Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/4/2002 2:05:36 PM EDT
In my "legitimate targets" thread, a separate discussion re: who is in the militia broke out, so I thopught a new topic in order. I had thought this a universally-understood concept, but alas, I have AGAIN been shown the error of my ways. [:D] [b]Ignoring the gender and racial aspects of the law[/b], to my knowledge the Militia Act of 1792 has NEVER been amended or repealed to release a man from his DUTY to join the militia. Read here: [i]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,[/i] Now the words "every...able bodied ...citizen" and "shall severally and respectively be enrolled" don't sound optional to me. Read more here: [url]www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm[/url] [b]THEOREM: All able bodied citizens are AUTOMATICALLY in the militia, whether they like it or not, despite the fact that the several states have abdicated their responsibility to "regulate" said militia members. [/b]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:11:18 PM EDT
As they say the proof is in the pudding. Good post Grandman.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:22:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tayous1: As they say the proof is in the pudding. Good post Grandman.
View Quote
The scary part, tayous, is that some our ur OWN AR carrying members here in our wonderful little utopia of Ar15.com have founded their understanding of the militia on the Hollywood movie "The Patriot" where the charachter says "You are not regualr army - you are militia. You are all free to go home." great drama. Lousy interpretation. Hollywood - now THERE is an unbiased, reliable source for interpretation of Constitutional law. [}:D] You know who you are out there.... [}:D]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:29:54 PM EDT
And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, [red][b]shall refuse[/b][/red], or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session [the bold is straight from the website, not my own]
View Quote
That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine
View Quote
to be fair, i have added the relative section regarding refusal to obey the "order". however, if militia service is compulsory, then how is it any different from military service? no difference, it's not militia. simple as that. all you have is forced servitude. and how is it that militia is on a state by state basis, yet "governed" by the federal government? your grasping at straws, garandman. you know as well as i do that legislation does not provide the definition of something. if it were, then RKBA would not be RKBA, but "we'll let you have them until we decide otherwise." no federal government has a right to force a citizen to serve in any military act, regardless of whether it's couched in legalese and hidden under the auspices of an otherwise good thing.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:32:20 PM EDT
The question is, should we be able to write off firearms training, the cost of a rifle, and some ammunition (for militia purposes)? "THEOREM: All able bodied citizens are AUTOMATICALLY in the militia" Would this apply to all citizens, or just to white male citizens? Would subsequent legislation against racial discrimination void the white part? And sex discrimination law void the male part? What about the fact that the military does not employ women in "front line" roles... I actually like the idea of being a member of "the militia," but I'm afraid that if it were put to a national vote that most would rather get rid of the clause to shirk their responsibility. Viper Out
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:33:22 PM EDT
i claim to fall under that banner you so denigrate, but not because of some movie. because i don't believe that any government has the right to force me to serve in any military action not of my choosing, unless i have voluntarily joined the standing armed forces. i see no difference between a militia and the standing army if the federal government has the power to make me serve. it's called slavery. i would gladly defend my country, but no damn government is going to tell me i [i]have[/i] to.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:36:04 PM EDT
Makes for interesting reading, but on a rewriting (due to the racial problems), you'd probably find it reduced to a "refer to the 2nd Amendment" if anything at all since there is no "Uniform" militia, nor has there been for some time. HOWEVER, this is excellent material for interpreting the militia part of the 2nd Amendment, which liberals contend only refers to state run armies, rather than civilians defending the freedom of the country (internal or external).
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:43:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARlady: i see no difference between a militia and the standing army if the federal government has the power to make me serve. it's called slavery. i would gladly defend my country, but no damn government is going to tell me i [i]have[/i] to.
View Quote
Ok I understand your point there. But if you don't defend your country what should I call you?... This law was made for the invasion of another country and if your not part of the solution your part of the problem.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:48:31 PM EDT
just for pure cussedness, let me also add this into the mix:
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,
View Quote
again, in view of the standards already set, gender and racial issues aside, i think it's entirely possible that this phrase could be interpreted to read, not that every male is forced into compulsory service in the militia, but that none are EXCLUDED from serving. granted, in light of the section of the act that lays down penalties for failure to comply, it would seem that this is not the case. however, i find it odd to believe that anyone who believed in freedom would agree that citizens of a country could be forced into military service, with nothing more required than a piece of legislation and the whims of a president. tell me, if you "proof" that militia service is mandatory is a piece of legislation, would you not then have to accept a complete ban on guns if said event occurred because of a piece of legislation?
