PDA

View Full Version : Why hasn't the image of the Militia ever been corrected?


NeoWeird
12-10-2006, 6:11 PM
Ok, so my future wife and I were talking and several topics came up, and one of them was the t-shirt with the half-fake George Washington quote on it. We got to talking about the context of it then and the context of it now. First let me say that she is NOT against gun ownership nor is she against our freedoms, we frequently take opposite sides even when we don't believe them simply for the sake of the discussion; so these do not reflect her views, just how the discussion went.

She had a valid point that in the time of Georgoe Washington there was NO real army until he formed it from the militias, and even then only a few states had real militias. Once our Army was formed the need for militias began to decline, and in modern times a militia's place is all but non-existant. We talked further about how whether something is needed or not does not dictate whether or not it exists. I further went on to argue that preperation in the time of need is a foolish mistake and that being prepared by definition is being ready before something happens or is needed. She agreed but I could tell she was still reluctant to give up her side of the arguement. I think a lot of this was due to the though of defenging againts our nation, which has systems in place to prevent too much power from getting to one side. So I began to go off on the other uses of a militia outside of a militaristic role. I rarely hear this side of the whole militia debate and I think I really caught her off guard.

Militias serve other purposes outside of simply armed fighting. A militia's purpose is a corp of free volunteers whose sole duty is the protection, defense, and to serve people who are unable to do so for themselves. Several good examples are the fact that militia men have the advantage of knowing their locale better than anyone else because of the fact that they 'train' exclussively in their local area. They are also armed, proficient with surviving on their own, and should know basic skills like forraging, first aid, etc. These skills are VITAL in search and rescue missions where that fits the description of the most qualified person to a T. Second, for the same reason they are great in natural disasters where immediacy is a must and we can not wait for military and national guard to form, especially now when a majority of our active troops are deployed on the opposite side of the world. A militia also serves as an immediate defense force againt such chaotic events as riots, major drug/crime networks, immigration enforcement, and of course invassion, all of which (except invassion) are not military matters and where Police forces are not large enough to handle them alone.

All too often it seems that militias are portrayed as gun totting red necks in the forests who are conspiracy theorists who hate the government. Why hasn't the image of the militia been defended? Instead it seems that the debate is always whether they are legal or not. It just makes more sense to me that if the common person knew the true purpose of the militia and it's potential it wouldn't have such a bad image.

What do you all think on this subject?

5968
12-10-2006, 6:27 PM
Neo, you bring uo some good points and I fully agree with you. It's sad to think that the majority of people think that all a militia is a bunch of dumb rednecks. That was not the intended meaning of militia and this country has lost sight of what it truly stands for. I feel that a militia is also there to protect the citizens from a possible over zealous goverment too!

hoffmang
12-10-2006, 6:33 PM
I think the error in your thought argument may be that your definition is too narrow.

When a Search and Rescue guy has a normal non police day job but because he's a swimmer/climber etc. and he is a reserve sheriff, he seems to be closer to the broad militia definition.

You also see the militia self organize in the face of major events. Google up many of the stories of boat owners become emergency ferry runners out of Manhattan on 9/11.

We have chosen to professionalize, but not completely. Ignoring the Guard/Reserve argument as it is twisted to take the people's rights away, it is true that even our "pro" army is made up in the specialist areas by executives, construction folks, policemen, and even politicians. There really isn't a strong (in the historical sense) differentiation between civilian life and military life in the US.

-Gene

NeoWeird
12-10-2006, 6:37 PM
Neo, you bring uo some good points and I fully agree with you. It's sad to think that the majority of people think that all a militia is a bunch of dumb rednecks. That was not the intended meaning of militia and this country has lost sight of what it truly stands for. I feel that a militia is also there to protect the citizens from a possible over zealous goverment too!

Of course, but people always seem to misconstrue that to mean that they are anti-government and crazies. It's funny when you mention that England was our government at that time, and then ask if they thought what our militias did was wrong. It puts them in a real rock and a hard place that they just have trouble squirmming out of.

