# What the heck is a "militia?"



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

What the heck is a "militia?"

It's the same thing today that it was 200+ years ago:

Neighbors and community members armed and ready
to defend themselves in the service of a worthy cause.

Here's an example of how it worked in practice in the
20th century.

Video:

http://www.2ndamendmenttv.com/page/22028.html

2nd Amendment TV
Share our videos, defend your rights Vote out anti-gun zealots - and let
them know why.

P.S. Please share 2nd Amendment TV videos
with your friends, colleagues and fellow citizens.
That's how we grow. Thanks.

==============================
2nd Amendment TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115


----------



## the ghost of MT (Oct 29, 2012)

Blessedly Heller correctly defined militia.



> In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'-those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[64]


citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

I had a fat, lecherous lawyer from a local (and much less prestigious) law school try to tell a classroom of students that militia means ONLY the national guard. I wasn't having any of that crap. I informed him that Heller defined it as all men capable of bearing arms and of fighting age. He had no response to this. When you premise your ideology on **** you just make up, you're going to have a difficult time debating.

He also managed to straw man gun owners during the presentation by saying that the only people worried about using guns as defense against tyranny are "afraid of the UN showing up in black helicopters to take away their freedom." No, you tool, we're afraid that in 50 or 100 or 250 years there might arise a dictatorship in the US just like one did in Russia, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, and just about every other European country in the last 100 years. When I made this known to him, he seemed a little dumbfounded, as if he had never taken a moment to consider the actual arguments gun owners make. Interestingly enough, he was a person of Jewish descent. Somehow he didn't make the connection between the Jews being disarmed and murdered by the Nazis and the desires of Americans today to avoid that fate at some point down the line. We don't have a full fledged tyranny now, thus we won't ever have one. Superb logic.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ghost old boy I'm proud of you. I would loved to have been sitting in that audience and listening.


----------



## the ghost of MT (Oct 29, 2012)

Bet you wouldn't have imagined us finding so much to agree on back 6-8 years ago. I also stood up at the end of the meeting and announced that anyone interested in learning about or defending firearms rights could speak with me. I figured I ****** off the speaker with that one, but he actually seemed endeared by my advocacy and wanted to speak after the event.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I really like how the mentally dim think that the NG is the militia referred to in the second amendment. I guess they had time travel way back then. Our independence July 4, 1776 NG formed Jan 1 1903. So over 127 years before its creation they knew it was going to be created?

I would have liked to hear your speech also.

The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code.

When somebody yells "Last one in is a rotten egg," Chuck Norris is never the rotten egg.


----------



## the ghost of MT (Oct 29, 2012)

The assertion was that the militia became the NG, though they clearly do not fulfill the same role and there is no legal decision stating that they are one and the same.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

the ghost of MT said:


> Bet you wouldn't have imagined us finding so much to agree on back 6-8 years ago. I also stood up at the end of the meeting and announced that anyone interested in learning about or defending firearms rights could speak with me. I figured I ticked off the speaker with that one, but he actually seemed endeared by my advocacy and wanted to speak after the event.


Not as surprised as you may think. It was very evident you were an intelligent person. You had just been in public school, and about to enter the real world. You would be surprised how many have gone through the same metamorphosis as you. It wasn't a sure thing, but I am so very happy it is as it is. It's hard to say how pleased I am other than wishing you all the best in life, and hope us old guys have not screwed this nation up to much for you to enjoy as we have.


----------



## the ghost of MT (Oct 29, 2012)

If I'm being honest, I think we're past redemption as a nation at this point. The corruption, entitlement, centralization of power, and degradation of rights are just too much to overcome. But then I'm something of natural pessimist.

I do want to be clear though that despite our newfound agreement I am not a rightist or conservative. I am a libertarian. My principles are all the same, my methods have just changed.

BTW I recently sent in the paperwork for a CMP Garand. I'm going to get a laugh out of telling my kids some day that back when I was a young man the federal government would mail a rifle straight to your door.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well ghost I don't really consider myself republican either. However, isn't a libertarian a very close relative of a conservative? I think our ideals overlap about 80%. I would have voted for a good libertarian over Romney. The only thing that turned me off about Ron Paul was I didn't think his foreign policy was safe for the United States.


