It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Well Regulated Militia, Always Ignored..

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


I feel ya!
BUT... I think you're missing a point here. Who trains said militia? The government? No way!

I believe the intent was to allow citizens the right to bear arms so that citizens have the right to form "well regulated militias". In other words, the Constitution guarantees that every citizens has not only the right to bear arms, but the right to do so in order for form a militia. As a result, said militias can train their members.

To this end, we have continued to see a violation of Constitutional rights as various government entities crack down on militia movements, implement regulations (Modern term = LAWS) as defacto firearm bans and controls and label these groups as "Domestic terrorists".

Simply stated... the very fact that the Federal Government labels CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED MILITIAS as "Domestic terrorists" indicates whose interests the government has at heart - and it ain't the citizens!




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 

Yes, there is a clear intent to promulgate an agenda to demonize ''militias'' and to maintain a ''monopoly of force'' by the state. Along those lines the working mantra is "the ends justifies the means"..."false flags" justified then??



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Actually the "well regulated" part just is the active duty military and the various state's guard.

Kudos for posting parts of the Federalist Papers. But the discussion also went to the costs it would take for the nation to supply and train everyone.They also discussed that it would be impractical to include everyone in the "well trained" part as it would take way too many people away from their homes and jobs for inordinate amounts of time and would cripple what industry that there was here.

So the regular militia is to arm and train itself. That means you and me. We are supposed to do as suggested: supplement the standing army when needed, help quell rebellion, and repel or defeat an invading army. Defeat or fight to a standstill our own military should it be misused against the general will of the people.

Along that line, we should also have the same access to any weapon that the average grunt has access to as far as small and heavy arms are concerned. Yes this includes full auto in the hands of the citizenry.

This doesn't necessarily mean tanks, artillery and shoulder fired missiles. They will be available upon capture anyway. I say let someone else do the maintainence and upkeep anyway.

There is no reason why states could not begin a training process where shooters are certified. This could be a good yet somewhat costly thing. Better people be trained than let any coocoo clock buy a weapon. Discovery of "not right" people could be accomplished at the range.

The "Standing Army" issue, and the "Militia" issue is discussed in detail in the Federalist Papers. The discussions actually are in several locations. Once you read and understand it, there is no further need for speculation about it. It is clear.
edit on 9-8-2012 by akalepos because: more info.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


It had not been that long since these Founders fought a Revolution. Of course they saw militia as necessary, but what I am really getting it is that there's an argument for the idea that the Founders explained why the right to keep and bear arms exists in terms of warfare to distinguish from the obvious which was that at this time guns, knives, spears, and other weapons were necessary for hunting. The Founders were prescient enough to understand a direct declaration of the peoples right to come together collectively as a militia was prudent.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Lets assume that a well regulated militia is feasible.

Okay, there are things I haven't heard mentioned. For starters, equipment costs money. When conducting militaristic training you don't just go around shooting paint balls in the woods. There are a lot of requirements for adequate training and its all completely pointless if you don't have enough resources to carry out an operation if the time come. Its a constant drain on resources even if all you are doing is training.

So, without government oversight, where would you get the funding?

Okay, that leads to my next point. What kind of system will be in place to make sure various "militia" don't go rogue, as it were? I mean its completely possible that self contained military organizations could get some stupid idea in their heads and choose to act on it when the issue could have been solved in peaceful ways...

What kind of checks and balances would be in place to make sure that this doesn't happen, or happens as rarely as possible?

Okay, next. What kind of leadership does a militia have? Is it like a "military ranks" kind of thing, or is it something else? What if there was a "coup de tat" so to speak?

I have more questions, but I will hold them for now.
edit on 9-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
When this document was drafted and ratified militias were organized, trained, staffed, equipped and funded incidentally - entirely from the bottom up. Why because at the time we had no ability to implement a centrally planned national militia from the top down like we have the ability to do today.