Militias can also take the responsability of an evacuation force instead of the police/fire fighters in emergencies. I always found it irnoic that when fires are going, or when riots are going on, the police and fire fighters, instead of addressing the problem, are forced to evacuate people for their safety.

aileron
12-10-2006, 6:38 PM
Question. The minutemen that are now watching our borders, and will probably wind up getting shot by drug runners soon enough, isnt that the re-forming of a militia?

Your right, and I think people have lost touch with the history of this country and have listened far too long to people who hate guns and had the attention of our medias ear.

The militia is the people looking out for each other as a group. In times of need, when the government cannot respond in a timely fashion because they are not there. Which btw, seems to be almost always during disaster.

Would of helped a huge bunch during the crises in New Orleans.

Crazed_SS
12-10-2006, 7:03 PM
All too often it seems that militias are portrayed as gun totting red necks in the forests who are conspiracy theorists who hate the government. Why hasn't the image of the militia been defended?

Because the people who claim to be militias these days are often gun totting red necks in the forests who are conspiracy theorists who hate the government.

NeoWeird
12-10-2006, 7:05 PM
ok, wait, so hoffmang, you're saying that because we have professionals doing the same jobs and because average joes will step up in the time of crisis we should NOT have a militia because it would just be superfulous? Maybe I missed your point, but that's what it sounds like you're saying.

aileron, I am not saying we don't have militias, I am just commenting on the fact that for some reason the militia has been given this false image that no one seems to want to defend against. It seems that more often than not we get hung up on whether the National Guard is a militia or not, or whether the right to bear arms only applies to the militia, but you never hear of someone pointing out the legitimate non-militaristic need for a militia. It's like if someone said guns are only there to kill people and everyone is arguing that we have the right to that instead of pointing out the fact that guns are also for defense, sport, hunting, etc. The militia is an important aspect of our state's welfare and yet for some reason everyone gets hung up on the guns portion of it's existance. It seems it would go a long way with those who are not well informed to show them what a true militia is all about, and once the concept of a militia being evil is disproven it will go a long way for gun owners, which will go a long way for gun rights.

Maybe I am crazy, but it would seem that way to me.

NeoWeird
12-10-2006, 7:07 PM
Because the people who claim to be militias these days are often gun totting red necks in the forests who are conspiracy theorists who hate the government.

That's because the average joe who wants to help his community has a pre-notion of what a militia is; not to mention they are illegal in many states so only those who will break the law will form them, and My Joe Community doesn't want to break the law.

Besides, that's like saying every "assault weapon" owner is just a sick person who wants to kill people, because that makes sense and fits the stereotype.

Tzvia
12-10-2006, 7:12 PM
The 'militia' is also the whole body of the people, rising up to defend our country from a rogue government. And that is what the government fears. People with power. The power of self determination.

It is our wonderful lefty news, mostly on TV, that played up the rednecks and tied them to the militia of the 2A. It's part of their anti gun agenda. They did not create those folks, just played them up as what WE are all trying to be with our guns. So when an uninformed person hears US talk about the 'militia', that redneck image fills their heads. We know better, but does the average person who is more interested in 'Survivor' over their rights as Americans? No, they see that yahoo redneck image and not an image of those brave souls who fought and died on Breeds Hill.

M. Sage
12-10-2006, 7:13 PM
ok, wait, so hoffmang, you're saying that because we have professionals doing the same jobs and because average joes will step up in the time of crisis we should NOT have a militia because it would just be superfulous? Maybe I missed your point, but that's what it sounds like you're saying.

No, he's saying the militia doesn't have to be organized... That in fact, it's not.

The last mobilization of militia was for Vietnam, wasn't it? Hello, draft.

Crazed_SS
12-10-2006, 7:13 PM
Well a lot of communities have volunteer firefighters, sherrifs, and even community patrol programs made up of ordinary citizens. A militia is an armed force though.. it's a little different from neighboorhood watch

paradox
12-10-2006, 7:26 PM
you need to read this article

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_56/ai_n14700146/print

aileron
12-10-2006, 7:53 PM
It seems it would go a long way with those who are not well informed to show them what a true militia is all about, and once the concept of a militia being evil is disproven it will go a long way for gun owners, which will go a long way for gun rights.

Maybe I am crazy, but it would seem that way to me.

