Monday, February 7, 2011

Legislating Armed Paramilitary Militias in Montana


A Montana lawmaker is proposing the creation of an "armed paramilitary group" or "Home Guard" to "fill the gap between community service organizations, such as a neighborhood watch program and the Montana national guard, and to provide the state and its local communities with the ability to call upon trained and organized volunteers when necessary resources are otherwise unavailable."  The bill would allow the "home guard" organizations "to be formed in companies each with their own uniforms, flags and identities. Its language also would allow them to form into 'infantry companies.'"  Initially, the bill had called these groups "organized militias" before changing the term to "national guard."

That's right, this person suggests legalizing armed militias of volunteers to help regulate Montana citizens, particularly during emergencies. 

When I think of modern militias, I think of radical, pro-gun extremists who rail against anything having to do with the government and taxes, think the country is a dictatorship, and play soldier in the woods, preparing themselves for the far-fetched scenario of a collapse of our government or equally far-fetched take-over of local homes by a federal government that suddenly converts to communism.  I think of Tim McVeigh and the Nichols brothers in the Michigan Militia and the subsequent bombing in Oklahoma.  I think of Bradley Glover and his militia extremists planning an attack on Fort Hood in 1997.  Some of these extremist militias actively call for armed resistance against our government, including the occasional commenter to this blog.  At mention of official recognition by those in power, I think of truckloads of armed extremists driving through the streets of dusty third-world countries.  Most militia members aren't criminals, but they can at best be described as paranoid, and at worst one step away from domestic terrorists.

All too often I hear pro-gun extremists lament the loss of a formally-recognized militia, just like we had back during the Revolutionary War.  But there's a good reason why we don't have those anymore.  Even during the Revolution, George Washington, though praising the militias in public for the sake of morale, made his true sentiments clear to Congress about the weakness of having state militias:  "To place any dependence upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.  Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill ... makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... [I]f I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter."  (source: The Writings of George Washington 110, 112, J. Fitzpatrick, ed., 1931-44).

Nonetheless, state militias were retained, though under Federal control after the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, in order to assuage state governments wary of the abuses of federal armies in Europe for a hundred years.  But by the close of the 18th century they were obsolete.  As described by Robert J. Spitzer in his book, The Politics of Gun Control (esp. pages 27-29), state militias suffered poor organization, training, and funding, little government oversight, and abandonment issues.  Their poor performance almost lost the War of 1812 for us.  They lingered for another century in many states, in various degree of shamble.  Finally, in 1916, Congress passed the National Defense Act creating the National Guard, which would prove to be far better trained, funded, and organized, and which is still used for local and state emergencies.

Back to the bill:  Let's see... "fill the gap between community service organizations ... and the Montana national guard."  Oh, you mean, like local law enforcement?  But unlike our law enforcement professionals, these "infantry companies" of volunteers would not be accountable to the community they monitor, but rather to a company captain, who would report to the governor or sheriff.  It is the company captain, a volunteer, who would recruit volunteers and maintain training.  No room for error or favoritism there!

The Montana house panel "didn't vote on the measure, although some on the committee raised concerns that the armed residents could subvert the chain of command.  The measure drew opposition from the Montana Human Rights Network's Jamee Greer, who said the proposed bill could be abused by anti-government extremists because it didn't provide for enough oversight of the paramilitary groups."  (source)

You don't say!  Little oversight.  Their own identity.  Armed volunteers.  Hmm.  I would be alarmed too.  The last thing I want during an emergency is armed local yokels roaming around thinking they can take the law into their own hands!

Hey, here's a radical idea!  Let's instead fund our law enforcement and National Guard units better, and have trained professionals ready and on-hand when disaster strikes.

If you're in Montana, I highly recommend you urge your state congressman to fight this.  Chalk another one up to the list of absurd pro-gun legislation.


Update (2/9/11): existing laws (mainly against) paramilitary groups:  
http://libertyfight.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/laws_regarding_private_militias/

45 comments:

  1. @Baldr,

    You wrote:
    "When I think of modern militias, I think of..."

