The People Have A Right To Organize As A Militia, Regardless of Government Approval or Endorsement

Concord Hymn
BY RALPH WALDO EMERSON
Sung at the Completion of the Battle Monument, July 4, 1837

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set today a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

Emerson should know. His house was 70 meters from the bridge. His granddad watched the battle from their house.

The sons of liberty and the american revolution:

www.constitutionfacts.com...

The founders believed men had inalienable rights derived from their creator or from their very nature. They believed men had a right to anything that the common man of their time period held to be their rights. No document (not even the constitution), no law and no government grants rights. Rights can be denied or withheld but that does not negate that the right exists. The way middle eastern countries treat women (legally there) does not negate those women's rights to equal treatment it just withholds them from enjoying those rights. no one here would deny that those unfortunate women have a right to be treated decently.

Thus regardless of what anyone or any governing body decrees all men retain their natural rights. this includes the right to form armed groups and undergo military and other training. this should not be an issue unless the members act unlawfully. Then the crime should be addressed as all other crimes are. The responsible individual or individuals get charged, apprehended and tried.

When the founders wrote the constitution men like Alexander Hamilton were against including a bill of rights at all because they felt sooner or later the government would assert that we only had the rights explicit in the bill. The founders needed Hamilton's support to get the constitution ratified so they agreed to include the 9th and tenth amendments which say among other things there are other rights citizens have that are not spelled out in the constitution and that all of these are reserved for the states or the citizens. This got Hamilton to consent and lend his support.

So you need to understand this: we do not get the right to bear arms, worship as we please, assemble and everything else from the constitution or the bill of rights. Even if the 2nd did not exist or even if it were legitimately interpreted as meaning govt sanctioned military forces it would not change our rights in any measure or degree.

In short we do not need a bill of rights to have even one of our natural rights. this includes the 2nd amendment.

People have the right to not be oppressed. A government could give it self the right to be a dictatorship but it will always be a target of those wanting to live a reasonable life. Oppression can be dressed up many ways but it is still just that.

History has shown this, over and over. Money and resources are power but numbers (people) is still the ultimate weapon.

Whether freedom is written into law or not, in the long run, doesn't matter. It's even showing it's ugly face today with the nit picking of the Constitution. There is a breaking point that people will not be pushed past although it might be a very far distance.

Certain words and phrases get tossed about with rhetorical abandon ... words like "oppressed" for example and "tyranny" and/or "the taking away of god-given[sic] freedoms."

This careless tendency is ridiculous (and appalling) as there are places and people in this world who actually do live under oppression and tyranny and who have almost no individual freedom (including the right to mutter about imaginary deities)

Almost as ridiculous and appalling as individuals who assume that they speak on behalf of all Americans, i.e. We the People.

Not to mention, such sloganeering has nothing to do with the meaning of the term "militia."

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Bravo for quoting Emerson.

It proves little to nothing about the historical or legal meaning of the word "militia" but still ... Bravo.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

You're clearly confused about the definitions of words.
But, even if we give you this and pretend that what you offered are okay examples, none of this is what was claimed by the Bundy crazies and their SovCit friends, nor by those in Militia's claiming to be defending against something that actually isn't happening.

Invasion of privacy by a government is a serious matter indeed, but it's not oppression or tyranny. If they were then using that information to oppress you, then it might be. As they're clearly not doing that, the debate is not about oppression and tyranny, it's about a failure of oversight.
Going to war with another nation is not tyranny or oppression either, that was backed by the elected government whether we individually agree with it or not. It's the job of the citizen to elect people to make certain decisions for us, that's how a democratic system of government works. The fact that I or you or anyone else disagrees with a decision doesn't mean that the action or decision was "tyrannical" or "oppression".

Again, most of this comes down to the same nonsense belief that certain people have that everything a government does should be agreed by them and them alone. Everyone wants to be a dictator and when their elected government does something they personally don't like they start screaming about "tyranny!"

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Bravo for quoting Emerson.

It proves little to nothing about the historical or legal meaning of the word "militia" but still ... Bravo.

