Exposing the Militia Myth

H

Howey

Banned
I just finished reading an excellent book about the history of the militia in our country, The Limits of Dissent

It's an amazing and accurate history of the growth of militias, and an excellent source for debunking the silliness of the likes of STY and others. I highly recommend it. Here's some excerpts:

The Federalists, who supported a strong federal government, Anti-federalists, who feared a strong central government.

This was a debate of considerable weight and importance at the time, and ultimately resulted in the constitutional provisions for "well-regulated state militias" - the Militia Clauses of the Constitution and the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights-and in a system of shared and federal control over the militias.

Clauses and Articles II of the Constitution to:

The Congress shall have the Power

[15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion;

[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia…

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,…

The state militia referenced in the Militia Clauses of the Constitution and in Article II, is regulated by the president, the Congress, and the governors of the states.

The mission of the militia established by the Constitution is to repel and suppress insurrections against the government.

The president, the Congress, and the state governors sharing command, control, and regulatory authority - is quite a contrast to the armed civilian militias that have no legal connection whatsoever with either the Constitution, the president, the Congress, or the state governments.
Click to expand...


In 1972, the Militia Act, which established mandatory service in the state militias, as well as membership and duty requirements. By 1877, when state officials formed the National Guard Association, in 1902, the Congress passed the Dick Act which established the modern National Guard, replacing the state militias as they were defined in the federal act of 1972.

The armed civilian militias that are organizing today are doing so outside of any constitutional or statutory authority, and in many cases are organizing and training in violation of state laws that prohibit private armies paramilitary training.
Click to expand...

They view the entire system of the federal government as having evolved out of control. They do not view the Clinton administration or the current Congress as illegitimate per se…

So what comes under their indictment is the whole federal system - the Constitution as we know it, the three branches of the federal government, and federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies.

There is a perception that the government, though too much regulation, is violating people's civil liberties and generally interfering too much in people's lives.

The ideal government regulation theoretically strikes a perfect balance between protecting public and private interests. But there is probably no such thing as a government regulation that perfectly strikes this balance.

This dichotomy between public and private interests exists with respect to most government regulations. Perhaps the government could do a better job of addressing the concerns of the private interests impacted by government regulations. But there is no credible argument that can be made that regulations duly enacted by the federal government are unconstitutional. And this is precisely the claim of many antigovernment extremists, including many of the armed civilian militias.

White supremacy arguably fuels the engine of this movement, and its role should not be underestimated. Ever since the government of this country began rejecting invidious racial discrimination, there has been a tension between those who believe in discrimination and those who do not.

So, to a certain extent, the racist movement in this country, by definition, going to be antigovernment, because the primary means of eradicating racial discrimination is through public policy, legislation, and court cases.

Racist and antigovernment attitudes will often coexist comfortably. But the opposite will not always, be true; there are many people with extreme antigovernment views who are not racists. But there is a synergistic relationship developing here, because racists are establishing bridges to a broad spectrum of people who are against the government, not because they are racists, but because they do not like taxes, or what is being taught in the public schools, or what is going on with abortion rights or gun control.

However, to the extent that there is an engine driving the militia movement, in terms of the leadership, there is a clear and unambiguous racist connection to much of the leadership of the movement.
Click to expand...


I'll be posting more excerpts from the book...
 
the book is bullshit. The 'well regulated militia' cannot possibly refer to organized state military units because the constitution prohibits states from keeping their own troops.

Art 1, sec 10 par 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The anti federalists feared that the new central government could have power to disarm the people, negating the effectiveness of the militia, thus the bill of rights and the 2nd Amendment was a compromise to ease the fears of the anti federalists that there would be NO WAY POSSIBLE for the central government to control arms.

the commentaries presented to the people prior to ratification ALL stated that congress has no power to disarm the people. That is what was ratified.

no act of congress, militia act or otherwise, has the power to alter fundamental rights such as the 2nd Amendment.

It is the height of stupidity to believe that the founders ensure a right of the military to keep and bear arms, and not we the people, after just winning their independence from an oppressive central government that tried to use it's military to confiscate their arms.
 
NOVA said:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


You left off part:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... "


Of course it also happens to be the part that blows a big ol hole in your ridiculous claims about the 2nd, so it's no wonder you conveniently 'forgot" it.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You left off part:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... "


Of course it also happens to be the part that blows a big ol hole in your ridiculous claims about the 2nd, so it's no wonder you conveniently 'forgot" it.
Click to expand...

Presidential authority is the problem .. it's too powerful.
 
Lowaicue said:
You cannot, in all seriousness, classify the animals who get off on guns, as people.
Click to expand...

You do understand that the national guards in the different states wear federal uniforms and use federal equipment.