----------



## the ghost of MT (Oct 29, 2012)

I don't blame you. We're from different generations and we have different conceptions about what the role of the US in the world should be. Your view was shaped by the 40s-80s, and I've been shaped by the 80s-00s. I don't think we can afford (monetarily or safety wise) intervening around the world any longer. It's a hugely expensive role, and one that ends up not only making the US more of a target, it also produces a huge and corruption rife defense industry that sucks on the economy like a tick. I really don't think we can hope to keep up this rate of interventionism, and I think the military is gearing up for a more restricted role over the next 20 years. They might be forced into that if only because of the rotten economy.

If you've got a free minute give a listen to my favorite podcaster. He talks about this issue a lot. http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ghost.... The problem with the US and intervening is that the UN always looks our way for help. Any other country also looks towards the US to help. That is the problem. ALso if the US says.... Sorry we can't help. What does that to the image? Doesn't that make you look like a target as well? It is a double edge sword we as a nation are in. It is also the bed we made and have to lay in it.

I agree with you 100% we need to tell the UN to Suck it on somethings. We need to take care of ourselves before we take care of the world. But yet keep the appearance we are not weak or the image we don't care. That will be very hard to do.

The leaders in Congress right now (all of them not just the president)....need to get their collective heads out of their backsides soon. They keep hand cuffing the citizens and business. They need to look at history and the good times the economy has had.... Industrial era put this country on the map.....then WWII....it was the defense and its spending and building and technology.....then in the 1990.....the technolongy era.... the dot coms and what not spurred the economy..... now we need the next wave. Yet the legislation that is being passed and many of the laws in place make business hard to do. Like i have stated over and over.... This medical bill that was passed is going to cripple business. Look at the ones putting up stinks now. Many won't get the press and will just move jobs over seas, cut employees.....or just close up shop. I am telling you the next few years could be very scary.


----------



## the ghost of MT (Oct 29, 2012)

I think looking tough is sometimes important when dealing with other states, which focus on posturing to decide when to go to war. I don't think that applies to terrorists, or at least not as much. These are small groups of people who want to die for their cause. Looking tough doesn't dissuade them from acting because the worst you can do is kill them, and you'll never kill enough to erase their ideology. Let's not forget AQ attacked the US, which was and is the strongest, most interventionist nation on the planet. They focus their limited resources not on attacking weak powers, but rather powers that they think are interfering in "their" lands. Putting troops on the ground in a foreign land is not an expense we can keep up for over a decade. Now let's be clear, I don't give a hog's hiney about the lives of militant terrorists in Afghanistan/Iraq/Yemen, I just think it's bad for us in the long run to try to play whack a mole with them.

I also disagree that war spending in WW2 made the country better off. You don't make it rich by increasing the GDP, but by making things people want. You don't feed a family with a tank. The US came out of WW2 smelling like roses because we were the only industrial power that didn't get bombed to rubble, so we became the world's factory for a few decades. That time is gone, and will probably never return.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

One of the biggest expenses we have in war is helping rebuild countries. If they loose they loose, and it isn't up to us to rebuild anyone. I missed it today, but someone proposed cutting foreign aid by 50%. They only cut half enough.



> These are small groups of people who want to die for their cause


I'm willing to help them with that.  I'm not willing to rebuild their country into something better than prior to them screwing with us. Sometimes we treat our enemies so well they may think hey lets shoot at some Americans for a while and they will build our country into something we are not willing to do for ourselves.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> One of the biggest expenses we have in war is helping rebuild countries. If they loose they loose, and it isn't up to us to rebuild anyone. I missed it today, but someone proposed cutting foreign aid by 50%. They only cut half enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When did we decide that we had to rebuild them anyway. Whatever happened to "to the victor go the spoils"? Armies used to sack the country they just defeated taking whatever they could carry away. Not advocating that, but we don't have to to rebuild the either.

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Armies used to sack the country they just defeated


That would keep a lot of countries in line wouldn't it? Now they mess with us because it's a benefit either way. Maybe we should go back to sackin the suckers.


----------



## the ghost of MT (Oct 29, 2012)

Plainsman said:


> One of the biggest expenses we have in war is helping rebuild countries. If they loose they loose, and it isn't up to us to rebuild anyone. I missed it today, but someone proposed cutting foreign aid by 50%. They only cut half enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said, I think this is a generational shift. You can kill all of Germany's soldiers and win. You cannot kill all of Islam's soldiers because Islam isn't a place, it's a religion. No one (to my knowledge) has ever been able to extinguish an idea or belief by killing off all of its members. You just inspire others to rise up and take their place. Every man you kill has brothers, a father, cousins. Imagine your reaction in the same situation. You've obviously still got a lot of fight in you. I can't imagine you'd sit down and take it if American troops killed your son in an airstrike in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Yemen/any other country we're currently bombing.

