A thought on the common topic of general militia usage

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by gc70

Since you are concerned with semantics, you can provide the term to describe the "civic virtue" of collective self defense.

Two heads (or guns) are better than one? Seriously, there is seldom a need for "collective defense" anymore than there is many other unlikely events. When there is well grab your neighbor and fight 'em off. That's not a militia tho'.

Originally Posted by gc70

Quite the contrary. General Lee's military assessment of General Washington speaks to the credibility of his assessment of the militia.

Au Contraire, reread my post, Lee had issues with the Minute Men, Washington had issues with the militia in general. Even so, General Lee's assessment of GEN Washington does not make him wrong on the Minute Man issue. Maybe he had a personal conflict with ole George?

[Don Randall]

Originally Posted by Don Randall
The framers chose the term "well regulated militia" because, to them, that term applied specifically to armed men, not under the control of government.

I disagree. That is not what well-regulated means.

Okay. Disagree all you want. Did you bother to read the document to which I posted a link?

If you read that document, you would have discovered that the term "well regulated militia" was shown to be a reference -- Not to the King's professional standing army, not to the King's part time "militia", not to any form of militia under the authority of any prince or any other lesser royal or other government authority -- The term "well regulated militia" is ONLY used in reference to armed individuals who are not sponsored by, or commanded by government. The "well regulated militia" is people who come together in time of emergency to protect their country from invasion or from tyranny at home.

Why do I say that? Is it only my opinion? NO - It is not. I say that because that is precisely what is stated in that historical document authored by Parliamentarian Andrew Fletcher.

Now you can say that I am all wrong if you like. That's okay. But, if you tell me I am wrong, it would be helpful to your effort to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, if you provide me with some evidence that my understanding of that article and my conclusions have no reasonable or rational basis.

I am simply offering information found in an historical document which indicates the term "well regulated militia" had a known and accepted meaning and the term was known to the Framers of our constitution and used by them to communicate that particular long established and accepted meaning.

I stated in my note that the Framers of our constitution were Englishmen before the became the first Americans. I say they understood the English language and it's terminology of that day as men of that day would have understood it. I say they appear to have chosen that term intending to communicate one particular thought: That the individual people do have a right to keep and bear arms, meaning to own and carry weapons.

[Don Randall]

As to the control part of your statement, the facts were that the militia mentioned by the 2nd Amendment were under the authority of the state goevernment and there was no intention whatsoever for them to be otherwise.

Are you telling me the militia of the states, as were mentioned, explicitly authorized, empowered and protected by the plainly understood and unambiguous language of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution... Was somehow... What? Forgotten by senile old men? Or are you saying that the Article 1, Section 8 language was defective or deficient?

[publius42]

You are quoting dicta where the SCOTUS is recounting the history of the militia. Again the COTUS does not say how the miltia is to be armed. The fact that some states chose to arm it with private arms does not mean they had to. In fact as BlueTrain posted earlier many states provided those arms to it's citizens.

The states of NY and Mass both required citizens to maintain their own militia weapons and ammo in the 1780's, and they were pretty important states at the time. Which are these "many" states where the citizens were not expected to do that? I missed the particular states in your posts and Bluetrain's.

[BlueTrain]

I live in Virginia. I wasn't born here, though. I'm an immigrant. My father was born in Carroll County. I was the first one in my line not born in Carroll County since before 1800.

[zukiphile]

You are correct that the colonial militias were not formed to fight the Britsh Government but were used for such against the crown but that has no bearing to modern times.

That reasoning is a bradyism. No portion of the COTUS has a bearing on "modern times" unless we have due regard for our legal system. Moreover, each constitutional right limits the power of the federal government, and that principle of limited government does bear directly on "modern times".

An advocate of an expansion of government and a trimming of citizens' rights (expansion of one is always at the expense of the other) can be expected to decry a right he would shrink as old fashioned, but that is a naked plea to ignore the COTUS and our laws.

Tennessee Gentleman, you've often written about your fear of an armed population existing beyond a command structure. Isn't it at least as rational to regret a public and government "armed" with a disregard for the dangers of too much government control, or "armed" with a disregard for law?

In the US, I would suggest that the "mob with guns" for which you have expressed fear have done much less damage historically than "mobs with votes" who have a higher regard for their own anxieties than they have for the COTUS.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Don Randall

But, if you tell me I am wrong, it would be helpful to your effort to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, if you provide me with some evidence that my understanding of that article and my conclusions have no reasonable or rational basis.

OK Don, that is reasonable, but rather than create a very long post here is a link for you. I have found it very well researched and useful in these sort of debates. It answers a lot of your questions IMO. You should read it all, every part and then we can discuss more if you like. http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp.