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:58:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tayous1:
Originally Posted By ARlady: i see no difference between a militia and the standing army if the federal government has the power to make me serve. it's called slavery. i would gladly defend my country, but no damn government is going to tell me i [i]have[/i] to.
View Quote
Ok I understand your point there. But if you don't defend your country what should I call you?... This law was made for the invasion of another country and if your not part of the solution your part of the problem.
View Quote
no this law encompasses much more than just invasion of the country. [blue]That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed[/blue] this very same law enables the President of the United States to order the men of Ohio to attack and kill the men of Indiana should the people of Indiana decide that the laws of the state/federal government are tyrannical (we'll assume for my argument that they are, otherwise, i can see justification for such an order). the people refuse to obey the laws that enslave them and subjugate them. this law gives the president free rein not only to squash the people's right to resist tyranny, but also to enforce tyrannical laws. this is why i have a problem with compulsory militia service. also, while i would agree that i would make a poor citizen of this country were i not to defend it, you could do nothing but call me names. unless i have aided and abetted the enemy, i am not a traitor (by law, though in the minds of people, yes, i agree i would be.) failure to act in defense of the country is not, at least to my knowledge, an act of treason. not to mention that it is my [i][b]RIGHT[/b][/i] as a citizen of this country to choose not to defend it. don't think that i am saying that i wouldn't. i most certainly would. but were it my desire not to do so, i would be within my right to make just that choice. that's why we're [b]CITIZENS[/b] and not [b]SUBJECTS[/b].
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:58:31 PM EDT
i would like to amend some of my previous statements. let me start by saying that i think it goes against the very grain of freedom for a country, any country, to attempt to legislate loyalty. however, i will concede that a federal government is within the realm of acceptability to call up a militia [i]SOLEY[/i] for the purpose of defending the country against a foreign invasion. i agree that along with rights come responsibilities, and among these responsibilities are defense of the machinery that insures those rights. however, for no other purpose does the president of the united states have a right to call up the [i]state[/i] militias for compulsory service.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:32:18 PM EDT
US Code, Title 10, Chapter 13, section 311 Sec. 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. Sec. 312. Militia duty: exemptions · (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. · (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant. Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations · (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age. · (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must - (1) be a citizen of the United States; and (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:39:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 3:15:36 AM EDT by BusMaster007]
Here; have a can of worms![;D] So, the [b]MEN[/b] will serve because it's a [b]DUTY[/b]. The [pink]WOMEN[/pink] will [red]NOT[/red] serve, because it's a "[violet]choice[/violet]"...and it's "[purple]slavery[/purple]"...and [>Q]...and[>(]...and[;)] ...you've got to be kidding. -edited for guilt purposes. In light of the attacks of 9-11-2001, I would think that all Americans are responsible for defending our country. I thought I detected some whining. I was a little 'testy' last evening. [:D]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:36:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 9:22:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2002 9:24:04 PM EDT by Steelviper]
Originally Posted By ARlady: let me start by saying that i think it goes against the very grain of freedom for a country, any country, to attempt to legislate loyalty.
View Quote
This is an excellent point both in principal, and in practice. In a volunteer military, you can be sure that those around you chose to be there. Would you want to trust your life with somebody who doesn't believe in the cause you are fighting for? I wouldn't. I think the main reason I didn't mind the milita clause is that I, personally, would have no hesistation about defending my country against an outside threat. I did not consider the consequences (morally, ethically, and logistically) of trying to call people to service who do not wish to serve. Am I young enough still to blame it on youth? [;)]
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
View Quote
I think the spirit of the Milita is that of a last-ditch national defense. I can see where the current wording could allow for abuses of power. The final check against such abuses would be the people refusing their orders, but sometimes you can't count on that. Viper Out Edited to change militia cause => militia clause
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 4:53:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Garandman, let's not make this one tedious, but what Constitution were you referring to in the year [b]"The Patriot"[/b] took place? You, of all men, would know what year the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified.
