The Coming Totalitarianism

http://www.lewrockwell.com ^ | 5/6/03 | Lew Rockwell

[tpaine]

So? Just what is your big problem with that?

As I said earlier, the government has an obligation to be prepared.. And part of that obligation, imo, is encouraging civilan milita, even to point of issuing surplus arms to vets, as per the swiss model.

[RonF]

Yes...Militias are groups of private citizens with no government ties.

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I'm asking about the use of the word "milita" in the context of the time that the Constitution was written. What did it mean then?

[CWOJackson]

Here is a real combination, LewCrockwell and tpaine.

[RonF]

I see nothing wrong with either option. Do you?

Judgements of right and wrong come after we know what we're talking about. The question is, what's a militia? When I have read commentary about the 2nd Amendment (which is where I've first heard of militias), I got the impression that militias were a group of armed citizens that may be armed and trained privately, but are only authorized to act under the direction of the government. That's also in line with the definitions I find in online dictionaries.

However, in reading this article, it would seem that they consider a militia can be a completely private body. The groups they are forming are hardly expected to be under the direction of the government. So I'm trying to find out what's the proper definition of the word. Is this group properly called a militia, or is the use of that word incorrect?

[RonF]

So the concept is that a militia can be formed, armed, and trained privately, but can only act under the direction of a government? As opposed to an army, which is staffed, armed, and trained by the government?

[tpaine]

Judgements of right and wrong come after we know what we're talking about. The question is, what's a militia?
-ron-


We?
Ping me back after you educate yourself.

[tpaine]

Here is a real combination, LewCrockwell and tpaine.
63 -jack-


Yes, -- a phony, constitution hating CWO makes the mix perfect.

[CWOJackson]

Naw, I love the Constitution, just don't like crackpots...which pretty much sums you and crockwell up.

[Roscoe]

"In a free society, the job of preparing for the worst should be left to individuals in their capacities as members of communities and families."

He's a crackpot.

[RonF]

Fine. That was a rhetorical "we", but your point is well taken. So, I've looked around. What I've found is that while these groups call themselves militia, and while the news media has done it's usual fabulous job of fact-checking by repeating the use of the term uncritically, these groups are not, in fact, militias. What they are is private armies. A militia differs from a regular army in that the members are privately armed and trained (as these guys are), but they share with a regular army the fact that when they go into combat, they do so under the direction of the government. Somehow I don't see these groups placing themselves under the authority of the State's executive power, do you? If the government doesn't recognize them as a militia, then they're not a militia, despite what they want to call themselves. They're a private army, or (depending on how well trained they are and how well they follow their training) an armed mob.

[Dead Corpse]

So the concept is that a militia can be formed, armed, and trained privately, but can only act under the direction of a government? As opposed to an army, which is staffed, armed, and trained by the government?

From what I understand of the Founders and what they wrote... yes. A professional Army is one thing, a group of private citizens acting as a militia force is completely another. Both have their place. The Founders believed that a standing army was a dangerous thing in times of peace.

We need to be armed to protect ourselves from lawlessness. Whether the perp is the government or some lone criminal. On the other hand, we really don't want private armies maurauding across the country side either.

Read up a bit on "real" militia's. They aren't the gun nuts and Vern/Bubba types, the wanna-be soldiers of fortune that the media has hyped up.

[Dead Corpse]

If the government doesn't recognize them as a militia, then they're not a militia, despite what they want to call themselves. They're a private army, or (depending on how well trained they are and how well they follow their training) an armed mob.

Essentially true, but when was the last time the government issued a call-up for the citizen militia? Call your governor and see if he'd schedule a citizens militia drill.

[RonF]

Essentially true, but when was the last time the government issued a call-up for the citizen militia?

True enough. Back in Colonial and Revolutionary days, the average civilian had small arms of the same type as those of a soldier. So a militia could bring the same fire power to bear as a professional army, although the effectiveness might not be there (and they'd have to be backed with professional artillery).

But the advancement of arms has made that impossible. Even if civilians were allowed to own military small arms, the level of training needed to use them effectively and in a coordinated fashion with is out of reach. So the National Guard and the Armed Forces Reserves were formed. These groups now fill the same function as the militia did then; groups of people who are civilians, but who are trained in modern warfare and arms and who can be called out of their civilian lives to fight for the State. But instead of their guns and training being privately supported, it's publicly supported.