Don, a lot of people post these commentaries (like yours and I did read it) about the miltia from time to time but they really aren't relevant. Why? Because some political leader from the 18th century talking about what a militia should or might be is not as helpful as looking at what the militia was. One is opinion, the other is historical fact. I prefer the facts and not opinions from 200 years ago that may not have context today.

Originally Posted by publius42

Which are these "many" states where the citizens were not expected to do that?

Here is a better explanation: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp read paragraph 3.32.

[Al Norris]

Tennessee, why should I hold the ADL as an expert on Militias?

You do know that they are an anti-gun organization, yes? They filed an amicus brief in Heller for the District of Columbia, where they specifically held the view that the 2A should not be incorporated and that the method of Judicial Scrutiny should be the Rational Basis test - A level of scrutiny wherein most every law passes. (side note: expect to see an amicus brief for Chicago, next week, filed either directly by the ADL or in concert with other like-minded groups)

From their own website:

ADL To Supreme Court: States Should Regulate Firearms
High Court Makes Landmark Ruling on Gun Rights
Heller: Brief of 63 Amici

Using the ADL as an authority on 2A matters, is similar to using the ACLU for the same, and only slightly less smelly than using the Brady Campaign as your "expert."

[zukiphile]

OK Don, that is reasonable, but rather than create a very long post here is a link for you. I have found it very well researched and useful in these sort of debates.

Tennessee Gent, the Anti-Defamation League links of which you appear fond do not present a competent analysis of militia issues. As a preliminary matter, they are an explicitly political tract designed to counter claims of those who are legally members of the militia. From your link:

This FAQ was created to weaken the new militia movement by providing an accurate description of the history and law of the American militia. It is an antidote to the politcally motivated butchery of history and misinterpretation of law by the new militia.

Emphasis added. So the authors of your offered authority have a specific political motivation. I do not know or speculate on whether you share their motive, but I do note that you've provided these links several times before this. Your link continues:

The political motivation of this revisionism can be gleaned from a magazine article by Mack Tanner ("Extreme Prejudice," Reason Magazine, July 1995, 43-50). Tanner writes:

"To understand what the militia movement is talking about, one needs to understand a bit of federal law. While most of us never think about it--or even know about it--every American male spends 28 years as a member of the militia, whether he wants to belong or not. United States Code, Title 10, Section 311, describes the militia of the United States as consisting of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age. If we are not members of the National Guard, then we are, by law, members of the unorganized militia who can be called to service at any time by the appropriate legal authority. Any two or more American men can therefore claim to be an association of members of the unorganized militia, just as they might be an association of voters, taxpayers, parents or citizens."

Let's examine what's wrong with this quotation. First, the "unorganized militia" are not like other groups, since the others are voluntary organizations without legal status or statutory responsibilities. The "unorganized militia" is a creation of statute law and a part of the state militias. State militias are a hierarchical form of military organization under civilian political control--hardly a group that bears comparison to the P.T.A. or the League of Women Voters.

Emphasis added. This is poor rhetoric. Tanner doesn't suggest that the militia is like all other groups, or that it is voluntary. He does assert that voluntary associations of the militia are, well, voluntary. So the ADL can't actually find a real problem with Tanner's analysis.

By the way, Tanner is also the author a very good article in the 1990s entitled The Fascist Epithet. I recommend it.


The ADL continues:

Second, Tanner never mentions (and is probably unaware of) the history of the term "unorganized militia," which this FAQ discusses in great detail. The concept was invented in the 1830s by state governments. Federal law first used the term itself in 1903. Since that time, through riot and war, the unorganized militia have never been called to service. It's very unlikely they ever will serve.

Members of the militia are called up in every draft. That we've never called up every last member of the entire militia population is unremarkable, except perhaps to the authors of the ADL article.

The article persistently fails to distinguish THE militia from A militia, and regularly conflates the two for the convenience of its own conclusions.

Moreover, the article denigrates the term "unorganised militia" as an "invention". However it reasonably flows from the language of federal statute that the existence of an organised milita that encompasses a population less the THE militia will necessarily leave the unorganised militia. There is no other reasonable conclusion.

Here is a better explanation: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp read paragraph 3.32.

The link doesn't actually answer the question publius poses. Rather the link pertains to changes in militia practice subsequent to adoption of the BOR as an accommodation to poverty.

The ADL does some fine work. This isn't any of it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

You do know that they are an anti-gun organization, yes?

Sure I do. So what? The issue we are discussing is not the private ownership of guns but the militia.

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Tennessee, why should I hold the ADL as an expert on Militias?

Because if you read what they wrote rather than dismissing them out of hand you will see the authors went to pretty good effort to list their sources and do not address (and make a clear note of it) the issue of the individual RTKBA. Maybe they are opposed to gun ownership but that does not make their inquiry into the historical research about the militia any more biased than say...yours.