View Quote
Why, "of all men" should I know this?? My areas of expertise are the Bible and Garands...[:D] Anywho.... Your question is irrelevant. The title of this thread is "Who IS (present tense) the militia?" Not who WAS the militia in 1776, or 1676 or 1276 or A.D. 76. SOMEONE ELSE raised the quote in "The Patriot" to try to address the current state of the militia, as has been SUBSEQUENTLY defined by teh Militia Act of 1792, and legislation as IBIAFR cites above. Your question is better addressed to the one who trotted out "The Patriot" as some kind of standard as to who is in the militia.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 5:15:40 AM EDT
Let me disspell another erroneous notion - Y'all are talking about the Federal gov't calling up the militia, which (other than in EXTREME cases of national defense)is as wrong headed as talking about the State of Alabama running the IRS. Your area of concern is re: standing armies, and federal abuse of the militia. Again, these fears are unwarranted, and show a misunderstanding of WHAT (in addition to WHO) the militia is. The militia is a STATE organization, under the control of the state governors. That is why 2A was written " a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE, the right of the people...." The people were to be armed, so that the STATES could train and discipline them, so that the STATES could call upon them to fight back an abusive and repressive federal gov't. The WHOLE REASON the militia existed was for the states to be able to compete against any standing Federal army. The Militia Act of 1792 was primarily intended to, like 2A, simply recognize the legitimate existence of a state funded and controlled opposition force to a repressive Federal gov't who abused any standing army. Only in extreme circumstances (i.e. foreign invasion) could the militia be called up by the President or the Feds, and then to my reading ONLY the "organized" militia. The "unorganized militia" remained in the state governors control. But that's all kinda moot anyway, because if this nation were being invaded by a foreign power, the entire (present day) militia would most likely be engaged against the foreign invation force long before the president could issue any such call. But again - Whether y'all like it or not, you are by any legal defintion, already part of the unorganized citizen militia. Your are FREE to be derelict in your duty and NOT defend your country, AND to accept the consequences the state gov't may choose to apply to you. Not that the several states likely would, as THEY are derelict in their duty to "well regulate" you. Whether you like this or not is irrelevant. Its what the FF intended, and I'm not sure why you are bristling against it. I suppose its the old "Nobody's gonna tell ME what to do, dang it." Boy have YOU got a surprise coming....[}:D]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 5:16:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 5:17:25 AM EDT by thebeekeeper1]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 5:37:40 AM EDT
Beekeep - My statement, which you yourself quoted above, says that SOMEONE ELSE founded their understanding of the militia on a Hollywood movie. I had thought it pretty clear that my understanding of the PRESENT DAY definiton of the militia was based the MIlitia Act of 1792. If you have questions re: the Hollywood defintion, I am NOT your guy. I did NOT raise it as a standard or defintion of the militia, SOMEONE ELSE did. If you have question re: the Milita Act of 1792, I'll try to help. If you are sore that I brought someone elses (btw WITHOUT mentioning them by name, they CHOSE to identify themselves) silly Hollywood interpretation of the defintion of the militia in this thread, what can I say? This thread IS about competing definitions of the militia. Again, you then are on a holy crusade for SOMEONE ELSES battle. We had THAT discussion yestrerday. [:D]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 5:58:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:10:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 6:14:25 AM EDT by pottsie350]
Only by studying the discussions that lead to the decsions that were made by the founding fathers can we determine their intentions for a laws existance. Therefore the draft and the ensuing discussions that lead to the change and the production of the final draft need to be studied. Without the Federalist Papers we would have no clue as to what the Constitution even means. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. How can the Militia Act of 1792 supersede the Constitution? The militia is not a tool of anybody. State or otherwise. The militia belongs to nobody but the people themselves. It can be requested to be brought into action either by the state or by the federal government. The Militia Act of 1792 is an attempt by the Federal government to make the militia subject to it's authority. To understand the Constituion and the meaning of the 2A, one must study all things that came before it. How can some law passed afterward be considered as an argument for the 2A's meaning? The Federalist papers and previously discussed legislation are the only viable means of determing the intentions of the 2A, militia and the desires of the founding fathers.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."James Madison, Proposals to the Congress for a Bill of Rights, 1789, Annals of Congress:The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Vol. I, First Congress, First Session, June, 1789 (Washington, D.C.:Gales and Seaton, 1834), 431-42, as cited in Schlissel, Conscience in America, 47.
