Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Militia

  1. #1
    Regular Member atrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Yalesville, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    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.



    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.








  2. #2
    Regular Member atrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Yalesville, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    The Militia Question, Resolved: Second Amendment 101
    by Michael E. Kreca
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/kreca/kreca9.1.1.html



    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order."

    ~ Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, in “Hitler's Table-Talk at the Führer's Headquarters 1941–1942,” Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaeum Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

    Twenty-seven words first published in 1790 are now the source of the bitterest controversy the USA has seen since the 1960s if not since the War Between the States a century before that. They are central to an issue that splits left and right, male and female, white and nonwhite, North and South, East and West, wealthy and not-so wealthy.

    They are:

    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.

    Let’s get this straight right away. First of all, the inalienable right of individuals to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical government predates our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This, among other things, was clearly and eloquently expressed in Sir William Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries On The Laws of England.” Hence, the Founders were operating within a long historical tradition based upon English common law.

    Secondly, the term “well-regulated” meant something quite different two centuries ago. It is not today’s definition of “controlled,” “limited,” or “restricted” but was instead defined as “having proper kit and provisions” or in the case of objects or machinery, “properly maintained and kept in good repair.” The next is the Constitutional definition of the “militia,” and this what requires detailed explanation. The militia issue was extensively debated during the 1787–89 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and today has sadly been ignored by both sides in this issue.

    Founder George Mason explicitly wished to have it clearly spelled out that the militia was “of the whole people," in effect, a “general militia” that was affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act. Mason and his supporters feared the development of "special militias" – ones much like the Puritan "Roundheads" led by Oliver Cromwell and their opponents, the “Cavaliers,” in the English Civil War of 1642–57. Special militias are nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups – witness the German Nazi SA and its successor the SS as well as the Italian Fascist "Blackshirts." In those cases, Nazi/Fascist Party membership was strictly required to join them as well as to legally own a firearm of any kind in either of those countries at the time.

    These two groups were little different than standing armies. The difference is that they were created and used by the German and Italian governments to bypass any laws against using the military domestically against the people (or in the absence of such laws, to forestall the military’s unwillingness to do so) – in order to crush dissent and terrorize opponents. (Sound familiar?) Cromwell used his Roundheads to do much the same thing, even having King Charles I beheaded after a bogus trial, later closing Parliament and then invading Ireland with plans to wipe out the Catholic population, killing those of his comrades and anyone else who refused to comply.

    Distressingly, we now have a lot of special militias in the USA – the Secret Service, FBI, BATF, DEA, IRS, the National Guard and today’s "near federalized" status of most state and local police departments – to name but a few. And they are all unconstitutional, if the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act is correct. George Mason's fears about them were well placed and have come tragically true. All these alphabet-soup special militias can do and have done (other than freely lapping up taxpayer money in ever-increasing amounts) is be responsible for numerous cruel and meaningless tragedies. These range from spying on, harassing and ruining the lives of anyone deemed an “enemy of the state,” to brutally breaking strikes, violently disrupting demonstrations and killing innocent people in places ranging from Kent State to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    Even the courts are beginning to revive this long forgotten but crucial “general vs. special” militia distinction. The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense is a case in point. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.

    The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the “special militia” (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the “general militia” (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Also in 1990 the Court in another case affirmed the definition of “the people” expressed in the Bill of Rights as meaning individual persons, not a group.

    So the statist left has its “militia” and the rest of us have ours. No wonder so many of them can’t free themselves from the false but mesmerizing aura of the “Militia = National Guard” equation. The statist left doesn’t want to because it’s interested not in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyrannical federal government, but in giving that tyrannical federal government a blank check, figuratively and literally, to indulge in state-sponsored terror under the tautological trinity of “crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security.” And Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen has all but told us to “get used to the idea.”

    So there it is. General militia versus special militia.

    Which are you?

    Think about that question the next time you are cajoled by otherwise-idle Million Mom March mavens to support “sensible gun laws” or are exhorted by the denizens of the pseudo-patriotic “law-and-order” crowd to “back the badge.”