You do understand that Bush used his presidential authority to use guard units in Iraq.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You left off part:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... "


Of course it also happens to be the part that blows a big ol hole in your ridiculous claims about the 2nd, so it's no wonder you conveniently 'forgot" it.
Click to expand...


Thats assumed....a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state....and the states have them.....whats your point ?

I'm more interested in the rights of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

Certainly those that want to join that militia have the very same rights as 'the people'......

That right has been honered for over 220 years, until todays present progressive socialists anti-American nutjobs entered the picture.
 
More...
Militia members who call themselves Constitutionalists recognize only part of the Constitution. Constitutionalists do not recognize the legitimacy of modern constitutional amendments. They refuse to accept that the Constitution itself is a fluid document in the sense that it allows for its own evolution through the enactment of amendments.

They reject out of hand other important substantive components of the Constitution, such as the Supremacy and Poverty Clauses. Their readings of state power and federal authority in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are just totally wrong.
Click to expand...


Our country was founded by rugged individualists who became accustomed to making decisions in their lives relatively unconstrained by governmental regulation. This era, when people moved west to settle the country with their guns and families, is romanticized by the antigovernment movement as a utopian period in the country's history.

But that era is long past; there were far fewer people in the country then, our natural resources were abundant and pristine, and there were no modern communication or transportation systems, which made whatever government regulations that might have existed less enforceable.

Today we are a country of over 260 million people, resources are scarcer, and there is a heightened concern for protecting the environment. We also have highly developed communication and transportation systems that make previously secluded areas of the country accessible to almost anyone. As a result, the government now has the ability to monitor compliance and enforce these laws.

In general, a debate about the reach of federal authority is certainly appropriate if it takes place within an informed and balanced view of federal power and its constitutional parameters.
Click to expand...
Those in the antigovernment movement have expanded their notion of individual rights beyond that which the Constitution actually provides, and have fallen into a conspiracy mentality that is irrational and, again, has little to do with what the Constitution and constitutional rights are about. Much of this talk about federal tyranny has to do with people claiming rights which simply do not exist. If you are someone who believes that whites are superior and blacks are inferior, the fact that an antidiscrimination law or hate-crime law exists is going to be a big problem for you. And if you are someone who believes that the government has no right to tax a portion of your income, the fact that there are taxes is going to shake you to the core. Likewise, if you believe that you have a constitutional right to possess and purchase any kind of firearm at any time with no restrictions, then you will view gun control as evidence of a tyrannical government. Or if you claim a sovereign right as an individual citizen to use federal land in any way that you wish, then you will view federal land management and environmental regulations as tyrannical.

The fact is that the federal government has the constitutional authority to do all these things - to enact anti-discrimination and gun-control laws, to tax people's income, and to regulate federal lands. But the notion that the government does not have this authority makes many people see the government as the biggest enemy and threat to their way of life.
Click to expand...
 
philly rabbit said:
You do understand that the national guards in the different states wear federal uniforms and use federal equipment.

You do understand that Bush used his presidential authority to use guard units in Iraq.
Click to expand...

You have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit.
 
The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. 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 has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. 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 always remain, in the hands of the people.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he 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.
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. 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 has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. 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 always remain, in the hands of the people.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he 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.
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
Click to expand...

How cute of you, STY.

Quoting Tench Coxe without using his name. Perhaps. Anyhow...

Tench Coxe later became a staunch supporter of implied powers and served the nation as Hamilton's Asst Secretary of the Treasury, two years after he purportedly said those words. Although he was a strong proponent of the second amendment, was it due to the fact that his family made guns and he obtained the government contract to supply the militia?

Ahh...crony capitalism at it's best!

Unfortunately, Coxe's guns were the shit, and were later described as:

"that arms we had seen, which had been manufactured for the MONEY (for we cannot say the use) of the United States, were better adapted to kill American soldiers into whose hands they should be put, than an enemy."
 
Howey said:
How cute of you, STY.

Quoting Tench Coxe without using his name. Perhaps. Anyhow...

Tench Coxe later became a staunch supporter of implied powers and served the nation as Hamilton's Asst Secretary of the Treasury, two years after he purportedly said those words. Although he was a strong proponent of the second amendment, was it due to the fact that his family made guns and he obtained the government contract to supply the militia?

Ahh...crony capitalism at it's best!

Unfortunately, Coxe's guns were the shit, and were later described as:

"that arms we had seen, which had been manufactured for the MONEY (for we cannot say the use) of the United States, were better adapted to kill American soldiers into whose hands they should be put, than an enemy."
Click to expand...
all of it irrelevant. these were just PART of the commentaries concerning the bill of rights that they would later ratify. so unless you have some super secret 'haha, fooled you' document by madison, your militia is 'we the people'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top