View Quote
The founding fathers.. at least some of them.. never intended for service in the militia to be mandatory. This is the version of the 2A that passed the passed by the House of Representatives August 24, 1789. It clearly states that militia status was optional. The argument was made during debates on the passage of this version that it could be construed to mean that those who are of a religion that forbids the bearing of arms would be denied the right. For this reason it was ommitted in the final draft. Other arguments were made that did debate whether or not militia membership was optional, but they were not taken into consideration on the final draft.
"The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call." Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers #28
View Quote
Part of the reason for a voluntary militia was to maintain the checks and balances our country is built upon. If the militia could be called out to render service to it's country and it was mandatory then the militia would be no different than a standing army under direct control of the government. If the calling out of the militia were voluntary then if the government called the militia to do an unjust act or do something that was not deemed acceptable to a majority of the militia members then the militia would not respond. The government is to be controlled by the citizens, not the other way around.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:18:30 AM EDT
garandman, the lack of enforcement of this 1792 militia act which you refer renders it immaterial. there are laws on the books at the federal and state law that have never been taken off and will never be enforced because they are irrelavent. this law is irrelavent to even this discussion. the only feature of this law that i can read is that it more clearly defines the states right's to have a state defence force(e.g. the georgia national guard) perhaps, in it's day and time this was a working definition of who could be called up to serve as a militia. this law has been unused and let's be honest neither our states nor our federal govt really wants or needs a bunch of militia wannabee's like yourself rushing to their aid. p.s. linking militia service and rkba is a good way to lose the rkba. our rights are based on our individal standing as a citizen of this country, not membership in some imaginary never gonna be called up militia.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:35:15 AM EDT
Help me out here, did I understand some of the statements to read that only those who want to join our services are responsible to serve? They are then the only ones who will be placed in harms way around the globe? That some have no interest in our safety unless our own shores are invaded? Does not want to be called upon to serve, and considers it slavery? (Hope your read the whole thread) My daughter goes to school where all professors are mandatory members of the state militia, came with the job. Could be the cadet corps is considered the same, not sure. However, I would hope that we as a free people would want to stop the hoards before they marched upon our shores.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:47:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pottsie350: The Constitution was ratified in 1788. How can the Militia Act of 1792 supersede the Constitution?
View Quote
It DOES NOT supercede it - it works in conjunction with it, further defining 2A. If I'm understanding your point, it sounds like you are saying the Constituion has no process for either amendment thru the states, or interpretation thru the courts. OF COURSE legislation and Constitutional interpretation can further clarify teh Constitution, and would BY DEFINITION come after teh ratification of the Consitutiton..
The militia is not a tool of anybody. State or otherwise. The militia belongs to nobody but the people themselves.
View Quote
Tell me, how does a rag-tag group of gun owners meeting together at their option and voluntarily, become "well regulated?" (trained, disciplined, ordered.)If milita service were optional, the FIRST time a drill sargeant even of THEIR OWN choosing told them to do something unpleasant, teh militia members would simply say "I don't wanna do that. I'm going home. Waaaaahh." Without an authority over them to FORCE them to be "well regulated" the whole concept of militia becomes the same thing as the local trap and skeet club.
To understand the Constituion and the meaning of the 2A, one must study all things that came before it. The founding fathers.. at least some of them.. never intended for service in the militia to be mandatory. This is the version of the 2A that passed the passed by the House of Representatives August 24, 1789. It clearly states that militia status was optional.
View Quote
You simply CANNOT sayn that. Lots of things have passed one branch of Congress. Lots of things have made it to the Presidents desk and were vetoed (Campaign finance reform of about a year ago, gun control legislation, literally THOUSANDS of bills) These are ALL irrelevant to what the law is today. Is every discussion had by theh Continental Congress to be used to interpret the law today?? Some of them were even against fighting Britain. By your defintion, an argument can be made we are STILL subjects of Britain, and our present gov't is illegitimate. Hey - that prolly passed half of Congress too at one point. Only the ACTUAL LAW passed defines what the law is today. Drafts, discussions, legislation that passed only one branch of Comgress, laws struck down as unConstitutional are all IRRELEVANT in defining the law today. Further, wherther or not a law is enforced to day is ALSO irrelevant. Its still the law, regardless of enforcment. The milita act of 1792 remains in effect, and was re-defined (I beleive it was the 1940's or so) as ABIAFAR?? posted above. its the law of the land. Till its amended or repealed or declared unConstitutional, its STILL the law of the land.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:57:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: The militia is a STATE organization, under the control of the state governors. That is why 2A was written " a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE, the right of the people...."