One cannot view or study history with a modern idea of what could be accomplished. In a society that was mostly rural and without any means of modern communication one would not expect or want the government to centrally plan the organization of every local militia unit from the top down. It could take months to carry an order from one State to another.

What they envisioned in my opinion was that every region that had the ability, read ability as a sufficient population living within a close enough proximity to one another would for purpose of their own defense. Primarily their problems would be Indian attacks and or banditry.

They would organize themselves into units and elect leaders (as militia officers and non-commissioned officers were at the time mostly elected not appointed or commissioned) and occasionally drill – usually on county fair days or something like that so that they could defend themselves against the problems of the period. The key word there is themselves – they didn’t need the permission, funds, charters, commissions or equipment of a central government to be allowed to protect themselves.

We relied exclusively on volunteers to staff militias. While every able bodied male was expected to participate militias trained and even fought wars around the seasonal harvests and key tradesmen were exempt as well. A male from every family was expected to be allowed to stay at the residence to work their land and provide for its defense.

Many States do have their own well regulated militias today outside of the national guard which has been commandeered (high jacked) by the federal government. Some are better than others Texas has a robust State militia (the Texas State Defense Force) with their own officers and such who owe no allegiance or oaths to the President or the federal government. They mostly deploy for disaster relief but they do have arms, and train for military missions. I am not talking about “patriot militias” or the aggressive extremists but a real militia.

The government at the time gave the States and even the counties great latitude in their own affairs. Things were not regulated from the top down but rather implemented the bottom up using all the creativity and resources of the local citizenry.

The 2nd Amendment simply is limiting the federal government from taking away their right to do so by limiting their ability to purchase and own weaponry.

The intent of our founders was to have a limited federal government with the States deciding their own affairs.

Perhaps we should go back to letting the States and local governments do what they think is best for them. Some areas laws might piss off the libs in NY or LA so what, they don’t live there.

When the libutards from NY State and California try to enact their stupid restrictive failures regarding gun laws I cringe – why can’t they just leave the rest of us alone.

Where I live guns are not a problem we hardly even have crime. Yet, here everyone I know has one or more guns… What works for the folks in NYC will not work where I live and vice versa.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





They would organize themselves into units and elect leaders (as militia officers and non-commissioned officers were at the time mostly elected not appointed or commissioned) and occasionally drill – usually on county fair days or something like that so that they could defend themselves against the problems of the period. The key word there is themselves – they didn’t need the permission, funds, charters, commissions or equipment of a central government to be allowed to protect themselves.


First off, you seem to think effective militaristic operation today are the same thing as back then. Its not, it never will be.

Here are my questions.

Funding: Where would you get it? What source would be enough to adequately fund training and, maybe, actual military operations. You said they did this Themselves, but what does that even mean? Does that mean that a "well regulated(and effective) militia" does not need any form of funding or equipment? That some elbow grease is all they need? Will they just pool "their spare cash" together and hope for the best?

Forgive me if I am skeptical of your plan to "not plan". Just to wing it. Somehow, that doesn't make me feel like you are prepared for the things you claiming to be prepared for.

Leadership: Who leads it and what defines a leader in a militia? You say "they will elect one" Isn't that some form of "charter" you clearly just denounced as unneeded?

Which is it, will they have some form of stable governance detailing how they conduct themselves, or will the "rules" change each time there is a new leader picked by the majority?




We relied exclusively on volunteers to staff militias. While every able bodied male was expected to participate militias trained and even fought wars around the seasonal harvests and key tradesmen were exempt as well. A male from every family was expected to be allowed to stay at the residence to work their land and provide for its defense.


Ya, when the people thought it was actually needed. How are you going to convince the public to support your operations and training? How are you going to convince potential donors that their money is being put to good use? Is there complete transparency, as in you will broadcast your assets and members to the world? How are you going to convince recruits that their time is well spent? Will you show them a bunch of conspiracy theories and hope they buy it? Will you point to the Constitution and say "if you love it, you will join"?