If I understand you correctly, you would probably need to define a charter for militias. This would be a rather lengthy document but im sure there is some kind of information out there. Probably something like this.

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/miscmil.html
http://www.territorialkansasonline.org/cgiwrap/imlskto/index.php?SCREEN=show_document&SCREEN_FROM=border&document_id=102864&FROM_PAGE=&topic_id=67

Also you would need a good definition of what a militia is, its historical context in the US to go with that definition, and its future roles and responsibilities. Even though the government would like to define this in law to limit your interpretation of its future, I think it would be up to the citizens to define this. So really its wide open ground as long as you dont break current laws.

Its sounds like your charter would have a nice background section to it.

The good thing, is this could be taken to all boards to review and create together, throughout the country. Talk about unity... wow, it could be huge if every board like this throughout the country helped to frame it.

Then once it was framed ala open source charter for state militias. You could get everyone in the US that has been writing this up to campain for what a militia is. And how they help to keep the peace in times like Katrina. So robbers dont own the night, the day, your house, your wife, kids, the dog, your food, life, etc, etc. You get the idea.

Ham radio operators always help out during times of crises, why not the militia be there with them operating together, or some be in the militia, working together. Im sure there are other hobbiests that are called on during times of crises that could be included and assist with its roles and responsibilities.

Just another thought. Im with you though. It would be good to bring it back into its proper context and understanding. For law enforcement and government. Not an easy task, one that would probably take years of work.

hoffmang
12-10-2006, 8:49 PM
Neo,

I should be more clear.

First - I'm rejecting out of hand the silly argument that the National Guard/Reserves = Militia in the Second Amendment.

However, the concept that much of our "standing" army is actually made up of folks who have non military careers does carry on much of the historical value and intent of the militia. That, plus the unorganized nature of the rest creates a pretty powerful existing militia. CMP and marksmanship contests go directly to keeping that unorganized militia well regulated. Add CCW courses, first aid courses, navigation training - all the other things we all do as hobbies on the side - and that unorganized militia is actually a pretty powerful fighting force.

-Gene

RANGER295
12-10-2006, 9:55 PM
“…2. U.S., all able -bodied males of each state between 18 and 45 years of age considered eligible for military service. 3. Any body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.” good old Webster’s.

I don’t know that I would consider search and rescue and other such groups to me militia by definition. At the same time I do not see the militia as being a bunch of dumb rednecks. I really feel that our founding fathers saw the militia as being part of the checks and balances. And if the 2nd Amendment really refers to the national guard like the anti gunners claim, then “the people” in the rest of the constitution must refer to the government as well. That is a dangerous argument. You cant have the same name refer to different people in different amendments.

tygerpaw
12-10-2006, 10:15 PM
How about all Calguns.net members form ourselves as a "Well regulated Militia".

SemiAutoSam
12-10-2006, 10:19 PM
I Second that motion.

Now to the electing of officers.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-10-2006, 10:32 PM
This argument is so simple.

The National Guard was Federalized with the Dick Act.

There is an "ORGANIZED" Militia.

There is an "UNORGANIZED" Militia.

If you are currently serving in the Army, Army Reserves or National Guard or similar such branch, you are part of the ORGANIZED Militia.

If you are NOT serving in ANY Federally structured military service you are part of the UNORGANIZED Militia.

Why is the view of "Militia's" in general in the eyes of most Americans negative....? Because they believe all the negative crap the media puts forth. Idiots dont educate themselves as to the true role of the militia....they dont understand that we have a duty as Americans to play a role in our national defense when capable.....they are lazy.

NeoWeird
12-10-2006, 10:50 PM
Ok hoffmang, now I understand what you are saying. I was looking at it from the absolute opposite way you meant it. I originally was looking at it that you were saying the military is a 'professional' force made up of civilians so a secondary 'amateur' force would be unnecessary when really you were saying that "the people" make up the military, which fits in line with the original context of the militia in that your everyday farmer, business owner, etc would act on behalf of the country for itself defense.