    Published in the May 26, 2000 issue of Ether Zone.

    May 26, 2000

    Michael E. Kreca lived in San Diego and had been a financial reporter for Knight-Ridder, Business Week and the Financial Times of London. On February 11, 2006, he was shot to death by a government cop.

    Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone

  3. #3
    Regular Member atrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Yalesville, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Connecticut General Statutes:
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap504.htm#Sec27-1.htm

    Sec. 27-1. Persons subject to military duty. All male citizens and all male residents of the state who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, not exempt by law, shall be subject to military duty and designated as the militia. All female citizens and all female residents of the state who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, may enlist voluntarily in any women's unit of the armed forces of the state.

    Sec. 27-2. Classes of militia. The militia shall be divided into four classes as follows: The unorganized militia, the organized militia, the National Guard and the naval militia. The National Guard for the purposes of this chapter shall consist of the National Guard and the Air National Guard. The unorganized militia shall consist of all male citizens and all male residents of the state who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, not exempt from military duty by federal or state laws or by such reasons of physical or mental disabilities as shall be prescribed in general orders or regulations published by the Adjutant General and approved by the Governor and who are not members of the organized militia or of the National Guard or of the naval militia, and all female citizens and all female residents of the state who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, who may voluntarily offer their services to the state. The organized militia shall consist of the Governor's Guards, the State Guard and such other military forces as may be designated by the Governor as commander-in-chief, which may hereafter be organized under the provisions of the laws of this state. The National Guard shall consist of such forces as may be organized and maintained by this state pursuant to the laws and regulations of the United States relating to the National Guard. The naval militia shall consist of such persons as may enlist or be appointed or commissioned therein as a special force for coast protection and as a naval reserve and shall be organized and maintained by this state pursuant to the laws and regulations of the United States relating to the naval militia and may include a marine corps branch of the naval militia subordinate thereto in all matters pertaining to command, discipline or administration. The organized militia, the National Guard, the naval militia and marine corps branch of the naval militia, whenever organized, shall be, for all purposes under the general statutes, the armed forces of the state.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    Looking at the state of my desk, I'm going to have to go for the Unorganized Militia.

    When these laws were put on the books times were much different, I wonder now, if something bad were to happen that required the use of Militia type resources from the citizens and residents of the state how that would work. I suspect the powers that be would be loath to have any "help" from the taxpayers other than financial fleecing.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    I suspect the powers that be would be loath to have any "help" from the taxpayers other than financial fleecing.
    Especially if the taxpayers rise up in revolt against the powers that be.


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    The thing that scares me the most is when it is so apparent and we have a Supreme Court ruling on the subject with regards to an individual right to keep and bear armswhich should be black and white/ cut and dry, as to the original intent,we get a 5-4 vote? Not a 9-0 vote.

    Why is the phrase keep "in ones house" always added? Where in the Constitution does it claim the malitia can only have weapons in one's house? Why is self defense evident in one's house but if you are standing in the street getting the mail out of your mailbox it is not evident? I don't get how anyone can claim a difference?

    Try "free speach only in one's house" and see how that flies...Go out to the mailbox and you better shut your pie hole...or go to prison.

  7. #7
    Regular Member atrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Yalesville, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Does Secession Without a State Militia Make Any Sense?

    by Russell D. Longcore
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/longcore/longcore15.1.html

    "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." ~ Daniel Webster (1834)

    "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." ~ Wendell Phillips (1811–1884)

    I’ve just finished reading the book Constitutional Homeland Security, Volume 1: The Nation in Arms, by Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

    This is the definitive book on (1) how every American State has forsaken its DUTY to maintain a Militia, that force that is "necessary to the security of a Free State," (2) how states can revitalize their Militias, and (3) how Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations (CHSA) may be organized.

    This book should be read by every State governor and every State legislator in the USA. But it should be read by every citizen that desires liberty...true liberty in their lifetime.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin


    Vieira devotes five of the twelve chapters in the book to the formation and operation of the CHSAs. He contends that a program of public education be instituted to inform the public of the necessity of state militias.

    Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations are completely different than the "Committees of Safety" of old. The CHSA is a grass-roots organization that will build awareness in the populace in anticipation of the formation of the Committees of Safety and legislative action on re-forming state Militias.

    The original Committees of Safety were composed of actual members of the States’ legislatures, recognized activists and other leaders within the States...who were appointed to the Committees by the legislatures, to serve as the legislatures’ agents and advisors, and to carry on the legislatures’ work during recesses. The Committees were never independent of the legislatures, and never carried out any plans that were not approved by the legislatures.

    The chief concern of the Committees was the safety of the public: "to put the territory under their supervision in a state of defense and maintain it there effectively."¹

    The author wrote this book in 2007, and mentions that we don’t have much time to reinstitute militias in the states before societal events begin to occur that will throw America into chaos. It’s now almost three years since publication, and many of the events have taken place, while more events loom just over the horizon.


    We can thank the government schools of the entire United States for the dearth of knowledge in the populace about the Constitution and the necessity of the State Militias. But what could we really expect? The very Federal government that benefits from the LACK of militias could hardly be expected to promote a concept that would diminish their power. Still, remember that the Federal Department of Education did not exist before 1980.

    "Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it." ~ Edmund Burke

    So, what of the states? Education has always been a state issue. Can you think of any reasons that states would shrink from their obligation under their own state Constitutions to maintain a state militia?

    How about these?

    (1) State legislators and governors view themselves as servants of Washington.

    (2) Maintaining a state militia is expensive. The money could be used for other purposes that would make more voters happier.

    (3) Nearly 150 years have passed since the War of Northern Aggression, in which Lincoln called up the state militias to invade the Confederate States of America. So generations of state legislators have not seen a need for militias.

    (4) Besides, states have a National Guard, don’t they? What’s the difference?

    I’m sure there are others, but those reasons should do for now.

    "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." ~ John Adams

    Here are some of my own thoughts on secession and state militias.

    1. Any individual who has reached the age of majority in the United States who does not own a firearm has accepted the position that they have no duty to be a part of the well-regulated Militia that is NECESSARY for the security of a Free State.

    2. Any state of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America that either has enacted or will enact any legislation that infringes on the individual right to keep and bear arms has accepted the position that a well-regulated Militia is NOT NECESSARY for the security of a Free State. That state government is an enemy to liberty and a lackey of Washington.

    Patrick Henry did not say "Give me safety and security or give me death."

    3. There is seemingly very little interest in the general populace or the state governments to revitalize state militias. But there is interest coming from a restless citizenry about state secession. We must tie the two together into an inseparable bundle, as one relies upon the other.

    4. Here is a forecast of how secession and militias will likely play out.

    a. Economic meltdown, bank holidays, hyperinflation

    b. Societal chaos, riots, rampant crime

    c. Washington declares martial law and tries to clamp down

    d. The grave crisis jolts states out of their slumber, and secessions begin

    e. States NOW begin reformulating their militias

    f. The citizenry, in full panic mode, get very focused on liberty issues

    g. The United States goes the way of the Soviet Union and dissolves


    This is an extremely exciting time in which to live in America. The people of the nation have been lulled to sleep over generations. The tyranny laid upon them is destructive, and any type of destructive force is based in low energy. Happily, freedom and liberty are creative forces of a very high energy level. Just like light dispels darkness, so too will liberty eventually win over tyranny. People will be drawn to the energy of liberty.

    You can find Dr. Vieira’s book at Amazon.com.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1787

    ¹Agnes Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution (Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve University, 1904), at 161.

    December 19, 2009

    Russell D. Longcore [send him mail] is president of Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company. He is married to "his Redhead" Julie, has three wonderful children and three even more wonderful grandchildren. Visit his secessionist website at: www.DumpDC.com.

    Copyright © 2009 Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.



    Also another good article by Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. [and was the first article posted here, I changed it] is http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin201.htm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •