1. Season 6 of the International Shoop League is now active! Click here to vote on your favorite shoop submissions!

2nd Amendment: The Militia Issue - A Discussion

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Teppodama, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Teppodama

    Teppodama Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    7,522
    Likes Received:
    11,447
    Location:
    Online
    Let's hash out the whole "militia" issue of the 2nd amendment and any subsequent amendments that may have baring on it.

    The Second Amendment -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Ok, what exactly is a militia? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
    Relevant Acts or Amendments regarding Militias

    1. Militia Acts of 1792 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

    So, what was a militia prior to this official "organized" militia called for in this act? Likely a combination of the first three entries of the Militia section above...


    Here's the interesting part, prior to this act a militia simply consisted of local men of particular town, city, state that volunteered to defend it in times of need. They had no obligation to leave their areas as part of that mutually agreed upon responsibility which basically meant the government could not call out any available militia from Indiana and order them to Ohio, well they could...but the militia didn't have to listen. Not having the ability to call for reinforcements, nor having much a standing army, the government passed the militia act of 1792. Now Washington could tell those armed Indiana citizens to get their asses to Ohio.

    Ah, but what if the armed Indiana citizens simply decided "nope, I don't agree to be part of the militia"? Well......
    2. Second Militia Act of 1792

    Oh, so those Indiana militia boys decided they don't want to be militia if that means they may have to go to Ohio, screw Ohio. Well, guess what? Now this act says EVERY white male between 18 and 45 is a militia member in waiting of their respective States and not only that but you have to be able to provide a firearm and specific amount of ammunition at a moments notice should Papa Washington call. Oh, and congressmen were exempt. ;)

    3. Militia Act of 1862 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862

    So basically "Hey Shaka, sorry about the chains but you want to shoot some dudes in gray? Maybe dig a ditch or two? Well, mostly dig a ditch or two?".

    4. Militia Act of 1903 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

    So basically provides the new official federal name for a States militia, under what circumstances they could be used by the Federal government and also provided funds for arms and equipment rather than requiring the individual to kit themselves out. In return they have to meet the same requirements of training, education and availability as regular soldiers.

    Ah, but nothing is every perfect and the issue of State vs Federal right to militia support was a problem. After all, Ohio might need help from those Indiana life takers and heart breakers but....Indiana might need them as well and at the same time. So, the Militia Act of 1903 or as it's affectionately known... The Dick Act after Charles Dick, Congressman (later Senator) from Ohio and Chairman of the House Militia Affairs Committee, who also served as President of the National Guard Association of the United States.[14] Dick was a veteran of the Spanish–American War and a longtime National Guard member who attained the rank of Major General as commander of the Ohio National Guard.

    Here's the really good part that hopefully pays off for the patience...What most specifically did it do?

    This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.


    Notice one super important fact here? It mentions nothing further about Unorganized Militia. Not having detailed further items about their comportment that means that ALL males between the age of 17 and 45 having not volunteered/signed up/trained and equipped specifically for the Organized militia are by default considered potential Unorganized Militia. Oh, and nothing about this act says the firearm requirement for militia is rescinded for unorganized militia. It just means the government doesn't have to provide you the firearms or ammunition to fight. You have to be able to provide that yourself unless the government decides to give you something because your grandpa's muzzle loading rifle, pump action 12 gauge or 38 revolver simply ain't cutting it.

    To be Cont.
     
    TSO, lilelvis, xcvbn and 1 other person like this.
  2. Teppodama

    Teppodama Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    7,522
    Likes Received:
    11,447
    Location:
    Online
    5. National Defense Act of 1916 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Act_of_1916

    More regulation of the Organized Militia, but nothing about that pesky Unorganized Militia. Specifically, nothing saying it's provisions are no longer valid.

    6. National Defense Act of 1920 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Act_of_1920

    More regulation of the Organized Militia, once again nothing about the Unorganized...maybe they forgot about the rest of us and the arsenal we're still technically legally required to maintain...

    7.
    Selective Training and Service Act of 1940
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Training_and_Service_Act_of_1940

    Ok, now we're back to rest of us able-bodied "unorganized" militia in waiting. So what does this do? Conscription...Selective Service...The Draft.

    <bball1>

    Conscription - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States. Interesting read, I recommend it.

    Yep, the Draft. But, if the Unorganized Militia portion of the Militia Act of 1903, or the Dick Act, wasn't rescinded, why would new legislation be needed? Oh yeah... foreign wars. See, prior to this, an Unorganized Militia could only ever be considered a domestic armed force for use within the borders of the United States, and to a degree it also shielded the Organized Militia, or National Guard.

    But hey, you could still bitch about it and try not to play ball...

    So, now that we have that sorted out where are we headed....Oh yeah, WWII. We're coming for ya Soros, er I mean Hitler...

    <20>

    Oh yeah, more important stuff....

    From 1940 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the United States Armed Forces that could not be filled through voluntary means.

    The draft came to an end when the United States Armed Forces moved to an all-volunteer military force. However, the Selective Service System remains in place as a contingency plan; all male civilians between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register so that a draft can be readily resumed if needed.[2] United States Federal Law also provides for the compulsory conscription of men between the ages of 17 and 45 and certain women for militia service pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
    lilelvis, xcvbn and Cubo de Sangre like this.
  3. Teppodama

    Teppodama Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    7,522
    Likes Received:
    11,447
    Location:
    Online
    So, I think my coverage of Militias in particular and what we have on the books regarding and more specifically unorganized militias is pretty much complete unless someone knows some obscure act or amendment that I may have overlooked and unless I'm mistaken the 1903 act wasn't repelled only expanded regarding the organized militia nor was the requirements necessary to fulfill that duty.

    So, if you're a male and 18 to 45 you are technically considered unorganized militia so better go get that rifle and ammunition cause Uncle Sam may need you one day. Now if you want we can go on to discuss the Supreme Courts various interpretations of the 2nd, how it's evolved and where it's at now. All of which is relevant to the current ongoing argument.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
    skaleton, lilelvis and Cubo de Sangre like this.
  4. Teppodama

    Teppodama Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    7,522
    Likes Received:
    11,447
    Location:
    Online
    Finally reserved (Hopefully)
     
    lilelvis likes this.
  5. LogicalInsanity

    LogicalInsanity Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    25,618
    Likes Received:
    17,242
  6. Trotsky

    Trotsky Silver Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    13,971
    Likes Received:
    33,494
    The Dick Act = LOL

    Anyways, anything that can be comported directly to the militia argument should be taken with a grain of salt in modern constitutional interpretation.

    I am swayed by the "protection against tyranny argument," albeit only on the basis that it afford a collective interest to an individual right. The idea that the federal government still needs to be able to conscript not only the persons, but the arms, of private citizens is hilariously outdated, and it does not sway me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
    Higus and IGIT like this.
  7. BrotherClaudio

    BrotherClaudio Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    2,005
    Location:
    503G
    The boys in Michigan go full on, training MMA and weapons drills, constantly drilling close quarters armed combat. I'd say they may be better trained than today's new recruits and this generation of pussies behind them
     
  8. WorldofWarcraft

    WorldofWarcraft Holy Paladin Banned

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    20,176
    Likes Received:
    9,365
    Location:
    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  9. MadSquabbles500

    MadSquabbles500 Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    26,625
    Likes Received:
    11,139
    Location:
    New Jersey now Queens
    I want ask, who can form a militia? Does it have to be the national guard, or sanctioned by state or local municipality? Can a group of brosephs just declare themselves a militia with the good intentions of defending themselves, and the locality? If is later, than I guess we can all just form a militia, and we can have guns. Sounds sweet to me.

    By the way is there a minimum or maximum to this militia? If no, then I just be a one man militia.
     
  10. Cubo de Sangre

    Cubo de Sangre Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    35,007
    Likes Received:
    35,065
    Location:
    Hell
    But, but,...muh "well-regulated".
     