    I see you've been watching too much television. Unfortunately, the word "Militia" has been linked with nothing but negative in the news and the rest of the media, when it's obvious you know very little about what organized militia groups actually are.

    Baldr also said: "The last thing I want during an emergency is armed local yokels roaming around thinking they can take the law into their own hands!"

    Who said they were going to be doing that? Or "regulating" Montana citizens? I'm not finding any of that within the language of the bill, so why are you saying that?

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  2. The scariest thing about this kind of law is that it will likely spread to a state near you. This is what the extreme "gun guys" want. They think that every male over the age of 18 is an automatic member of the "militia" and that gives them their reason for amassing their personal armories. They may be needed to save us all or to uprise against our duly elected democratic government ( small d here). They are living in a 1776 world and see everything as black or white. I urge people to take this seriously for what it really is. We have people looking for an excuse to use their guns in the name of "liberty and freedom" They are not to be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "When I think of modern militias, I think of radical, pro-gun extremists who rail against anything having to do with the government and taxes, think the country is a dictatorship, and play soldier in the woods, preparing themselves for the far-fetched scenario of a collapse of our government or equally far-fetched take-over of local homes by a federal government that suddenly converts to communism."

    That's not what you should be thinking. Think, rather, of the bands of ordinary folks defending their neighborhoods in Egypt. Think of the groups who get together after a natural disaster to help out friends and neighbors.

    "Let's instead fund our law enforcement and National Guard units better, "

    A nice idea, but where does the money come from?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Heather, since you brought up Egypt, I might point out that the people of Egypt and Tunisia overthrew their repressive governments without the need for militias or widespread gun ownership. All they needed was passion, peaceful protest, and a sense of cohesiveness (combined with Facebook and Twitter accounts, it seems).

    Where does the money come from for better law enforcement and National Guard? From you, of course. From paying your taxes, Heather, and from supporting bond measures that come up during elections. The government isn't out to get us, as many militias believe. It's there to give us necessary services, including security and emergency response, in return for our support.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Baldr: Why should the government fund (at taxpayer expense) what citizens are willing to do themselves?

    I would be very happy to see all national guard units either replaced by, or augmented by, well-regulated (the original meaning, not the "progressive" definition), organized and trained volunteer citizen militias.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Orygunner, what exactly do you argue armed militias are for? Certainly not for distributing Girl Scout cookies. A very quick visit to the homepages of these militias is enough to show that what I say is true about them being extremist, anti-government types ready for armed resistance and playing soldier in the woods. For instance, I found these in merely minutes:

    Example militia homepage:
    http://freerangepatriots.ning.com/

    Example militia "training" vids:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWX7SdUMBHk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNdSqUMaXc4&feature=related

    Example pro-militia blog:
    http://arcticpatriot.blogspot.com/

    And the bill specifically provides for armament and training to these volunteers. How, exactly, do you think they'll use those armaments if not to act as policemen, regulating civilians? If they were there only to provide logistical support or hands-on volunteerism (such as filling sandbags in floods, medical help, or feeding the hungry), there are already plenty of other organizations for those purposes. For instance, the CERT (Civilian Emergency Response Team) program (http://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/) which is already a widespread and well-funded program for civilian volunteers to help in emergencies.

    As to your last response, asking why the government should pay for National Guard when volunteers could do the work, I say "baloney." The reason why National Guard costs money is because of the necessary training, equipping, and certifying that happens to insure that they meet the need when called upon. An absolute necessity, in my mind, without which they, or militias called to do the same duty, would be too disorganized or ill-prepared.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Baldr, so you're basing your entire view of militias off of the few such groups that have web pages?

    And actually... On reviewing them, what exactly is wrong with either the videos or the web pages you linked to? I don't have an anti-liberty and anti-gun mindset which I guess must be needed to see the problem.

    I tend to view things without bias, or if any, with a bias towards freedom and individual liberty and less government involvement in our lives.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Those examples you mention are no more militias, at least as have historically existed in this country, than 12 people getting together, calling themselves a jury, and having mock trials, which is probably the closest analogy to the modern militia movement.