View Quote
While the states may have their own militias (and are expected to contribute to the national defense) the militia referred to in the 2nd amdnement is most assuredly a federal organization! Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power... ...To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
View Quote
Also, your interpretation of the word "state" in the 2nd amendment is just dead wrong, and smacks of the ignorance the anti's try to propagate when they claim the 2nd amendment is a right of the states, and not the people. State, in this context, does NOT refer to the several states--it's simply a synonym for nation, or country. The 2nd amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITIA (despite what you claimed in the other thread, and no one seemed to challenge you on.) The 2nd amendment is quite simply, about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, using the militia as a justification for this right.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:57:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pottsie350:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
View Quote
Here I think you have mistaken the FF "carving out an exception" from militia service with them considering militia service to be "optional." they are VERY diferent legal concepts. Those with a "religious scruple" against bearing arms don't get a free pass just cuz they say so. They would be REQUIRED to PROVE their religious exception. NOT EVERYONE who suddenly became a Quaker would get a free ride on the Pacifist Train. The current tax code also has an exception for taxpayers who make less money than is exempted by their personal exemption. TRUST ME - payin taxes for them REMAINS MANDATORY. It is NOT optional, once they no longer fit within teh "carved out exception."
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:58:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: who is in the militia
View Quote
Who is the militia? Well where I came from they are a bunch of fat bearded men in too small BDU's with an SKS rifle and a 6-pack of beer.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:16:18 AM EDT
Only the ACTUAL LAW passed defines what the law is today. Drafts, discussions, legislation that passed only one branch of Comgress, laws struck down as unConstitutional are all IRRELEVANT in defining the law today. Further, wherther or not a law is enforced to day is ALSO irrelevant. Its still the law, regardless of enforcment. The milita act of 1792 remains in effect, and was re-defined (I beleive it was the 1940's or so) as ABIAFAR?? posted above. its the law of the land. Till its amended or repealed or declared unConstitutional, its STILL the law of the land.
View Quote
I agree. But, a question I have is do these militia acts and US Code contradict the the original intention of the Bill of Rights? A law can exist on paper and be enforced even if they contradict the United States Constitution. It places the enforcing party outside of the law, and thus they are to not be recognized as the authority, but as the enemy. It places them on par with the average mafia organization. There is a reason all government employees, law enforcement, and military members swear to uphold the Constitution and not the Militia act of whatever year you choose. The Constitution is the test, and the militia by definition isn't supposed to need a judge to tell them a law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Justices will never hear a case about the 2A because they don't want to be forced to rule on behalf of the people. It's called tyranny.
We, the Sovereign Citizens of the United States of America are the true Militia under the Constitution, and when the Citizens see (as stated in the Declaration of Independence) "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
View Quote
If the Federal government has redefined the orignal intent of the Militia and attempting to place the Militia under it's direct control then it is operating in an illegal fashion and it's up to the militia to reel them in. Note: I'm not advocating any action here.. just defining the founding documents as I see them.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:24:09 AM EDT
what is the gist of the 1940's redifinition? and i also have to say amen to pottsie350's last post.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:25:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zak:
While the states may have their own militias (and are expected to contribute to the national defense) the militia referred to in the 2nd amdnement is most assuredly a federal organization! Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution:
View Quote
The Congress shall have power... ...To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
View Quote
The militia exists in at least two components - The organized militia. Presnetly the National Guard, and those to whom the cite above applies. The unoranized citizen militia, NOT under Federal control. See ABIAFR's post above.
Also, your interpretation of the word "state" in the 2nd amendment is just dead wrong, and smacks of the ignorance the anti's try to propagate when they claim the 2nd amendment is a right of the states, and not the people. State, in this context, does NOT refer to the several states--it's simply a synonym for nation, or country.
View Quote
If "state" means "country" then we are in worse trouble than I thought. Cuz then the antis can make the case only the "country" (Federalis) get to have guns, not even the states do. You have to explain some things - 1. Why is the precedent clause "a well-regulated militia being necessary...." even in there then, if it has no bearing on "the right of teh people..."?? 2. Why does state mean "country" in 2A, and mean "states" in 9A and 10A??? 3. Do you also beleive "people" means one thing is 1A, and another thing in 2A??