I'd also note that we've tried sticking it to a country as punishment before- the country was Germany and the treaty was named after the city of Versailles. It inspired a generation, mired in poverty, to hate the West and the Jews so much that it produced Hitler and ultimately WW2. No Versailles, no Hitler, no WW2. We have to think 50 years out if we ant to make progress in this world. Short term vindictiveness and plundering went the way of the dodo post 1945.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

The game has changed. It is one thing when you have individuals moving around but it is totally different here in the states. Look how Stalin did it. He not only killed your son he killed the whole family so it would teach others a lesson. Today they will just put your whole family in a camp never to return.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

We need to be watching our on hen house! We do need to keep a close eye on the trouble makers in the world. We also need be ready to do whatever is necessary to make sure that our country doesn't get to a point that we could be taken over by whatever country or religion is feeling strong enough!!! If we get into a fight I believe we need to finish it as quickly as possible!


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

the ghost of MT said:


> Like I said, I think this is a generational shift. You can kill all of Germany's soldiers and win. You cannot kill all of Islam's soldiers because Islam isn't a place, it's a religion. No one (to my knowledge) has ever been able to extinguish an idea or belief by killing off all of its members. You just inspire others to rise up and take their place. Every man you kill has brothers, a father, cousins. Imagine your reaction in the same situation. You've obviously still got a lot of fight in you. I can't imagine you'd sit down and take it if American troops killed your son in an airstrike in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Yemen/any other country we're currently bombing.
> 
> I'd also note that we've tried sticking it to a country as punishment before- the country was Germany and the treaty was named after the city of Versailles. It inspired a generation, mired in poverty, to hate the West and the Jews so much that it produced Hitler and ultimately WW2. No Versailles, no Hitler, no WW2. We have to think 50 years out if we ant to make progress in this world. Short term vindictiveness and plundering went the way of the dodo post 1945.


First I want to apologize to shinerunner, we're kind of getting off track.

G of MT, you're correct in that we are fighting a different kind of fight now days. Islam is even more than just a religion, I believe it is also a mind set. We will never defeat it.

Plundering may have gone the way of the dodo after 1945, and I'm not even advocating its return. But I also don't believe that we should be spending millions of dollars, (now days more like billions) defeating a country and then spend millions or billions rebuilding that country for the people we just defeated. We have way too many issues right here in our own country. We need to start worrying more about the people here at home and less about all those other countries that have been getting money from our government for years. Wean them off, or cut them off, I don't care, but we need to concentrate on America and her problems for awhile.

Huntin1


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

huntin1 no problem, your last line is bringing it back to the beginning :beer:


----------



## the ghost of MT (Oct 29, 2012)

ShineRunner said:


> We need to be watching our on hen house! We do need to keep a close eye on the trouble makers in the world. We also need be ready to do whatever is necessary to make sure that our country doesn't get to a point that we could be taken over by whatever country or religion is feeling strong enough!!! If we get into a fight I believe we need to finish it as quickly as possible!


How has this method been working so far? You can't hope to win a fight quickly when it is by nature going to be a long, drawn out occupation. Ten years later we've done almost nothing in the great scheme of things to change the state of Iraq/Afghanistan, except perhaps made Iraq easier for Iran to take over.



> Plundering may have gone the way of the dodo after 1945, and I'm not even advocating its return. But I also don't believe that we should be spending millions of dollars, (now days more like billions) defeating a country and then spend millions or billions rebuilding that country for the people we just defeated. We have way too many issues right here in our own country. We need to start worrying more about the people here at home and less about all those other countries that have been getting money from our government for years. Wean them off, or cut them off, I don't care, but we need to concentrate on America and her problems for awhile.


I absolutely agree we need to focus more here on the US, but don't kid yourself that we can have an active military presence around the globe, bash nations to hell, and then just pack up and go home. The world doesn't work that way anymore. You buy yourself another 30 years of terrorism when you do that, and we've already established that it's not a situation you can kill your way out of. Either focus on US problems, pull the military back home, or keep up the bases/attacks overseas and reap the costs.


----------