Many States do have their own well regulated militias today outside of the national guard which has been commandeered (high jacked) by the federal government. Some are better than others Texas has a robust State militia (the Texas State Defense Force) with their own officers and such who owe no allegiance or oaths to the President or the federal government. They mostly deploy for disaster relief but they do have arms, and train for military missions. I am not talking about “patriot militias” or the aggressive extremists but a real militia.


But they have some kind of funding? Do they operate off of donations and volunteers? If so, how ell are the funded? How effective would they be in actually conducting military operations? You say "they were hijacked", well then they kind of missed the point of the militias you are talking about haven't they? Do they have engineers? Do they have helicopters and airplanes? Do the have night vision goggles and c2 explosives?






edit on 9-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


BTW, I am not trying to be disrespectful of yourself or your ideas. I am truly curios on how YOU would go about forming and up keeping such an organization.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   


Just MY opinion of a well regulated militia.

(apologies if already brought up)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Golf66
 


BTW, I am not trying to be disrespectful of yourself or your ideas. I am truly curios on how YOU would go about forming and up keeping such an organization.


They are not my ideas that is how militias were run at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

The way it was done was that every adult male had a weapon with which he was very competent because otherwise he and his offspring would have long since starved. Each individual was to show at militia muster with a certain amount of powder and ball with bedroll and trail food for 7 days. They provided this at their own expense as part of their duty. If they were truly indigent the better off men would bring extra. They could operate long enough to fight off an Indian attack or track down some rogue gangs or something.

The community (town, county or whatever) had some weapons (a few) on hand for anyone who couldn't afford one. Also, pikes and swords were common on the battlefield at the time period. The people would nominate and vote for their leaders a Captain for say 50 or so men. Perhaps you were really poor and didn't have one then you drove a wagon or something.

A wealthy land owner in the county would serve as a Colonel of the militia over several Captains.

Why was it always a wealthy person. Because he personally would supply a good portion of the powder and provisions from his own funds and lands. He did this as his civic duty. If the campaign were over long he could get aid from the State.

He was a volunteer of course but as probably the only formally educated man in the region man he could write complex orders for multiple companies, do complicated math and such that was required to administer the organization.

Now if this militia was called upon to serve the State as part of a larger force they would expect to be resupplied and or reimbursed from the State treasury at some point. Same goes with national militia.

Bottom line is they were organized to fight in and around their local area for purpose of their own defense. Oversight and standardization of weapons and methods were not high up on the list of priorities. If you couldn’t shoot well you'd be assigned some other duty.

They would only meet once or twice a year at the company level to drill (without firing a shot most likely) so that they could practice the formations used during the period which were standard from the manual of military drill.

Now how did they keep such organizations together – by force of peer pressure and sense of civic duty. The men knew that if the Reilly farm was attacked by Indians they might well be next and that if they didn’t show for muster with their gear as expected they would likely not be able to count on anyone to do the same for them if they need it. A sense survival of the kept them together.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
First off, you seem to think effective militaristic operation today are the same thing as back then. It’s not, it never will be.


I don't think anywhere in my post I said that I think my outlining the context of the times had anything to do with how to run a militia today. I am a 24 year veteran of the Army 17 of those I spent in Special Forces so I am fairly up on how modern warfare is conducted thanks.

Again, no where did I indicate that the information I relayed would work in a modern world. That said if you want examples of a militia defeating a technologically superior one look to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or Viet Nam for that matter. It is not unprecedented in history.

I don't think I will get into how to recruit, train, organize and conduct operations for a militia force with or without the endorsement or support of a government either in or outside the country in question though I (along with the US Army and SOCOM) consider myself somewhat of an expert in that field.

While the techniques and tactics for raising a militia either in opposition to (insurgency) or in support of (counter-insurgency) are not Secret I don't need to lend my 2 cents on the internet for someone to parrot. If you want to know just Google organizing, equipping and training a guerilla force. You'll get more than enough information to whet your whistle.

There are many techniques for figthing a technologically superior force.