I think it does. "Farmers" does not equal "federal sponsored armed services or national guard."

but support for the unenrolled militia concept is voluminous through out the debate records of the founders and state assemblies and private correspondence of the principle actors of creating our constitution and BOR including the 2nd.

And the founders belief in natural rights (whether they were correct or not) are essential axioms when interpreting the meaning of the Constitution and BOR. Because these men believed that when composing it. For better (or worse if you are a lib) their doctrine of natural rights underpins our government. Our Govt is only legitimate when it remains true to it's charter.The only legitimate way to alter that is by the specified amendment process and not judicial reiterpretation. Even the SCOTUS has ruled this way several times in the past.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes.

All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia.

i might add that the there was no federal govt to sanction the sons of liberty and other such groups.

Governments have risen and fallen though out history. Some last longer than others. Most people view the world in such a short period that they miss it that picture.

The USA is a drop in the bucket, history wise.

And of course government always follows the will of the people and do what is best for it's citizens. People that believe that is the big joke of all.

In the US, who are the politicians really serving?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

You are offering a line from a sympathetic and patriotic poem.

Indeed the "unenrolled" militia is repeatedly cited throughout laws and Acts pertaining to the militia. In the widest sense, it is all male citizens between the ages of 17 and 50 (sometimes with slight changes at either end).

And when and (let us be frank as we are in 2016 not 1796) IF this militia were called into action, it would be as a MILITARY FORCE under the COMMAND of either the President of the United States, the Governor of a State, or other officer Adjutants appointed by one or the other.

Indeed, not only the Founders beliefs (which are wide open to speculation and manipulation at this point) are important but also their words, which I cited several references to in the earlier thread.

It is ludicrous to imply that because someone is classified as a "lib" that they are against either the philosophy of natural rights or of the Constitution. In point of fact, the Founders qualified in almost every meaningful way as "leftists."

As to the "judicial reinterpretation" bit, see the facts in Article III, Amendments V and XIV, Marbury v Madison (1803) et. al.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i might add that the there was no federal govt to sanction the sons of liberty and other such groups.

Adding further ... the Federal Government was created by the Constitution and the Republic that the Sons of Liberty and such groups would help to found and create.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

This whole thread is a strawman. I haven't seen it argued once that people aren't allowed to form militias. I've heard plenty of arguments talking about militia misbehavior though, but that isn't what you are talking about with this OP. Though of course this is just another one of your threads attempting to justify the Oregon protest.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The population itself is well regulated. You can't walk out the front door and go on a shooting spree. There will be consequences. Everyone might not have a great tent or as much ammo as they'd like, but in general as a society we are fairly well regulated.

What does this have to do with the meaning of "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment or even the overall intent of the Second Amendment? (bear in mind, this is what you cite in the OP)

Let's also consider the various Militia Acts of the period for a contemporaneous understanding of what a militia was:

The first Militia Act of 1792 (full text):

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

The second Militia Act of 1792 actually outlines who is to be enrolled in the states militias (full text at link above):

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

and the structure:

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

Then came the Militia Act of 1795 which is very very similar to the first act with some noticeable exceptions like limiting the maximum duration of active duty for the militiamen to 3 months of every year. I suggest you read all three in their entirety to garner an accurate understanding of what the Second Amendment is actually referring to.

There is no legal basis nor historic precedent for militias being autonomous paramilitary organizations. While it's well understood that the preservation of the militia system was due to an abundant distrust of standing armies, the militias were always under the authority of the states (the Governor being commander-in-chief) until/unless called forth in the service of the United States to put down insurrections, repel invasions or to remove obstructions to the execution of the laws of the United States.

The thinking was primarily that state militias could serve much of the same functions as a regular army without actually being a standing army that could be turned against the people by a tyrannical government and secondarily that these state militias could offset the threat posed by whatever standing army the federal government would find necessary to maintain.