    GearSolidMetal likes this.
  11. Fawlty

    Fawlty Legitimate Vice President of the WR

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    26,728
    Likes Received:
    51,418
    Location:
    The CK Creamery
    I have never understood why people think it was anything less than completely obvious that the right shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
     
  12. HunterSdVa29

    HunterSdVa29 Respect, tho Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    30,383
    Likes Received:
    24,894
    Location:
    29 Palms (from San Diego)
    if 'militia' meant what people today try to make it out to be, the words 'well regulated' wouldn't have been a part of that sentence
    that being said I still don't know how abortion (which i'm for) falls under the Right to Privacy, so not like i'm some Constitutional expert
     
    S-dot likes this.
  13. IGIT

    IGIT Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,562
    Likes Received:
    2,495
    hi there MadSquabbles500,

    i think anyone can form a militia.

    the main thing you need are the right costumes, plus i think you need camping gear and a copy of the constitution. an Emersonian love for the great outdoors seems to help too - i never see these militias practicing in lower Manhattan or downtown Atlanta, you know?

    [​IMG]

    it looks like fun.

    sort of like Outward Bound, except for psychopaths with too much time on their hands.

    - IGIT
     
  14. Trotsky

    Trotsky Silver Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    13,971
    Likes Received:
    33,494
    This is a really poor analysis. The guy who made this was wholly incompetent as a close reader, apparently, as he doesn't even mention the pressing constitutional issue in the controversy of collective versus individual right: the definition of "people," which is itself a collective term, not an individual term (such as "persons" or "citizens" or "individuals").

    Also, "declaratory" and "restrictive" do NOT mean "Supreme Law" and "Not repealable," nor do they individually or in combination yield the inference of "God-given rights" (the law was affirmatively secular). The meaning of "declaratory" and "restrictive" is to (i) restate and (ii) clarify against false interpretation the aforesaid clauses.


    What a mess. Kind of unsurprising that this was devised by (what I found through Google to be) a high school English teacher. I mean, I personally would prefer an individual-rights construction, and I certainly think that an individual rights construction is just as valid as a collective rights construction, but the guy who made this suuuuucks at his job.
     
  15. Teppodama

    Teppodama Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    7,522
    Likes Received:
    11,447
    Location:
    Online
    Or take the responsibility of potentially being a militia, whether unorganized or organized. Or potentially being a draftee into a formal military unit should the unthinkable ever occur. You may say it simply won't occur but I'm sure men in the civil war though the same, WW2 thought the same, Vietnam thought the same, etc..
     
  16. IGIT

    IGIT Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,562
    Likes Received:
    2,495
    hiya there oh mighty Teppodama,

    i take the responsibility of being a draftee when the Russians are marching towards Anchorage, for sure.

    if the military wants one very stoned photographer, i'm up for an adventure.

    Teppodama, i thought the point of a militia was to have an armed force of outdoorsmen ready to shoot their fellow Americans when and if the congress passes laws to increase gun control measures.

    [​IMG]

    these guys look hardcore and scary and super patriotic. i like the hockey mask, or facepaint, or whatever it is that guy on the right has going on.

    - IGIT
     
  17. Cubo de Sangre

    Cubo de Sangre Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    35,007
    Likes Received:
    35,065
    Location:
    Hell
    That's because SCOTUS made it up. Legislating from the bench is what I think that's called. Would love to be proven wrong here. Unfortunately though I've yet to see this (supposed) right to privacy applied to anything but abortion. Crazy it allows one to kill a fetus but not smoke a plant.
     
  18. ultramanhyata

    ultramanhyata Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,101
    Likes Received:
    16,387
    Location:
    GPS Error
    [​IMG]
     
    RockstarChris, Gref, uncommon and 2 others like this.
  19. Limbo Pete

    Limbo Pete Hot Ham Water

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    18,602
    Likes Received:
    34,035
    There's extremely important historical context to the second amendment that, in my experience, only gets applied infrequently and with prejudice due to (i'm assuming) a desire to lock the amendment into a rhetorical vacuum free from anything but a selectively literal interpretation.
    "...Shays rebellion, etc .... " he whispered into the wind
     
  20. Teppodama

    Teppodama Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    7,522
    Likes Received:
    11,447
    Location:
    Online
    It's for the defense of person, property, community, State, country and the rights provided us by our constitution and it's various amendments and bills. It's specific in what should not, can not and will not be altered or infringed of what it considers the most important of basic rights. It provides recourse for addressing issues through the rule of law and provides for the ownership of the tools necessary to ensure it stays that way.

    You can make as many snarky remarks as you want, but the possible future it was written for then is the same possible future we defend it for now.

    So go ahead, make me laugh with another joke.
     
    lilelvis likes this.

Share This Page