It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political or commercial relations and to declare war. No state or official may accept foreign gifts or titles, and granting any title of nobility is forbidden to all. States are restrained from forming sub-national groups. No state may tax or interfere with treaty stipulations already proposed. No state may engage in war, without permission of Congress, unless invaded or that is imminent on the frontier; no state may maintain a peace-time standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-regulated, disciplined, and equipped militia, with sufficient public stores of a due number of field pieces, tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Gryphon66
Unfortunately for wishful thinking wingnuts, militias in the US and in the colonies before then, were never a self-appointed force of armed yahoos.
Will we see an increased militia presence if Clinton enters the White House?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I made this assertion the other day and the discussion dissolved into quibbling over semantics.
For those who know ... it is my understanding that the LEGAL bases of the American militia (US Constitution, State Constitutions, 1903 Militia Act, and I guess Common Law) would require that the militia(s) are under the command of either:
1. The Governor of a State (as Commander in Chief).
2. An Adjutant or other Officer placed in charge by the Governor.
3. The President of the United States.
The militia exists in a command structure headed by Civilian Elected Officials ... or it's not a legal militia.
Right or wrong, with backup?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66
I believe it was part of the Militia Act of 1792 in which it stated any male between 17 and 45 were members of the unorganized militia. They were the last line of defense and the 2nd amendment would apply to the individual for that reason.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
originally posted by: schuyler
The Right to Bear Arms =/= Militia Membership. The vast majority of armed citizens in the US are NOT members or even sympathizers of the militia groups (just based on number of firearms out there.) Indeed, one could safely say that most armed Americans are pro-government and pro-LEO, and at least some portion is armed to protect themselves AGAINST the militia groups.
Most militia groups are small, isolated, extremist, and without good leadership. And the government likes it that way. If a charismatic militia leader ever arose, one who could potentially unite the disparate groups and attract more mainstream disgruntled citizens, well, he probably wouldn't last long.