I've read a couple comments that make it seem like I am trying to say that search and rescue, disaster help, etc ARE militias and that is backwards of what I am saying. I am saying that the militia of each state has the responsability to protect the people of their states, and their country, in those times of need. For example, in Katrina we had LEOs from all over the country serving there, and thank you for their service, but what does someone who enforces the laws on California's highways have to do with helping in those situations? Don't get me wrong, what they did was great (outside of a few incidents that we won't go into) but why did they serve in the capcity of an officer? They should have been no different than any other volunteer as they were no more skilled/qualified for the situation except for the fact that they were authorized as a government agent, which means little in the ways of helping in those types of situations. Now, had a state militia existed they would not only know the terrain, location, people etc but they would also have a knowledge of where resources were, were people in need would be (like elderly housing, hospitals, etc). It just makes more sense to have someone like that in those type of situations.

I guess what I am saying is that an "armed militia" does not need to use arms to exercise it's role within the community. While being armed is important for it as a whole, and while it is something they need and they need to be qualified in, it does not encompass their entire duty and it seems that in the eye's of everyone today, especially the media (of course), the thought of a militia is looked down on with disgust and fear, when it is actually a collective of courages citizens who are there to help and protect in many ways. It's sad and somewhat infuriating to me.

Those links look interesting, and I have a LOT of reading ahead of me. I'd be a HORRIBLE candidate for any form of office or standing in a militia, but I would deffinetly want to be part of any decleration, charter forming, etc and would deffintely want to be a member. I'm off to start reading and see what I can find.

RANGER295
12-10-2006, 11:06 PM
Sorry Neo, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I would agree with everything you just said, right down to the last paragraph. I will have to read all of those links after finals.

metalhead357
12-11-2006, 12:51 AM
I posted this on another thread.

TITLE 10 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10.html) > Subtitle A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A.html) > PART I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I.html) > CHAPTER 13 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_13.html) > § 311Prev | Next (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000312----000-.html)
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

How Current is This? (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/HowCurrent.php/?tn=10&fragid=T10F00133&extid=usc_sec_10_00000311----000-&sourcedate=2006-05-30&proctime=Mon Jun5 10:55:55 2006)(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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000313----000-.html) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sup_01_32.html), 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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

If you're under 45 and capable of carryiong a firearm you ARE IN the unoganized Miltitia unless part of the organized one........


So any "argument" about the miltia should include this tidbit. And that the Miltia PRECEEDED both the constitution AND the Decleration of Independance......many say/claim even before da' time of Cromwell in what? 1066?

Miltias transcend the law in the noramal sense of the word. I see no argument that any change is necessary in that what was 'good enough' for my forefathers, and all their forefathers then it dang well certainly is good enough for me & mine...and thiers to come.

aileron
01-02-2007, 12:35 PM
NeoWeird, if you ever take this further... more info here.

http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp


aileron

Mark_in_Pasadena
01-02-2007, 12:44 PM
I think us Calgunners should start a militia... If the SHTF, it would be nice to have an organized plan. Just a thought....

rssslvr
01-02-2007, 12:46 PM
For those that might be interested


http://www.hdmsc.org/

pnkssbtz
01-02-2007, 2:21 PM
This may be a bit tangent, but I read this a few days ago on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) in regards to the 2nd Amendment

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Both versions are commonly used in official government publications.

I think the punctuation is very important, because it defines the "being necessary to the security of a free State" to be a clarification of "A well regulated militia" and not in relation to the last part "the right of the People to keep and bear arms."


Also of noteThe original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives was:

“ 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.

In this writing, it is shown clearly shown that the part where it describes an armed and regulated militia was in support and clarification of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms is important. It does not say that the "militia" had the right to keep and bear arms and further doesn't authorize a militia in any way except to say that it is important to protect the peoples liberties of the country.

11Z50
01-02-2007, 3:06 PM
From my perspective, as a former long-time National Guardsman, the notion of a militia is completely separate from the Guard. After the Dick Act, the Feds agreed to supply weapons and equipment to the States for their organized military formations. The trade off was the National Guard would become part of a standing army, only as needed. As things like WWI and WWII, the Korean war and other big events transpired, the Guard became more and more regulated by the Army, and later the Air Force in the case of the Air Guard. Although the States may still appoint officers of the State Guard, they must be Federally recognized. Now, the Governors only have control when the Army doesn't need the Guard.