    What Montana is proposing is more akin to the Swiss model than to the modern militia movement. To me the main reason to object to this is that it's an unnecessary waste of money. I'm not opposed to the concept generally. In fact, I can see value in taking people who might otherwise seek joining unorganized "militias" and actually give them something to join that's subordinate to civil authorities, and operates under the law.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nothing like being paranoid and fearful....lol...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Orygunner, I'd say you are very much biased. As am I, though my bias is toward liberating us from the shackles of violence and fear that abuse of guns bring to our society. That's not "anti-liberty," it's a respect for the common welfare of our people. And, unlike you, I don't see our government as a "boogeyman" out to get our freedoms, but rather to protect us and our best interests as a society. I believe I am by far more in the mainstream, in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow. What color is the sky in the world you live in?

    For nearly four hundred years the American Citizen has done just this. They still do. Post Hurricane Charley, armed citizens assisted in securing damaged areas and providing order until the local authorities were able to do this on their own.

    Likewise after the Northridge earthquake and the last San Francisco quake. Post Katrina, there were many places in Mississippi where local Citizens kept order for weeks because the local police presence was simply gone.

    Maintaining a belief that the police will always be there to take care of you is naive. In places in Montana there might only be one LEO every Three or four hundred square miles. Suggesting that in times of calamity that having a pre planned and trained body to help is not wise is simply wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Baldr: my bias is toward liberating us from the shackles of violence and fear that abuse of guns bring to our society. That's not "anti-liberty," it's a respect for the common welfare of our people.

    I suspect that the Bush administration thought the same way about wiretaps and denial of Habeas Corpus liberating us from the threat of terrorism.

    Baldr: And, unlike you, I don't see our government as a "boogeyman" out to get our freedoms, but rather to protect us and our best interests as a society.

    I don't see our government as a "boogeyman," but it's interesting how so much of our Bill of Rights is about limiting what our government is allowed to do "to protect us and our best interests as a society."

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Where does the money come from for better law enforcement and National Guard? From you, of course. From paying your taxes, Heather, and from supporting bond measures that come up during elections."

    Precisely the point I was making. Lots of states are strapped for money, even with increasing taxes. There is a limit to how much tax people can pay.

    "Heather, since you brought up Egypt, I might point out that the people of Egypt and Tunisia overthrew their repressive governments without the need for militias or widespread gun ownership."

    So why do you have a panic attack when you hear the word militia? Again, the whole point I was making is militia doesn't mean "go out and shoot people."

    ReplyDelete
  14. @P: It is the job of law enforcement and national guard to provide security during calamities, not armed citizens. The lack of law enforcement and national guard during those times only points to an increased need for better funding and recruitment of them, NOT for legitimizing armed militias.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ Heather: Regarding the last part of your comment, my point is that you don't need an armed militia to bring about change in government, even with dictators. You don't even need an unarmed militia. You just need enough people banning together for a common purpose, without the threat of firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, if you feel there is not enough funding of national guard and FEMA you are most welcome to donate more to the Federal treasury.

    The guard is made up of your neighbors. When a major disaster strikes, it can take days to mobilize them. Even then, if it's a big enough disaster, they may not be able to muster. In Mississippi, they lost whole outfits worth of equipment, roads were impassible and frankly many were more involved in saving their families than heeding a call up. In California after the quakes, quite a few places were un reachable for days because the bridges were shut downnor just gone.

    Now let's look at a really big event. Let's say just for argument say that islamoterrorist nuke a city. Call it Seattle. Prevailing winds drop fallout all the way to the Dakotas. Do you really think there are enough guardsmen to step up? Do really think that's possible?

    How about the really big earthquake and St Helens and Shasta blow twice as hard as last time? And a tsunami floods seattle under a sixty foot wall of water. Ask your local geologist if you think this a fairy tale. Do you really think there will be enough cops and guardsmen not trying to save their wives and kids that they will be able to keep order in your neighborhood?

    I am not saying TEOTWAWKI is around the corner and if you don't have sixty months of food, water, and charmin stored away you're toast, But taking a few moments to at least ask "what if?" is not out of line.

    America has always stepped up, it goes back to the nature of a pioneer settled land, and it is cherished in our history.