I believe that you and a lot of others are firmly stuck on that last bit and willfully ignoring all else, have used it as a kernel of fact around which you've added numerous layers of wishful thinking and outright invention.

the thing about militias and militia causes or the difference between a patriot and a villain is down to two things.

is the cause just in the view of the interested parties and onlookers. have all legal means of redress been exhausted or withheld by corruption? If a militia is not acting lawfully and means of redress have not been exhausted then the militia is almost certainly corrupting any legitimacy they may have and stepping out of bounds into unsavory and debasement. Thus any act of aggression they do is not valid and should be viewed as common criminality.

OTOH only about three percent of the colonists participated or supported the rebellion against Great Britain but eventually people came around to support it other than the tories.

The oregon militia thing had they not threatened violence or armed resistance would have been just like other civil disobedience. This though the govt has often publicly painted civil disobedience groups as dangerous violent criminals even when they were not armed or violent. regardless; it is not entirely clear that the govt on balance has been tyrannical to the point of justifying armed resistance rather than unarmed civil protest.

The ranchers that were incarcerated had the book thrown at them even though the fires were inadvertent. intent should have been taken into consideration as is the norm but it wasn't. had i been the prosecution there i would have asked for nothing more than a fine and recover of damages. the sentence seems out of proportion to the crime. The govt is behaving unreasonably. But i am not sure that this injustice merits taking up arms. you may read that as i do not think it does at all. Especially given some of the actors previous acts of rebellion in AZ.

But means of redress are still available and these means need to be exercised. all of the executive agencies have gotten too big for their britches and need reformation or elimination. this can be done by getting people willing to do that elected as judges from which the supreme court justices are to be drawn eventually, senators, representatives and the presidency.

the executive branch needs an enema.

this is not a job for armed wild eyed half crazed semi literate desert range bunnies running around waving guns and talking about dying fighting the govt agents and other crazy poop. that just allows the powers that be to redirect attention away from thier own fetid corruption and abuse of power.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

this is not a job for armed wild eyed half crazed semi literate desert range bunnies running around waving guns and talking about dying fighting the govt agents and other crazy poop. that just allows the powers that be to redirect attention away from thier own fetid corruption and abuse of power.

I star you for your artistic descriptive ability. Well done!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Not at all, both reasons are equally important, of course. The necessity to be able to repel and defeat domestic standing armies, however, naturally would require the people to organize without sanction. Thus is the point of contention I am arguing here. Not only is the wording of the second amendment clear on this, the implications of its wording are as well.

Good reply, though. Thank you for the reference. I agree with them on caliber recommendations as well. 5.56 is a little light. You can carry more of them, for sure, but a .308 or .30-06 is much more ballistically effective.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Don't tell me I'm pooping on the constitution! I think you're the one pooping on it if you don't understand this basic fundamental meaning of the document. Take another look at the second amendment. It's one of the original set of articles modifying the original body of the document, of course. Read it again. Pay attention to the words, and the sentence structure.

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 two introductory dependent clauses that describe the subject of the sentence explicitly state that the people's right enumerated makes them by definition a well regulated militia and that that right is necessary to the security of a free state. The predicate of the sentence is that that right shall not be infringed. The subject of course being the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Free...the word free is in there. Free from what? Invasion and despotism I believe were the topics of the day when these laws were passed. This is just as much a relevant, pertinent, hence self-evident argument on this topic that we're having the same discussion that they were two hundred plus years ago. Any rational discussion of whether a country's people should be armed or not between statesmen would naturally lead to the question that those guns could be turned on the government. They would have had this conversation then too as we are now.

The right of the people to be personally armed and to organize as such is clearly stated in the document. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not more about the congress' or president's sanction, the right of the people is specifically enumerated here, to keep and bear arms. This wording is pretty plain really. I can parse it out to you just like I would have two hundred years ago.

For the sake of argument, I can't help but wonder how does a man call up an army to fight a despot if it is the despot's sanction he must wait on under law to call up said army? I'm not saying we should call up an army, what I'm saying is the right of the people to organize and train in a military fashion and to arm themselves as they see fit regardless of present government sanction then or now is clearly stated in the document.

I feel like I'm trying to explain that water is wet here to be honest...