4 ms·

No. That's a rather modern invention of the 1970s. It was to create a state militia, that's why it talks specifically talks about a "Militia" (capitalization or

No. That's a rather modern invention of the 1970s. It was to create a state militia, that's why it talks specifically talks about a "Militia" (capitalization original). It's prima facie absurd to think that the very document that defines treason as "levying war against [the United States]" and talks about using "Militia to [...] suppress Insurrections" would also codify insurrection as a good thing.

hga 11y ago
You're conflating the Constitution created by the Federalists, which defined the latter two items, and the different document known as the Bill of Rights which was the price of the Anti-Federalists to accept to that Constitution. And the very same Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights also defined the militia in law, and basically that same definition holds to this day in 10 U.S. Code § 311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311, modulo modern interpretation that holds "men" equals men and women, folding in the National Guard, etc. Note also that the Founders were hardly of a single mind on the subject, with, say, Jefferson being the most noted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (see e.g. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation) http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_l... ), but he had plenty of company. We've always had seriously ornery factions in the nation....
EdHominem 11y ago
A Militia is armed people. Because Militias were a good thing for the people, a right to bear arms shall not be abolished. But anyways, the reasoning is just reasoning. The right is pretty clearly spelled out and stands on its own.
- krapp 11y ago
  A Militia is not necessarily "any group of people with guns and a grudge against the government."
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    No, but it is at least that. (People with guns.) It certainly isn't conscripts, or people being loaned weapons to defend someone else's holdings - it's free people defending themselves with their own tools.
    - jonathankoren 11y ago
      Militias were instruments of the state, and they are never DIY volunteer organizations. These were conscripted government funded, organized, and partially armed organizations. Who had canons? The state. Who had funded the militia? The state. Who headed the militia? The state governor. Who declared that all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia?[0][1] The state. Who declared that all men needed to purchase a weapon?[1] The state. The main point that differed a "militia" from an "army" was that it was a part time affair, and not a standing army. The threat antifederalists cared about was a standing federal army imposing its will on the state government. It was never about random dudes getting upset at the government. Although there was plenty of that too. (The Whiskey and Shay's rebellions come to mind.) It's just that the founding fathers would send the militia in to arrest them. To romanticize the colonial and early state militias as rugged individualists ready to stand up to The Man is simply ahistorical. [0] http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Mil... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
      - hga 11y ago
        Who had canons? The state. Now that I know is not true, there were (wealthy) private individuals owned canons. Heck, that the Congress has the power to "To ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" acknowledges that private entities had armed ships. Partly armed is correct, and a screwup there helped ensure that Washington, D.C. got burned in 1814 (too much bureaucracy in issuing flints etc.). But it's also the case that, as you note, "all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia", and as is still the law, all who are 17-44 years of age are members of it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 (and in modern legal interpretation, men is generally read as men and women). But these quibbles aside, your general thrust is correct. So much so, per Galvin's The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution http://www.amazon.com/The-Minute-Men-Realities-Revolution/dp/1597970700 http://www.amazon.com/The-Minute-Men-Realities-Revolution/dp... the British in Massachusetts were completely outclassed in war fighting experience, they'd put garrison troops there, and many of our men had gained experience in what we call the French and Indian War.
pc86 11y ago
I mean you can throw your hands up and say "No" all you want while quoting different documents (as others have pointed out, BOR v. Constitution) but it doesn't change the fact that that's what it is.

hga 11y ago

You're conflating the Constitution created by the Federalists, which defined the latter two items, and the different document known as the Bill of Rights which was the price of the Anti-Federalists to accept to that Constitution. And the very same Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights also defined the militia in law, and basically that same definition holds to this day in 10 U.S. Code § 311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311, modulo modern interpretation that holds "men" equals men and women, folding in the National Guard, etc. Note also that the Founders were hardly of a single mind on the subject, with, say, Jefferson being the most noted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (see e.g. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation) http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_l... ), but he had plenty of company. We've always had seriously ornery factions in the nation....

EdHominem 11y ago

A Militia is armed people. Because Militias were a good thing for the people, a right to bear arms shall not be abolished. But anyways, the reasoning is just reasoning. The right is pretty clearly spelled out and stands on its own.

krapp 11y ago
A Militia is not necessarily "any group of people with guns and a grudge against the government."
- EdHominem 11y ago
  No, but it is at least that. (People with guns.) It certainly isn't conscripts, or people being loaned weapons to defend someone else's holdings - it's free people defending themselves with their own tools.
  - jonathankoren 11y ago
    Militias were instruments of the state, and they are never DIY volunteer organizations. These were conscripted government funded, organized, and partially armed organizations. Who had canons? The state. Who had funded the militia? The state. Who headed the militia? The state governor. Who declared that all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia?[0][1] The state. Who declared that all men needed to purchase a weapon?[1] The state. The main point that differed a "militia" from an "army" was that it was a part time affair, and not a standing army. The threat antifederalists cared about was a standing federal army imposing its will on the state government. It was never about random dudes getting upset at the government. Although there was plenty of that too. (The Whiskey and Shay's rebellions come to mind.) It's just that the founding fathers would send the militia in to arrest them. To romanticize the colonial and early state militias as rugged individualists ready to stand up to The Man is simply ahistorical. [0] http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Mil... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
    - hga 11y ago
      Who had canons? The state. Now that I know is not true, there were (wealthy) private individuals owned canons. Heck, that the Congress has the power to "To ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" acknowledges that private entities had armed ships. Partly armed is correct, and a screwup there helped ensure that Washington, D.C. got burned in 1814 (too much bureaucracy in issuing flints etc.). But it's also the case that, as you note, "all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia", and as is still the law, all who are 17-44 years of age are members of it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 (and in modern legal interpretation, men is generally read as men and women). But these quibbles aside, your general thrust is correct. So much so, per Galvin's The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution http://www.amazon.com/The-Minute-Men-Realities-Revolution/dp/1597970700 http://www.amazon.com/The-Minute-Men-Realities-Revolution/dp... the British in Massachusetts were completely outclassed in war fighting experience, they'd put garrison troops there, and many of our men had gained experience in what we call the French and Indian War.

pc86 11y ago

I mean you can throw your hands up and say "No" all you want while quoting different documents (as others have pointed out, BOR v. Constitution) but it doesn't change the fact that that's what it is.