Here's what dictionary.com says:
mi·li·tia
[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full timeonly in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
Here's what I say:
1. a group of vigilante-minded, wannabe soldiers who like to dress up in camo and play with guns.
2. an obsolete term which referred to the citizen soldiers of the late 18th century United States.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders ofindividual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
1. a group of vigilante-minded, wannabe soldiers who like to dress up in camo and play with guns.
2. an obsolete term which referred to the citizen soldiers of the late 18th century United States.
Correction:
ReplyDeletean obsolete term which referred to the citizen soldiers of the early United States. This concept became obsolete in the early 19th Century due to lack of citizen participation. This led to the creation of the modern National Guard.
Can't decide whether you want to declare the term Militia obsolete or declare that the militia can only include the National Guard huh.
DeleteI defer to Laci's greater expertise in these matters. But, I tend to think the original militias of the 1790s were a bit more on the ball than the modern National Guard is.
DeleteLaci wants to declare the United States obsolete.
DeleteSo, you defer to his inability to pick between theories of the Second Amendment?
DeleteThere was no United States in the 17th Century, but I guess if you're going to rewrite history, why not rewrite all the dates as well.
ReplyDeleteI'll fix that embarrassing mistake. Thanks.
DeleteItem #3 in the definition isn't too helpful for you, now is it?
ReplyDeleteI thought that one refers back to the Constitutional usage.
DeleteSo, you're saying that that was the intended definition in the Constitution? So much for all the time you and Laci have tried to fight and say that the amendment only applies to the National Guard, then.
DeleteAnd notice how it defines the militia as basically all males between eighteen and who knows what age? Of course, today we must include women, so that's effectively most of the population. It goes to support the idea that the amendment was intended to protect the right of the people.
DeleteWell, I haven't pushed the Militia being the present-day National Guard too much. I figure it's like the way dinosaurs have evolved into birds. In other words, I'm pretty much in the camp of the militia of 1790 being extinct, as I showed in my definitions of the word.
DeleteThat's an argument you could bring for Amending the Constitution to restructure not only the 2nd Amendment but the other sections dealing with the militia, but until you win that fight, the militia is part of the Constitution, used or not, and the rights intended to help it function are still an official part of the document.
DeleteSorry, but by admitting you don't buy into Laci's ravings, you just admitted that you would need a Constitutional Amendment to get your way.
And yes, please get Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to run on platforms calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
DeleteWe have a national guard. Is a militia separate from the national guard? Who calls up this militia when needed? Who does this militia take orders from? We know the command system of the national guard. What is the need, or necessity of a militia, if we have a national guard? Is the militia to take arms against the government because SOMEONE disagrees with decisions of the government, like the government can't do that because it is interfering with the liberties of Americans?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteThe idea of having a militia was to have people who trained and were able to defend the country against threats of either insurrection or foreign invasion until a regular army could be raised. The militia would also provide recruits who were able to be whipped into shape as a regular army more quickly than green conscripts or volunteers.
Having this militia structure would save the government money as the militia members would each bear the cost of their own weapons. It also limited the power of the government because this militia could only be called up to suppress insurrection or repel invasion. It couldn't be used to exercise internal political power, or to make international war the way a standing army could.
Eventually, these limitations began to irk those in power and we saw a growth in the standing army, and then a transformation of the National Guard from a pure militia to a hybrid organization whose members are also members of the standing army, and can therefore be used for whatever purposes the powers that be want to use them for.
If one finds the arguments against standing armies and in favor of militias to be persuasive, then we would be better served by reorganizing the Guard into a straight up militia and reducing the size of the standing army we maintain during peacetime.
Regarding the command structure of the militia, we don't have much of a structure due to a century of neglect, but we could establish a structure and the proper regulations if we decided to go back to that system.
Finally, in answer to the last question you posed, one of the Militia's jobs is the suppression of insurrection--something it would continue to carry out unless a large portion of the populace and militia became similarly persuaded that the government was doing something so bad that it justified them fighting such a regime. That is a metaphysical question, not a legal one.
The Tea Party holds about 25% of the seats in the House, yet as we see tonight, they hold the power. That must represent 10-15% of Americans.
ReplyDeleteIf a small minority of militia members of like mind (whatever that may be) decide they view the government's actions and policies are destroying America, they have a right and responsibility to militarily attack government forces? Yes. I'm confused.
No reply? thank you. Tells me all I need to know.
DeleteNo reply because you obviously want to get into specifics and obfuscate things by only attacking conservaties rather than discussing the general principles that the founders and even later courts have discussed.
DeleteSorry, but when it's obvious you don't really want to discuss an issue, I'm not going to get sucked in to wasting my time.
It was a straight forward question you refused to answer. Why? Because the answer would make your ideology look bad, or incorrect? Rotten dodge, which just shows your game playing.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeletePerhaps I misjudged your intention. I've re-read our exchange, reconsidered my reaction, and if you wish to discuss the issue, we'll have a go at it.
This line of discussion started with your question:
"Is the militia to take arms against the government because SOMEONE disagrees with decisions of the government, like the government can't do that because it is interfering with the liberties of Americans?"
First, legally, the militia is supposed to suppress insurrections. If someone foments a revolution, the legal answer is for the militia to put it down. Therefore, under the structure of the law in a vacuum, the answer to your question is no, the militia puts down insurrections.
And yet, we have founders talking about the militia checking tyranny; we have courts talking about it as well, such as in Aymette. This is because we can't just take the law in a vacuum--we have to ask about the morality of actions in addition to the legality, and we have to ask if morality can trump legality.
If you believe that it is always wrong for people to violently resist their government, then you will say that the founders and the courts were speaking nonsense and that the militia's only job is to enforce government decrees and put down any insurrection.
However, I doubt there are many who hold this position. Most people have some point where they think that morality trumps things that the government does--e.g. genocide--and that violent resistance is appropriate in such circumstances.
Before we go further, would you agree that there are extreme circumstances, such as that, where violent resistance is appropriate? If so, we can continue this discussion. If not, then we have already determined where our difference lies.
I'm not into dishonest ass holes. I will discuss it with someone who has brains and honesty. Get back to calling anyone a liar. From reading your comments, that's all you know.
DeleteAh, so I shouldn't have wasted my time trying to discuss the matter with you--my first instinct was right. Thanks for confirming that ole chum.
Delete