They claim to be a militia, they're just a hate group of societal dropouts #oathkeepers http://t.co/oqf8Txi4Z6 pic.twitter.com/ruCT2PvQPm
— John NoWayNRA™ (@azmoderate) April 20, 2014They claim to be a militia, they're just a hate group of societal dropouts #oathkeepers http://t.co/oqf8Txi4Z6 pic.twitter.com/ruCT2PvQPm
— John NoWayNRA™ (@azmoderate) April 20, 2014
One of the important aspects of the US Constitutions is the concept of civilian control of the military, whether a professional/standing army or an amateur civilian militia. This means that the ultimate responsibility for national strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers.
ReplyDeleteIt also means that the Militia is not to be an armed mob which is prone to insurrection.b Well regulated means exactly that, the military is under civilian control.
“If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.”--Alexander Hamiltion, The Federalist No. 29, “Concerning the Militia,” Jan. 9, 1788
I think this is what they had in mind when they said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I think this is also what they had in mind when writing the 1st Amendment confirming that these people have the right to call themselves whatever they want and the right to associate with whoever else they would like to associate with.
ReplyDeleteDo they also have authority to enforce their own laws (whatever those laws may be) at the point of a gun?
DeleteThey have the authority to act within the law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States
DeleteGreat, so people like Tim Mcvey (member of the Michigan Militia) can legally attack government buildings, kill hundreds of people and define that as legal just because they call themselves militia and define the government as destroying our inherent rights. .
Delete"Great, so people like Tim Mcvey (member of the Michigan Militia) can legally attack government buildings, kill hundreds of people and define that as legal just because they call themselves militia and define the government as destroying our inherent rights."
DeleteAnon, you're assertion is very inaccurate and as usual extreme. The best proof is to just look and see how that militia defense is working out for Mr. Mcvey?
No, killing innocents is not legal. But I expect gun control freaks to speak nonsense.
DeleteYou guys support militias. The Michigan Militia is what militias are about in the 21st century. Just like you support racism when you support the NRA and its racist leaders.
DeleteActually, Anonymous, I say that being in a militia isn't required to exercise gun rights. So I have no particular interest one way or the other about these groups, so long as they're not committing crimes.
DeleteThey are members of your "side" as you like to use the term so often.
DeleteI wonder how many in that photo are undercover cops or informants. Note that whenever these groups cross the line from free association into the realm of breaking the law, they are fairly quickly arrested and broken up.
ReplyDeleteTheir large membership numbers work to circumvent law violation, because as the numbers increase, so does the likelihood that someone will report them when illegal activities are committed of even planned.
They claim to be a militia, they're just a hate group of societal dropouts
ReplyDeleteYou can tell all that from a photo?
The author of the article you cite keeps saying that what the Oathkeepers have sworn never to do are impossible things to do. So there should be no problem, right? I swear I'll never shoot at unicorns pulling Santa's sleigh. Will John-boy write an article saying how bad I am for that?
ReplyDeleteBut the real concern is over the possibility of the president issuing illegal orders to do exactly what the author tells us can never be done. Of course, we have no history of any government giving illegal orders....
None of you got it. The answer is "NO." That is not what the founding fathers had in mind, not by a long shot.
ReplyDeleteI knew what you were looking for, but I don't say what you want just to make you pleased.
Delete"That is not what the founding fathers had in mind, not by a long shot."
ReplyDeleteMike, the problem with the concept that the National Guard now constitutes the militia has been negated by the fact that those very state militias are subject to federalization. So these militias that were originally intended as a counter to an overreaching government can be federalized and therefor fall under that very government that it was intended to counter.
So really, the only militias not subject to this tactic would be private, or unorganized militias. Though there would be the potential for the federal government to draft the individual members using its constitutional powers to raise armies. And then we are back to individuals being considered the unorganized militia. And therefor individual citizens could claim the protection of the second amendment under your definition of the militia.
Perhaps a solution would be to change the Constitution to make the National Guard truly independent by making the members exempt from federal service and only allow federalization with the consent of the Governor, who is the Commander in Chief of the state militia.
In other words, there is no equivalent in today's society. That's exactly the reason I call the amendment obsolete and anachronistic and meaningless.
DeleteSSG,
DeleteIf the Governor's consent was needed to call the militia up to federal service that would require a Constitutional Amendment. However, the founders seemed to think it was ok to allow the legislative branch to call them up when needed. When not called up, they would be a body under state control and able to provide that counterbalance.
What changed their place was the act that created the National Guard as a hybrid creature in which the members are simultaneously members of the state militia and the federal armed forces--when they're called up to serve the federal government, they're no longer called to duty by the Congress--instead, they're just given marching orders in their federal capacity.
Changing that back wouldn't even take a constitutional amendment, just a change to Federal statutes regarding the National Guard. The reason many in Congress will resist doing something like that is the same reason they created this hybrid creature in the first place: If you call up the militia, under the Constitution, you can't order them overseas--it irritates hawks since it makes going to war a bigger production.
Perhaps Mike could get behind the idea of changing the National Guard back to a state militia since it would make unnecessary wars harder to get into?
Another thing that could be done is for states to have a renewed emphasis on their state only militia bodies (almost every state has one) and encourage people to join these rather than the guard--starve it of manpower and funds, but still have a state militia that was well trained and just as ready and able to join up if there was a just war they wanted to fight in. People could join these state militias to get training and make clear their preparation to defend their homeland, but could know that they were safe from being sent off to fight in a war they didn't believe in.
Mike,
DeleteThere are equivalents today, the National Guard just isn't one.
Typical Simon. I say there are no equivalents, he says there are. I've written a lot about this very subject. The National Guard bears little resemblance to the private citizens who would make up the militia of 1790. These modern so-called militia-men even less. But what you did, by saying yes there are is bring the discussion down to the level of two 10-year-olds bickering. Good job, Simon.
DeleteMike,
DeleteSeriously? Did you only read my comment addressed to you?
If you read the one addressed to SSG, you would notice that I spoke about militia bodies currently in existence in most of the states. They're usually called Home Guard or something along those lines--they're honest to God militia units that are only creatures of the state government and are the organized militia of today.
They could be called up to federal service by the Congress if needed to repel an invasion. In the mean time, they function parallel to the National Guard helping with disaster relief and defense readiness. If the National Guard is deployed overseas, they shoulder these responsibilities themselves.
I'm assuming you didn't read the other comment, or if you did that you didn't realize that these were what I was referring to as some of the equivalents today when you reflexively went to charges of 10 year old bickering. The brevity of my statement to you was only because I was assuming you'd get the reference to the information in the preceding comment--sorry if that wasn't clear and thus the brevity seemed snarkey.
For the sake of clarity, I think that returning the National Guard to being only a militia rather than a hybrid unit would better reflect the intent of the founders and would limit military adventurism while still providing a way for people to serve and to be sufficiently trained to defend the nation, and to be well prepared for induction into the regular armed forces if they volunteered for an overseas war they considered just. I also think that, barring national will to thus reform the National Guard, a renewed emphasis on these State Guard units could provide a similar benefit and begin the process of moving us in the direction of the move with the National Guard.
It would also give an outlet for those interest in militia service--"join the real organized militia of your state", etc. And would provide for the well regulated part as they'd have actual standardization, real training, etc. instead of whatever their private club is able to cobble together on their own.
I repeat, there are no modern equivalents to what the founders meant by militia.
Delete