Originally posted by TsukiLunarBut they have some kind of funding? Do they operate off of donations and volunteers? If so, how ell are the funded? How effective would they be in actually conducting military operations? You say "they were hijacked", well then they kind of missed the point of the militias you are talking about haven't they? Do they have engineers? Do they have helicopters and airplanes? Do the have night vision goggles and c2 explosives?


Yes, as a matter of fact they do…. Here is a link to the States that have a bona fide State Militia or Defense Force that is not subject to manipulation, funding or call-up by the Federal Government. www.statedefenseforce.com...

IMO Texas has their # together the most…. www.txsg.state.tx.us...


The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is one of three branches of the Texas Military Forces (TXMF), reporting to The Texas Adjutant General located at Texas Military Forces HQ, Camp Mabry (Austin), Texas. The Commander in Chief of the Texas Military Forces is the Governor of Texas. The other two branches are the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) and the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG).


edit on 9/8/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
double post - sorry
edit on 9/8/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by stirling
 


If you believe that then you must believe that everyone in the militia must be well regulated (trained). You can't ignore one part of the sentence, yet claim the other.

You are ignoring sentence structure. The first half is actually two dependent clauses. The main clause stands alone.

Florida actually defines the militia separately from the National Guard (as many other states do), but bans all militia activity not controlled by the Governor. That constitutes being well regulated, even though the Governors haven't called for militia training in over a Century.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


The militia/National Guard is intimately connected to the people's right to bear arms as the whole concept of the militia is to be citizen soldiers.
Many states required soldiers to provide their own arms. And, at least in the ideal, it exemplified the power of the people. One can expound on the rights of humans all one wants. Those who control the weapons are the masters.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
As far as I know - - the 2nd amendment really means.

The People are the government.

The People have the right to be armed to over throw the government if it oversteps its bounds.

A well regulated militia - - means the People are armed (know how to handle and shoot a gun) and can be assembled instantly if needed.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
After all of these shootings I started thinking about the 2nd amendment and wondered why is the term regulated always ignored? I've never seen it even brought up in any debate on ATS or anywhere for that matter.


Just because you have never seen the debate or discussion doesn't mean that it is ignored. That subsection of the 2nd Amendment is oft discussed in great lengths. Do not take that as disparaging though, I believe this is a discussion that should be had and glad you presented it in the manner you did. In addition, these shootings are tragic but a small fraction of death that happens on a daily basis.


Madison thought the gun owners, or militia should be trained to defend the nation, or they would be entirely pointless against a tyrannical government.


James Madison initially didn't even want to include a Bills of Right, arguing that the Constitution itself limits the Federal Government and constrains them is specific enumerated powers and that by adding a such a Bill, would only leave room for the Government to believe that they can exact some political power over the listed Rights.


So why are none of the constitutionalists not upset that we do not have a well regulated militia (population of gun owners)? Anyone can go buy a gun without knowing how to use it, what good are they against tyranny? They aren't. They are useless.


I see how you are framing this argument. Using absolutes such as "never" and "none" and "always" though makes it a suspect argument. Do you honestly think that at the local town-hall meeting in Boston, Braintree or some other small town in the colonies they structured and created their militias? It was more of a known duty of the townsfolk or State to take up arms in defense when called.


What would we have currently if there was an uprising? A trained Federal Military vs Bob with guns in his basement. 99% of these people do not know any military maneuvers. 80% of these people couldn't even hit a moving target. Would we win regardless? Probably not. But by being even somewhat trained, your chances of survival would increase, and hope to tire them like the North Vietnamese.


With absolutes and now randomly thrown out statistics your argument begins to fall apart -- even if you are making a good point on a premise that should be discussed.

A Gallup poll from 2005 says that nearly 3 in 10 Americans reported that they personally own a gun and have knowledge in its use. That is roughly 90 million people if we use that statistic for today (given that the number hadn't changed since 2000, I would say it was a safe assumption.) Further, there are about 20-25 million veterans (from the VA) and my guess is part of that 90 million gun owners are also veterans and have ‘combat’ training and/or experience. In regards to a moving target, even trained persons, do not easily hit them. Throw in someone shooting back at you and the dynamics of it all changes.