The 2nd amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITIA (despite what you claimed in the other thread, and no one seemed to challenge you on.) .
View Quote
No one challenged me CUZ I'M RIGHT. [}:D]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:33:06 AM EDT
i challenged you on the linking of the rkba and militia membership, in the last post and this one; and you are not right to link them. they are separate issues. the rkba is an individual god given right afffirmed by the 2nd, not granted by the 2nd. the right to associate into a militia is an individual god given right affirmed by the 2nd, nor granted by the 2nd. if congress repeals the 2nd amendment are you going to give up the right to defend your self and turn over all of your firearms? American citizens (and all human beings for that matter) have the right to protect themselves whether or not the 2nd amendment is in existance. so what if the right is trying to be crushed (and has been in many places) it is still an inate right.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:36:09 AM EDT
Well said gregrph.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:56:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By gregrph: i challenged you on the linking of the rkba and militia membership, in the last post and this one; and you are not right to link them. they are separate issues. the rkba is an individual god given right afffirmed by the 2nd, not granted by the 2nd. the right to associate into a militia is an individual god given right affirmed by the 2nd, nor granted by the 2nd.
View Quote
You are creating a straw man. I have NEVER said RKBA is granted by 2A. It pre-exists the BOR, and will continue long after the Constitution might ever be repealed / discarded. RKBA and militia membership are NOT linked via LEGAL justification, they are linked via God given / natural rights / logical justification. Since a militia is necessary for a free state, the Feds SHALL NOT infringe on the peoples(individual citizens) RKBA, those people being the ones FROM WHICH militia members would come, to create an "army" outside Federal control. The clause "a well regulated militia being necessary..." was inserted on a logical, NOT a legal basis. A well-regulated militia is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to a free citizenry, and fre sovereign states.
if congress repeals the 2nd amendment are you going to give up the right to defend your self and turn over all of your firearms? American citizens (and all human beings for that matter) have the right to protect themselves whether or not the 2nd amendment is in existance. so what if the right is trying to be crushed (and has been in many places) it is still an inate right.
View Quote
Absolutely not. I am a militia member, charged with the responsibility of upholding 2A (and the rest of the Constitution) against ANY enemy, foreign or domestic. I assure you, BATF and numerous other Fed agancies are aware of my Constituional "original intent of teh FF" stand with regard to RKBA, and that I regard ALL Federal gun laws as unConstitutional on their face. "Shall not be infringed" DOES INDEED mean "shall NOT be infringed." I obey them to the best of my knowledge and ability becuase they have not YET crossed the line of "unreasonable and unbearable" but I most certainly regard them as unConstitutional.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:00:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: The militia exists in at least two components - The organized militia. Presnetly the National Guard, and those to whom the cite above applies. The unoranized citizen militia, NOT under Federal control. See ABIAFR's post above.
View Quote
These two concepts are not mututally exclusive, as you seem to think they are--Congress exercised it's power under article 1 section 8 when it wrote the militia act, and delegated control of the unorganized militia to the several states. Easy enough?
If "state" means "country" then we are in worse trouble than I thought. Cuz then the antis can make the case only the "country" (Federalis) get to have guns, not even the states do.
View Quote
Why would that put us in any trouble? What the antis say is meaningless outside any decision by the supreme court to back them up. The only case that even remotely looks like it will be going to the Supreme Court on 2nd amendment grounds any time soon is Emerson--and it'll be damned hard for the court to overturn the conclusions the 5th circuit reached.
1. Why is the precedent clause "a well-regulated militia being necessary...." even in there then, if it has no bearing on "the right of teh people..."??
View Quote
Let me ask you a question: If you remove the supporting clause, does the meaning of the 2nd amendment change? If it does, you've got a point. If it doesn't, then there's no sense delving deeper (there are literally tens of thousands of pages written, from both sides, on the subject. I certainly won't claim that I know more than all of these scholars, nor to be able to distill their collected writings into something that can be discussed here!)
2. Why does state mean "country" in 2A, and mean "states" in 9A and 10A???
View Quote
I'll turn that back upon you: Why does the constitution constantly refer to "the states" when it speaks of the several states, but choose this particular moment to refer to the SINGULAR form of the word?