Although most states maintain "State Military Forces" such as the California State Military Reserve, these forces are not armed and receive no weapons training.

It seems to me that in order for a militia to exist, by definition, it must be self-armed. Hence, the people (the militia) have the right to keep and bear arms, so that may have the ability to form such a militia. If the people did not have that right, there could be no militia. Once the Gov't equips the militia, it becomes part of the Army. There should be sufficient gray area for the militia to arm itself and protect the general populace from any threat until the Cavalry (the organized reserves or regulars) arrives and gains control. Then, the militia fades back into anominity, from whence it came. A more likely scenario for the raising of a militia would be for a distressed Sheriff or local official to temporarily deputize citizens to assist in preserving the peace. This has happened in rural areas of the PRK, and is totally authorized by the Penal Code. In this case, the militia is raised (deputized) and controlled (regulated) by the local official.

FUSE
01-02-2007, 3:51 PM
All too often it seems that militias are portrayed as gun totting red necks in the forests who are conspiracy theorists who hate the government. Why hasn't the image of the militia been defended? Instead it seems that the debate is always whether they are legal or not.

Thats because its a psy-op! Reading this also made me think of how there was a reality tv show called Big Brother. So now when people hear the term "Big Brother" they will probably just think it's a t.v show instead of the "government"

aileron
01-09-2007, 9:58 AM
This is funny, and a fight ensues for the right of militias to organize with FA weapons.

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/01/07/news/010707fzfincher.txt

SgtBulldog
01-09-2007, 10:55 AM
Actually, GW greatly disdained the idea and efficacy of militias in the early years of the Revolution. He much preferred a professional army made of experienced and full-time soldiers (he was a French and Indian War vet). Against the advice of some of his advisers, he refused to utilize the militia in major battles until near the end of the war.

Richard
01-09-2007, 11:43 AM
I think us Calgunners should start a militia... If the SHTF, it would be nice to have an organized plan. Just a thought....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/ro1964/redneckmilitia.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/ro1964/sam.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/ro1964/postman.jpg

Let's get 're a go'n:p

midnitereaper
01-09-2007, 11:57 AM
The militia, not the minuteman organization, is armed at the border. They just had a firefight a couple weeks ago in AZ fighting mexican drug runners off that were shooting the national guard. The local militia armed had to save the unarmed national guard.

You know what gives militias a bad name is the militia. Some people blab they are part of a militia and go around talking stupid crap about anarchy and kill the government. Other militias are created for religious reasons and are working to bring our nation back to a supposed christian nation. I have not found another militia that was formed to just preserve the freedom and liberty of this country.

aileron
01-09-2007, 12:00 PM
do you have an article about the militia protecting the national guard????

midnitereaper
01-09-2007, 1:58 PM
do you have an article about the militia protecting the national guard????

here you go.

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/borderstory0104-CR.html

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53656

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/163463

Californio
01-09-2007, 5:39 PM
In my opinion any Politician that deploys the Guard/Regular Army without the complete ability to defend itself if fired upon should be removed from office.

Some may remember the Watts Riots, I know a guy that was in the Guard at that time and he and his buddies had to march down the street with fixed bayonets and empty magazines for their M14’s.

It is the moral and ethical responsibility of the civilian authority to not put Americas best in the field with one arm tied behind their backs but time and time again it happens.

dawson8r
01-09-2007, 10:47 PM
When you are in the U.S. armed forces, your equipment is issued to you right? And you are considered a professional soldier right?

But the militia act specifies the 'duty' of the citizen militia to secure their own arms and supplies and to show up prepared if called by the President to defend the nation. By infringing on the RKBA clause of 2A this 'duty' is being impeded.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Jarhead4
01-09-2007, 10:57 PM
When you are in the U.S. armed forces, your equipment is issued to you right? And you are considered a professional soldier right?

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Well that is what they want you to think. The military does not have enough weapons to arm every combat solder. You may have heard that some solders had to share weapons, and others had to acquire rifles (Iraqi AK’s) so they could go on patrol. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a lot of personal own weapons being use over there.