Why doesn't the NRA lobby for a state controlled militia? Their motto is pro-2nd amendment.. They don't because it would not reap immediate gun sales for corporations. It would also shatter the illusion that guns give their memnbers immediate power against the government, which is one of their talking points.


Why would they look to the Government for a "state-controlled" militia when if comes the time needed for such a militia it would be that very "state" they might be fighting against?


Why ignore one part of the 2nd amendment but feel so passionate about the other?? It makes really no sense to me. Anyone panicking over gun control should be panicking that there is not a well regulated militia of gun owners.


If the call to defense was ever made I am fairly confident that gun owners and non-gun owners would naturally form militias and the structure would be fine given the veteran population and the multitude of persons who have leadership abilities.
edit on 10-8-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Kastogere
 


The national guard is not a militia. It is another branch of the Army. If the supreme court interprets the MILITIA as everyone, then everyone should be trained.


Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;..... To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.


www.foundingfathers.info...

How can you defend or help the state if you are in Iraq for a year?


edit on 8-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

In CT, free to all it's citizens is the hunting safety course that is REQUIRED to get a hunting license. A hunting license is required to buy a gun as a CT citizen. I'm all good with that, having attended that course and coming to the conclusion it only HELPS the user of the firearm (regulates) to be a better shooter. There is no infringement on my rights except the cost of the license so I can buy the firearm. Even that small cost each year is hardly an infringement compared to the cash your going to have to lay out to buy the firearm. Less than 10% if its a decent gun and only a one-time-per-year cost.

I'm all on board with everyone being "regulated" like it says in the constitution, which means trained in the speak of the 18th century.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala
So you're saying that in addition you also want a well-regulated militia? Isn't that what the military is? Or are you saying, we need more militia groups, like the Michigan Militia? Cause I can agree with that...

He's saying that the various states and possibly local municipalities should organize their own militias. The National Guard started out as such, but it's been brought into the over all defense structure pretty tightly. For instance, the Maryland Air National Guard operates a wing of A-10 Warthog attack planes, something quite a bit far removed drilling and possibly outfitting all local able-bodied men with muskets from arms cache stored under the town hall, which is what I think they were originally talking about. At most a small town might have its own cannon or two. I'm not so sure such a thing as what was originally envisioned is actually practical or even possible anymore.

I think it's one thing if local governments are organizing militias, but I do have a big problem with the Militia Movement, which has nothing to do with local towns or counties and such organizing for local civil defense. The original idea, it seems clear to me, was meant to be a way for the smaller, local polities to have both control for local civil defense, and also as a check against federal power. Back when these things were being discussed by the Founding Fathers, the state and local governments were imagined to be a bit less subordinate to the Federal Government than they are now. The realities of the scale of modern warfare, however, I think changed most of the thinking about such things after the Civil War. Remember, even in that war military units were often formed locally or at the state level, and then marched off to join the Union or Confederate armies. Often different units from different places had their own unique uniforms, though they fought on the same side. So they were more like local forces, but upon formation quickly became a part of the larger national armies. It seems to me it was a time of transition in thinking about such things.

I know that in the Battle of Baltimore during the War of 1812, much of the force that defended the city, specifically those that fought at the Battle of Northpoint and were lined up ready to repulse attacks closer to the city proper were made up of the local militia who were drilled and commanded by a former Revolutionary War general who lived locally and was brought out of retirement for that particular fight. I think that's precisely the kind of situation they were envisioning in the Second Amendment when they wrote it. But that sort of thing doesn't really work now, I don't think. Unless you are outfitting the local populace with M-16s or AK-47s at the minimum (never mind tanks, fighter jets, etc.), you won't have local defense forces coming together like that so readily.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join