3. Do you also beleive "people" means one thing is 1A, and another thing in 2A??
View Quote
Nope, "the people" are the same "the people" everywhere throughout the Constitution. "The states" are, likewise, the same "the states." The founders were quite picky about the terms they used to describe things.
No one challenged me CUZ I'M RIGHT. [}:D]
View Quote
Thats remains to be seen. [:D]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:28:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 10:46:24 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By Zak: Let me ask you a question: If you remove the supporting clause, does the meaning of the 2nd amendment change? ?
View Quote
No it DOES NOT change. RKBA exists outside of the BOR, the logical justification of the militia, even teh Constitution itslef. (See my post gregrph above) The militia clause is about LOGICAL justification that the individual citizens should have RKBA, not a legal justification. Again, see my post to gregrph above.
I'll turn that back upon you: Why does the constitution constantly refer to "the states" when it speaks of the several states, but choose this particular moment to refer to the SINGULAR form of the word? [:D]
View Quote
Because the FF believed in grammatical subject / [strike]verb[/strike] antecedent agreement. the singular "militia" (as used in 2A )goes with the singular "state." The plural form "militia(s)" (Which was NOT used in 2A) would go with the plural form "state(s)" beleive me you'll be lonely (I hope) round here trying to say that "state" in 2A means "country" or "Federal." Actually, I'm surprised no one has jumped on it yet.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:41:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Actually, I'm surprised no one has jumped on it yet. ------------------------------------------------ The term "STATE" does NOT refer to "Federal"!!! [bounce]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 12:00:48 PM EDT
allright garandman, we seem to be agreeing on the face that the right to bear arms is an inate right. let me throw this one at you and see what you think. our constitution provides that any amendment can be changed by due process. 2/3 congress, ratified by x% of the states.(3/5) if i'm not mistaken. let's assume the 2nd amendment is overturned according to the provisions set out in our constitution (which you have sworn to uphold). do you turn everything over with a smile? or do you consider the rkba an individual right?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 12:18:16 PM EDT
Hear is some good reading on "regulated militia" [url=http://groups.google.com/groups?q=regulated&hl=en&selm=911969400%2419460%40black-helicopter.psychetect.com&rnum=3]groups.google.com[/url]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 12:27:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gregrph: allright garandman, we seem to be agreeing on the face that the right to bear arms is an inate right. let me throw this one at you and see what you think. let's assume the 2nd amendment is overturned according to the provisions set out in our constitution (which you have sworn to uphold). do you turn everything over with a smile?
View Quote
Yes, I do. Shortly after I run out of ammo. [}:D]
or do you consider the rkba an individual right?
View Quote
The FF held it to be an individual right of ALL men (and women, and children) , most particularly the citizen militia man, who WAS a militia man according the defintion of the Militia Act of 1792, for the purpose of deterring repressive federal gov'ts, and so do I. As long as the Federal gov't exists (or any power which may seek to abuse its power) RKBA remains in teh hands of the individual. Only one "eniity" can take away my RKBA, and ONLY THEN at one given time - that "entity" is God, and that time is the moment of my death.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 1:33:21 PM EDT
garandman, sounds like we pretty much agree on rkba, we may differ on our ideas about the militia however. while i do believe that many americans would support our country in a time of crisis(constitutional, foreign invasion, etc.) i do not agree that all of those who exercise our god given to keep and bear arms are duty bound to participate in a militia movement. it is my belief that the gov't cannot forbid us joining a militia nor force us into one. i hold this belief both on a moral and constitutional basis. yes i am opposed to conscription on both an individual rights basis and a practical one. give me a volunteer army anyday. we are free men in this country and it's time we started acting like it.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 3:30:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARlady: however, if militia service is compulsory, then how is it any different from military service? no difference, it's not militia. simple as that. all you have is forced servitude.
View Quote
The problem here is that you don't know the definition of 'militia'. Militia _is_ militry service. What makes militia diferrent from the standing army is that the guys in the militia have day jobs. And that's it. That's the one and only difference. When there's no battle going on professional soldiers spend all their time training, cleaning weapons, washing vehicles in the motor pool, etc. while the members of the militia are teachers, doctors, auto mechanics, police officers, etc. If a fight breaks out then the milita are no different from the military, except that the militia guys can go home after the battle is won.
Top Top