[MileHi]

Bump

[Dead Corpse]

But the advancement of arms has made that impossible. Even if civilians were allowed to own military small arms, the level of training needed to use them effectively and in a coordinated fashion with is out of reach.

Malarky. If anything, todays weapons systems can be taught to a ten year old. Line up the cross hairs, push the button. Lighter, easier to use, and more effective. I own an AR clone. The only difference between my rifle and the standard service rifle is the select fire option. Mine is also a LOT more accurate then the one I was issued once upon a time due to all the tweaks and upgrades. Training my eye. I'm a better shot now then I was then, and I was a fifth award Expert. Still got the badge and bars to prove it.

So the National Guard and the Armed Forces Reserves were formed. These groups now fill the same function as the militia did then; groups of people who are civilians, but who are trained in modern warfare and arms and who can be called out of their civilian lives to fight for the State. But instead of their guns and training being privately supported, it's publicly supported.

No. No. No. The National Guard is under Army control and is not the Constitutionaly required State controled militia. Neither are Reserves for the Standing Army a "militia". Have you even READ the Militia Act to see what it says?

[RonF]

Effective use of arms involves much more than learning how to shoot a rifle. Logistics of resupply, coordination of movement, etc., all require training. A bunch of people with automatic weapons will get slaughtered by a bunch of people with automatic weapons who have communications, coordination of movement, etc.

I'm not saying that either the Reserves or the National Guard are a militia. I'm saying that they perform the function of minimizing the size of the standing army while providing a trained armed force that the government can call upon in time of need. This is what I had thought was the purpose of having a militia. But if you have another reason, I'd like to hear it.

No, I haven't read the Militia Act. Can you provide a link? Also, are you saying that the 2nd Amendment, or some other section of the Constitution, requires (as opposed to allows) the several states to each maintain a militia?

[Dead Corpse]

Militia Act

Relavent portions of the Constitution...

Art 1. Sec 8
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;

Art 1. Sec 10
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Art 2. Sec 2. Mentions Army, Navy, and the Militia as seperate entities...
Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Of course there are the Amendments...

Amendment 2
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.

Ect...

I hope this helps... Freegards.

[RonF]

So the Congress has the right to organize, arm, discipline, and call forth the Militia, and the States have the right to appoint their officers and to actually train the militia, although they must use the discipline prescribed by Congress for the latter.

The States have the right to call forth the Militia to fight off an actual invasion, or to face some other danger that is so pressing that it has no time to confer with Congress on the matter.

The Congress has the right to call the Militias, overriding the States in that regard if it wishes.

I don't argue that a state militia is separate from the Federal Army, Navy, etc. What I'm wondering is whether the states can legally say (as they actually seem to have said), "Heck, the Feds have standing armed forces, a large reserve, and they can also federalize the National Guard -- what do we need a militia for?" And not organize one. If the States don't have militias, then the sections addressing them in the Constitution are moot.

I admit that I'm not up to speed on the National Guard. I was under the impression that the National Guard was the successor to the State Militias. But I admit that I have no direct knowledge of how the Guard works.

But in any case, organizations of private citizens, organized, armed, officered by private citizens, etc., don't seem to be militias as indicated under the above provisions. Neither the Congress nor the State governments have anything to do with them.

[RonF]

Read through the sections in your e-mail without immediately noting that you'd put a link to the Militia Act up. That'll take some study.

[tpaine]

Fine. That was a rhetorical "we", but your point is well taken. So, I've looked around. What I've found is that while these groups call themselves militia, and while the news media has done it's usual fabulous job of fact-checking by repeating the use of the term uncritically, these groups are not, in fact, militias. What they are is private armies.

Thats not a fact, its your anti-militia 'spin'.

A militia differs from a regular army in that the members are privately armed and trained (as these guys are), but they share with a regular army the fact that when they go into combat, they do so under the direction of the government.

A neighborhood can organize themselves for defense without being 'directed' by government. And, hopefully, - without being labeled as a 'private army' by control freaks.

Somehow I don't see these groups placing themselves under the authority of the State's executive power, do you?

If major coordinated military action was needed, sure why not?

If the government doesn't recognize them as a militia, then they're not a militia, despite what they want to call themselves. They're a private army, or (depending on how well trained they are and how well they follow their training) an armed mob.

The above lines simply shows us where your loyalty lies. - Government control, & offical 'recognition'. Your 'private army' bit is just a tar baby chimera.
You didn't learn a thing.