becomes a Bureau

The National Defense Act of 1916 is, with the exception of the United States Constitution, the most important piece of legislation in the history of the National Guard. It transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory. The act stated that all units would have to be federally recognized, and that the qualifications for officers would be set by the War Department. It increased the number of annual training days to 15, increased the number of yearly drills to 48, and authorized pay for drills.

The 1916 act transformed the Division of Militia Affairs into a separate Militia Bureau, increasing its autonomy and authority. Eight new civilian positions were authorized, something which the various Chiefs had been requesting for years; the number of military assigned to the Bureau had grown to 13. The National Defense Act also gave Presidential authority to assign two National Guard officers to duty with the Militia Bureau. The inclusion of National Guard officers in the Militia Bureau was an important step towards creating a centralized planning organization for the National Guard headed by its own officers. The first National Guard officer assigned to the Bureau was Major Louis C. Wilson of Texas in 1916.

On September 11, 1917 War Department General Order 119 stated that the jurisdiction of the Militia Bureau includes "coordination through the office of the Chief of Staff, of the organization, equipment, and instruction of the National Guard under department commanders in a manner similar to the coordination by the Chief of Staff of the organization, equipment, and training of the Regular Army under department commanders." Thus the National Guard Bureau was charged with the responsibility of maintaining high standards in the National Guard.

Prior to 1910 the Chief of the Militia Bureau was a Regular Army officer. This situation changed on June 4,1920 when Congress passed an amendment to the National Defense Act of 1916. One of the amendment's conditions stated that effective January 1, 1921, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau would be selected from lists of present or former National Guard officers.

The act reads:

The Chief National Guard Bureau shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, by selection from the lists of officers of the National! Guard of the United States recommended as suitable for such appointment by their respective Governors, and who have had ten or more years commissioned service in the National Guard... The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall hold office for four years unless sooner removed for cause, and shall not be eligible to succeed himself (NOTE: it was later amended that the Chief could succeed himself)... Upon accepting his office, the CNGB shall be appointed a Major General in the National Guard of the United States, and commissioned in the Army of the United States, and while serving shall have the rank, pay, and allowances of a Major General.


The first appointee under these provisions was Major General George C. Rickards of Pennsylvania. The amendment also provided for the creation of a General Staff committee of National Guard officers, which could recommend policies affecting the Guard.

The Bureau was known as the Militia Bureau until it was designated as the National Guard Bureau by an amendment to Section 81 of the National Defense Act on June 15, 1933. Furthermore, this amendment worked towards settling the issue of the National Guard as a reserve component. It stated that there would be two National Guards: the National Guard of the several States, and the National Guard of the United States. The former would be the individual State militias, employed in local emergencies and national defense. The latter would be a deployable reserve component of the Army.


Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:13:19 PM EDT
The problem with antis I've noticed on other boards is that they always say "We don't need a militia nowadays".

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:15:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Misery:
The problem with antis I've noticed on other boards is that they always say "We don't need a militia nowadays". hr


thats pretty much what I'm running inot right now
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:16:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ring:
we need AR15.com US unorganized militia members cards :)



We've got them.

They're called "AR-15"'s



Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:19:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By elbobo19:
OK the founding father quotes brought out comments such as "Yeah I heard he was an expert on modern society"



Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:21:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By elbobo19:

Originally Posted By Misery:
The problem with antis I've noticed on other boards is that they always say "We don't need a militia nowadays".




thats pretty much what I'm running inot right now




Their reason is, we have a standing Army. Which, actually, is UnConstitutional. The Founding Fathers didn't want the USA to have a standing Army. The way our elected leaders get around this, is by re-approving our military every 2 years.

So in one respect, realistically, the Army has taken over the role of the Militia for all practical purposes and on the other hand, our Founding Fathers didn't want our country to have a standing Army to do exactly what we are doing around the world...nation building. So the anti's have a point, but their point is UnConstitutional.

BUT ask them what they think would happen if we were invaded?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:28:22 PM EDT
Try this,"If GWB decides to become king, how will you stop him?" "If Jim Crow laws are brought back , how will you stop it?"
"What will you do if the right of women to vote is repealed?"
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:51:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sp1shooter:

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

Originally Posted By sp1shooter:
The National Guard wasn't around when the Constitution was written.



What's your point?



A lot of antis will say militia means the national guard but how could the constitution refer to something that didn't exist at the time?



I gotcha. I thought you were goin the other way with it, saying we don't need a militia now that we have the National Guard.
Top Top