    However dismissing the concept is unwise and unsettlingly selfish.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @P: Nuclear attack? Super tsunami? Supermassive volcanoes? Really, "P", it's alarmist nonsense like that which shows how extreme militia sympathizers like yourself really are, and how you spread that particular brand of paranoia.

    I agree that America has always stepped up, but it's not by arming bands of militia. We've seen again and again, from New Yorkers in 9/11 to the Oakland earthquakes, how citizens band together and help each other in time of need, without the need for armed militias to help maintain control.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Clearly you ignore history.


    I chose "mega-events" as a worst case scenario to show that an extended breakdown in Government ability was possible. I also said I was suggesting that looking at such a disaster was worth contemplating but not obsessing over.

    Such disasters have occurred. Katrina, Camille, Andrew, earthquakes, tsunamis, even TMI or Chernobyl. Ignoring history has doomed many. In my business we have disaster recovery plans (of the business sense, fire, data loss or corruption, etc). This is considered prudent business practices. I have backed up data off site. I have insurance reviews. I have key people insured and key pieces of equipment insured.

    From a State Government position that is all this bill is. It's disaster insurance. Consider it Homeowners Insurance for the State.

    If you wait till the Christmas tree catches fire and burns your house down to go looking for insurance, you're going to be in for a rude awakening.

    Do I agree with it all? Not sure, uniforms and rank seems like an issue waiting to happen. Do I think opening a discussion on the topic is bad? Not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh and by the way, after the Oakland earthquakes who do you think kept looters and thieves at bay in many neighborhoods.? It wasn't the Cops.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here is a brief summary of the Oakland hills fire in 1991. Area wise it was fairly small. Under three square miles, 1500 acres. Yet it nearly paralyzed a city. 25 dead, thousands displaced hundreds sent to hospital. 1.5 billion dollars in damage and yet Everyone involved said they were in someway lucky. Be aide after only one day, the wind died down, usually it blows all month.

    Sure it's one event. But think what might have been. Then say planning for contingencies is stupid.

    http://www.csulb.edu/~djeffrey/hazards/human_impact.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Baldr, So P's scenarios which ARE possible are "alarmist nonsense" or "paranoia," while of course YOUR alarmist nonsense against "assault weapons" and standard capacity or larger magazines, and your paranoia about militias and other lawful gun owners is completely reasonable.

    Pot, you're trying to call the kettle black, when the facts prove him to be stainless steel.

    Your earlier statement:
    " It is the job of law enforcement and national guard to provide security during calamities, not armed citizens. "

    It may be their job if they are so assigned, but it's not exclusive to them. In fact the police have no legal duty to protect ANY individual, and I don't know for sure, but I would expect the same applies to the National Guard. The primary responsibility to protect you falls on YOU. You haven't provided any evidence why armed, organized Militia would be a bad thing, except your own anti-gun bias and paranoia of armed citizen soldiers.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  22. "You just need enough people banning together for a common purpose,"

    Still a militia. Unorganized militia, right there.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, P, I get the idea, and I'm not ignoring history. Doubtless there were a few cases of people protecting their property, and maybe even some crime. But in none of those catastrophes was it necessary for bands of armed militia to contain the situation. Nor will it be in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Heather, you are defining any group of helpful people as a "militia" or "unorganized militia"? Really? And saying it's comparable to an armed paramilitary militia unit? NOT the same thing by any stretch of definition!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Orygunner, it's not unreasonable to doubt the effectivity of a paramilitary militia. When you have a group of police or National Guard guarding the streets, it's called standard procedure, and they are well-trained for that response.

    When you have a group of gun-owners loosely organized and unaccountable to nearly anyone and guarding the streets, it's more typically called a posse, and is on the verge of vigilantism. During the chaos of emergencies, there is MORE need for accountability, not less.

    And though you doubt the intent of police and National Guard to do what is best for citizens, I can say with good authority that it is the topmost priority of most policemen.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Baldr,

    You assume that a milita group could not be well-trained?

    You assume such a group would be loosely organized?

    You assume that they would be unaccountable?

    You smear the idea by comparing them to a posse or a group of vigilantes?

    You're basing your arguments on guesswork and sloppy assumptions of something you have no personal experience with and know only what you've seen on the news.

    *I* have had no direct experience with any militia either, but I'm not assuming anything about them, except that most people are GOOD people and will do the right thing. I believe we ALL are accountable for our own actions if we don't.

    I don't doubt the intent of the police and the national guard, although their actions seizing firearms from New Orleans residents during Katrina was the biggest, most blatant violation of rights I've seen didn't put any good marks in their favor. I also would agree that doing what's best is the priority of most policemen, but it's their duty because of their job and their oath, it is not a LEGAL duty. If they fail to do what's right, they might get reprimanded or sometimes, rarely, actually fired. But if they fail to protect you, you've got no LEGAL recourse (according to multiple Supreme Court Decisions).

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  27. I make my assumptions based on what is, or isn't, mentioned in the bill, regarding training, organization, and accountability, Orygunner. And, yes, I am comparing them to a posse and group of vigilantes, if their goal is to be a police force replacement. There is certainly precedent for that, and history hasn't looked to kindly on those incidents. I'm certain those who were involved thought they were well-organized and trained, too, and thought of themselves as good people doing the right thing.

    This isn't "sloppy assumptions or guesswork" (now who's the one making smears!), Orygunner, it is historical comparison and what is known from what is released from the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Isn't it funny Baldr, you and other anti-rights advocates complain miss read the 2nd Amendment

    {{{Whiny voice}}}} What part of "well-regulated militia" don't you understand {{{/Whiny voice}}}}

    Yet when someone wants to form a 'well-regulated militia' you have a conniption.

    It's almost as if you don't want people to have firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That's very juvenile of you, Bob. Now get your head out of the 18th century and face today's real issues.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Baldr,

    What part of today's issues am I not facing?

    The Montana bill would create a militia like you claim the 2nd Amendment only protects.

    It would call for training and standards. Right?

    Texas has a state guard, similar to what is being considered in Montana but more formal - The Texas State Guard.

    Now, there are already militia groups all over the country.

    Does your area have neighborhood watches?
    Does your area have citizen patrols?

    Do you trust those people?


    The only difference I can see is the firearms.

    It appears you don't trust people once they are armed.

    It really appears as if you have a problem with the firearms.

    Tell me how I'm wrong

    ReplyDelete
  31. A major problem here: The U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16:

    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;

    For a militia to be truly constitutional, it must be organised in accordance with this provision.

    Even if states can have defence forces, the Federal Government has a standing army which is funded far better than anything the State of Montana could field.

    Of course, raising this topic is good since it puts paid to the Second Amendment applying to anything other than "well regulated", that is under civilian control, militias if Second Amendment history is properly addressed.

    Gun control does not violate the Second Amendment right, a large military being sent to Iraq DOES.

    See: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_16.html
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs9.html

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well regulated does not mean well trained in any sense of the word and is not borne out by primary sources.

    For Example, Adam Smith talks about the distinction between Militias and Armies:

    A militia, however, in whatever manner it may be either disciplined or exercised, must always be much inferior to a well-disciplined and well-exercised standing army. V.1.22

    This distinction being well understood, the history of all ages, it will be found, bears testimony to the irresistible superiority which a well-regulated standing army has over a militia.V.1.27

    Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I, Of the Expences of the Sovereign or Commonwealth, PART I--Of the Expence of Defence

    Any military force, whether amateur Militia or professional Army, should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    The issue in Anglo-US and Scottish History was standing armies coupled with the neglect of the civilian militia forces. There is far more historic evidence that this was what the Second Amendment was intended to address than private ownership of firearms.

    The concept that any armed band can call itself a militia is absurd.

    Aren't Mexican drug cartels "well-regulated militias" by that criteria?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bob, the problem isn't just fireams. Currently any group of people armed with conceal weapons permits are free to roam around during an emergency situation, as well as doing emergency support (like feeding the hungry or helping with sandbags, etc). The difference here is that the government would give permission for them to act as policemen and regulate citizens like policemen, including arrests and the threat of deadly force. It's the deadly force part that concerns me, and the lack of clear oversight and accountability for use of it, as we have with National Guard and police. Have I not already made that obvious?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you for spelling that out, Laci.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Laci:
    You wrote:
    "Well regulated does not mean well trained in any sense of the word and is not borne out by primary sources."

    What primary sources are those? Are you using a CURRENT dictionary, or are you going by the usage of the phrase "well-regulated" when the Constitution was written?

    Also, you do understand that the rest of the Bill of Rights is a LIMIT on the powers of government, right? If you understand that, are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY part of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights that limits the rights of individual people?


    As far as suggesting that drug cartels are "well-regulated militias," would YOU say that the drug cartels are functioning properly? I sure wouldn't.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Baldr,

    The difference here is that the government would give permission for them to act as policemen and regulate citizens like policemen, including arrests and the threat of deadly force

    Are you saying that right now or in a state of an emergency that the average person can not make a citizen's arrest?

    Yes or no, simple question.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Laci,

    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,

    Now I'm no Constitutional Scholar like our Dear Leader, er President but doesn't that mean the provision only kicks in IF and WHEN the militia are called into FEDERAL service?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Here in Michigan we have the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force. It's a state sanctioned para-military group under the command of a retired Army Colonel, whom reports to the governor. It is a completely voluntary organization made up of Michigan citizens that are assigned ranks and duties in a similar fashion as the military. The primary purpose of the MVDF is to assist in disaster relief, and to assist in the defense the state of Michigan if any domestic conflicts should occur.

    I'm not a member of the group, nor do I know anyone who is, but it's my understanding that the state is quite happy with the group, and the citizens don't seem to mind or feel threatened by them. Then again, Michigan is a very big militia state, with a reputation of having some of the largest and most well organized militia groups in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "But in none of those catastrophes was it necessary for bands of armed militia to contain the situation. Nor will it be in the future. "

    Baldr,

    If you or one of your affiliated organizations is willing to guarantee or insure my life, that of my family and all our property, I will give away my firearms tomorrow and promise to never engage in any armed organized group. I'll even quit the neighborhood watch - if you'll ensure against the next volcanic eruption or equivalent "mega event".

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mechredd, thanks for that. I'm curious about it. Are you a member of that? Do you have any specifics on their duties, equipment, or training? Are they charged with the ability to make arrests? Are they required to be armed, and do they supply their own armaments? Link?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ory-Primary sources--Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations Prior to the US War for Independence.

    Again, I reiterate my comment if a body is not organised according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, it ain't a Constitutional militia.

    Sorry.

    Otherwise, As I pointed out, Mexican Drug Cartels and The Taliban qualify for Second Amendment protection as militias.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Laci,

    Instead of using your version of papal infallibility as proof of your argument, how about explaining things.

    The federal government didn't originally pay for the militia's arms, did they?

    The federal government didn't original standardize ranks, tables of organization and equipment did they?



    Baldr,

    Still waiting on an answer to a simple question:

    Does the average citizen have the power to make a citizen's arrest -- in normal times and in times of emergency?

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Laci,

    Are you operating under the incorrect assumption that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to Militias?

    Again, where in the Constitution does ANYTHING limit the exercise of rights by the people? Are you claiming that the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY place in the entire Constitution that limits any of our rights?

    And as far as Adam Smith, I don't see anywhere that he defined what "well-regulated" meant. Do you see it?

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Why doi I need to explain any further: Even in 18th Century terms, it's fairly clear.

    the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    If you are at all familiar with English, American, and Scottish History, then you are aware that this was a theme in the 17th and 18th Century.

    Thus, when Adam Smith uses the term Well-regulated" one can take from the context, both textual and historic, that he means under civilian control.

    As for the Second Amendment applyiing only to the Artile I, Section 8, Clause 16 militia--There are contemporary versions of the text which mention private uses of firearms, yet the Second Amendment does not. There is a legal maxim Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In other words or concepts not specifially mentioned in legislation cannot be inferred.

    Anyway, are you denying that these are actual quotes and concepts?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Baldr,
    I'm not a member of the MiVDF, and honestly, I don't know much about them.
    They have a website if you'd like to know more about them.
    www.mivdf.org

    ReplyDelete