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Using the ADL as an authority on 2A matters, is similar to using the ACLU for the same, and only slightly less smelly than using the Brady Campaign as your "expert."

Would using John Ross's Unintended Consequences be less biased?:barf:

Al, please, you are above broad brushing and I challenge you to debate their facts as presented not their reptutation within the gun world.

Intelligent debate looks for truth whereever it is found, ideologues only look where it suits their arguments.

[zukiphile]

Al, please, you are above broad brushing and I challenge you to debate their facts as presented not their reptutation within the gun world.

Tennessee Gent, how do you ask Al not to assess the bias of your offered authority, and call it "broadbrushing" when your own incisive analysis at post #22 reads,

BINGO! Many of the folk who are "pro-militia" and post on TFL don't really understand what the militia was. Many are couch potatoes who just want to own scary weaponry to impress themselves and others. The militia is a MILITARY organization not a mob with guns. And those who want these weapons want no part of any military discipline in the main.

If you want specific review of the problem with your "go to" authority, I've provided it.

[publius42]

TN Gent,

The problem with your source is that you are trying to support this original argument:

In fact during that period (1789) many in the militia owned no private weapons and were supplied such by the states they resided in.

With things that happened in 1792 and beyond, and in poor frontier states at that. How about if we talk about the 13 original states and the state of affairs before and during the Constitutional Convention? We already know that New York and Mass required citizens to arm themselves. How about other states?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by publius 42

We already know that New York and Mass required citizens to arm themselves. How about other states?

I believe that most all of the colonies militia laws had provisions to equip those with weapons who were too poor to own them and that includes MA (I can provide you a source if you wish). Also, in some colonies like VA you could if you were rich pay a substitute to do militia duty. This practice continued until the Civil War.

Do you believe that every single person in those states eligible for the militia owned a private firearm? My source provides that indeed those laws were impractical and problematic. In fact even after the Militia Law of 1792 states did not comply with that act either in toto.

What the real issue was in my post was whether the COTUS established that private ownership of firearms was the only way a militia could be armed. Do you think the COTUS says that a militia may only be armed by privately owned weapons?

Did you know that during the first real test of the militia, The Whiskey Rebellion, that the Fed had to provide more than 2/3's of the weapons used by the 13,000 rank and file who owned no weapons?

I must ask then what is your point is bringing up those laws which have all been repealed today? I agree that in that time (1789) arms were scarce and expensive and the young governments didn't want to have to pay for them so they tried to "pass" that burden on to the public at large but as we have seen it didn't work and in fact is one of the reasons the militia failed.

[Hugh Damright]

the only way a militia may be called out is by the state government ... and the militia will answer to state authorities only (not themselves)

But the state authorities have to answer to the people of that State, and the people are the militia, so it seems to me that there could be situations in which the militia i.e. the whole people of a state are the final authority and would answer to themselves ... securing a free state.

To that I give you United Airlines flight #93. Those people acted as and were the militia.

It seems to me that Virginians could be a conquered people under military rule with no free State and the death penalty for any who form militia, yet we could still defend ourselves against something like flight #93.

[zukiphile]

I must ask then what is your point is bringing up those laws which have all been repealed today?

As has been pointed out to you many times, repeal of a state law subsequent to adoption of the COTUS does not amend the COTUS, whereas practice and law prior to adoption may lend context.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Hugh Damright

But the state authorities have to answer to the people of that State, and the people are the militia, so it seems to me that there could be situations in which the militia i.e. the whole people of a state are the final authority and would answer to themselves ... securing a free state.

That would be rebellion. A state without government is not free but an anarchy. The militia was created by law (the state) and functions under law (the state) and answers to law (the state). There is no militia outside the state or law. That is a mob with guns and we are a nation of laws not men.

[zukiphile]

That would be rebellion. A state without government is not free but an anarchy.

I think a state that answers to its population would more commonly be called a republic.

The militia was created by law...

This is incorrect. The state may "call forth" the militia. One only calls forth a thing already existing.

...and functions under law (the state) and answers to law (the state). There is no militia outside the state or law.

I function under the law of a state, and I answer to the law. Yet to suggest that I do not exist except within the state and the law does not seem to be a sound statement metaphysically. How would the militia differ?

That is a mob with guns and we are a nation of laws not men.

Yet you argue that our laws should have no effect or influence where you find them antique. So which is it? A nation of laws, or one where your anxieties about people not under the authority of the state prevail?

I challenge you to respond without using the word "mob".

[Hugh Damright]

That would be rebellion. A state without government is not free but an anarchy. The militia was created by law (the state) and functions under law (the state) and answers to law (the state). There is no militia outside the state or law. That is a mob with guns and we are a nation of laws not men.

