4 ms·

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 pe

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.
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    If the Militia is strictly governmental - the reserves essentially - why would it warrant a constitutional amendment allowing the soldiers to keep guns at home? How would a governmental Militia (ie British) have proven useful to the Americans and warranted this specific clarification? I'm not an American, but it seems pretty clear that the people on the ground at the time meant "because we won our freedom from tyranny by being able to call up an army of the people, and may need to do so again, everyone shall be able to keep arms handy".
    - hga 11y ago
      Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies (we didn't really have much of one until the Cold War) and "select militias", which were groups of armed men selected by some criteria (like being a loyal Tory) instead of "everyone" answering the call up. Some of the Founders wanted us to depend entirely on a militia system, but others, including the supremely important George Washington, commander in chief during the Revolutionary War, said no way, Regulars are required for serious wars. And his and the other experienced commanders opinions could not be denied, so the dependent clause, very unusual in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, was a sop thrown to the pro-militia only group.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. This line implies you think it is not a dependent clause but later you say it is...? Also, what is the impact you're implying? But anyways, the only actionable piece of the 2nd is "the right shall not be infringed". > And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies [...] Rightly so. But the original reasoning behind the laws aren't the laws. For better or worse. It's been acknowledged that people have this right (to keep and bear arms) and you cannot take rights away. For instance, we can't reinstate slavery, even with another amendment. It's not like the 13th amendment made it illegal; the amendment forced the government to acknowledge that it does not have that power and cannot enact slavery - those orders would be illegal. A vote to repeal the 13th would be unconstitutional in its very nature because it recognizes a right. Unlike repealing the 18th establishing prohibition, for example.

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.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  If the Militia is strictly governmental - the reserves essentially - why would it warrant a constitutional amendment allowing the soldiers to keep guns at home? How would a governmental Militia (ie British) have proven useful to the Americans and warranted this specific clarification? I'm not an American, but it seems pretty clear that the people on the ground at the time meant "because we won our freedom from tyranny by being able to call up an army of the people, and may need to do so again, everyone shall be able to keep arms handy".
  - hga 11y ago
    Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies (we didn't really have much of one until the Cold War) and "select militias", which were groups of armed men selected by some criteria (like being a loyal Tory) instead of "everyone" answering the call up. Some of the Founders wanted us to depend entirely on a militia system, but others, including the supremely important George Washington, commander in chief during the Revolutionary War, said no way, Regulars are required for serious wars. And his and the other experienced commanders opinions could not be denied, so the dependent clause, very unusual in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, was a sop thrown to the pro-militia only group.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. This line implies you think it is not a dependent clause but later you say it is...? Also, what is the impact you're implying? But anyways, the only actionable piece of the 2nd is "the right shall not be infringed". > And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies [...] Rightly so. But the original reasoning behind the laws aren't the laws. For better or worse. It's been acknowledged that people have this right (to keep and bear arms) and you cannot take rights away. For instance, we can't reinstate slavery, even with another amendment. It's not like the 13th amendment made it illegal; the amendment forced the government to acknowledge that it does not have that power and cannot enact slavery - those orders would be illegal. A vote to repeal the 13th would be unconstitutional in its very nature because it recognizes a right. Unlike repealing the 18th establishing prohibition, for example.