The people of a free State are not a "mob", they are a sovereign body i.e. they are the ultimate authority.

[Master Blaster]

Well Regulated, means they drill and practice and are well trained in the use of arms and military tactics.

[Don Randall]

Tennessee -

Thanks for the note. I didn't have to go far into your linked article before finding a rather obvious and glaring flaw:

1.10 What is a militia?

A. A militia is a body of armed citizens, with some military training, who may be called to temporary active military service in times of emergency.

The author can claim to be absolutely right, just as long as everyone accepts HIS definition. I object to his claim on the following grounds:

1) There is no shortage of examples of purely civilian militias throughout history that were not supported by or under the authority of any government. Even today, you will occasionally read of this militia or that militia fighting government troops in this or that country.

2) Parliamentarian, Andrew Fletcher, the author of A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias makes it very clear, very plain and very obvious that he refers to only armed individuals apart from govenment sponsorship or command as being a "well regulated militia". He does so after a rather thorough discussion of standing armies, government sponsored militias and mercenary troops.

Do you deny that Fletcher used that term in only that one very limited and specific meaning?

Do you deny that the framers were literate men of their time and had an understanding of the language and terminology as used and as understood in that time?

Do you say the framers used the phrase "well regulated militia" in a manner that was something other than the long accepted understanding of people of that time? If so, why the hell would they do that?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Hugh Damright

The people of a free State are not a "mob", they are a sovereign body i.e. they are the ultimate authority.

They are not a law unto themselves and they are a mob if they act in a lawless fashion. That is why I believe that the proper redress against a government we disagree with is the vote, failing that the courts. Use of a lawless "militia" has no business in the discussion. I sort of like that John Locke Social Contract thing.

Originally Posted by Master Blaster

Well Regulated, means they drill and practice and are well trained in the use of arms and military tactics.

I agree and would add that they answer to legitmate authority.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Don Randall

just as long as everyone accepts HIS definition. I object to his claim on the following grounds

That was the definition I believe the Founding Fathers understood. I believe that because the historical facts showing what the militia was then is plain. I think you would be at odds therefore with the Founding Fathers.

Originally Posted by Don Randall

Do you deny that Fletcher used that term in only that one very limited and specific meaning?

I believe that Fletcher used the term as he believed it to mean and not the way it was in the early US. Furthermore I disagree that Fletcher's definition was the predominate view of what a militia was at that time. In fact I think he was rather fringe in that regard.

Originally Posted by Don Randall

Do you deny that the framers were literate men of their time and had an understanding of the language and terminology as used and as understood in that time?

Yes they were learned men and they fashioned the militia to be a body of armed citizens, with some military training, who may be called to temporary active military service in times of emergency. Furthermore, they gave the Congress unprecendented control over the militia which alarmed the states and hemce the second amendment was ratified to reassure them of their local control over their resepctive militias.

Originally Posted by Don Randall

Do you say the framers used the phrase "well regulated militia" in a manner that was something other than the long accepted understanding of people of that time?

No I do not. However, I do not think either you or Mr. Fletcher are using the common and proper understanding of what a militia was during that period of time.

I recommend you continue to read the other parts of the source. Lots of good info and references.

[Don Randall]

The issue we are discussing is not the private ownership of guns but the militia.

I believe we are having some difficulty accepting that similar phrases may have different meanings. Consider two similar sounding terms, "Lightning Bug" and "Lightning Bolt". Now consider that you are riding down the road at 65 mph on a motorcycle. Does it make any difference which of the two might strike you?

In Article 1, Section 8, the framers discuss "Militia" and it is mentioned exclusively as an organ of each individual state.

In the 2nd Amendment, the framers discuss the "Well Regulated Militia" which is linked directly to "The People" and not the state. As the supreme court has stated, the term "the people" always means the same thing in every instance it is used.

I would rather doubt you believe that, under the 1st amendment, that it is the militia which has a right to free speech, to worship freely or to publish without censorship. I am sure you would agree that the term "the people" assigned those rights to people as individuals.

[Don Randall]

Master Blaster wrote:

Well Regulated, means they drill and practice and are well trained in the use of arms and military tactics.

I have offered a link to a historical document that shows - not merely guesses or states, without any evidence, but shows unequivocally - that the framers had a very particular understanding that was common among the people of that time and long before.

Do you have anything to refute that or are you going to hold stubbornly to what you believe simply because you wanna believe it in the face of evidence to the contrary?

[Don Randall]

I recommend you continue to read the other parts of the source. Lots of good info and references.

I have done so. I believe that as human beings tend to do, they tell the truth... From their own perspective. As a friend of mine used to like to say, when they paint, they use their favorite colors.