Monday Musings Thread
2A with AR
The second amendment was intended for the militia, a.k.a. the National Guard! This is a common response by those arguing for additional gun control.
I came across an argument like this on another platform. The anti-gun debater insisted that the Second Amendment was intended for the militia… The National Guard. Then, I “provided some trivia”.
Many people point to the National Guard when they see the “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment. Both federal and state militia laws identify the National Guard as the “organized militia”.
It’s the “unorganized militia” that many are not aware of. As a result, certain groups of people don’t know that they are actually in a militia… Or that the second amendment, as stated, protects the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms regardless of affiliation with the National Guard.
From 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are–
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Using this statute alone, this appears to identify all able-bodied males from 17 through 44 as either being in the organized (National Guard) or the unorganized militia. if you’re a male, if you are able-bodied, if you are not in the National Guard, and your age ranges from 17 to 44, then you generally are a member of the unorganized militia of the United States.
Now, 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia duty: exemptions, specify those who are exempted from militia duty. for example, military on active duty is one of those exemptions.
The individual states, and territories, also have their version of the militia law. For example, here is one Virginia statute related to Virginia’s militia:
§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.
Like its federal counterpart, it lists exemptions. Many people in Virginia, who fit this description, are not aware of this state level militia law.
For example, someone might state that they never served in the military. Depending on the situation, and mood, I’d ask them if they served in the militia. Usually, I get a, “No.”
Then, I’d ask, “What about the reserve militia? Have you served in the reserve militia?” So far, I have always gotten a, “No.” Then, I would ask if they were sure. They would be adamant that they were not in a militia.
Then, I would drop some trivia.
Going back to the argument on gun control. Many people would try to argue that the Second Amendment was intended for something like the National Guard. I.e., we had militia, and that is what the Second Amendment was for.
One main thrust, for this argument, was that if people were not in the National Guard, what business do they have today of owning and operating a personal firearm?
As the two above quotes show, many are listed under the “militia” category.
At the time that the Second Amendment was drafted, militia service was automatic for certain groups of people. Before, it started with Caucasian males. As time went on, non-Caucasian males were included.
But even then, it was understood that everybody, not just the statutory militia, was expected to serve in “a militia” capacity depending on the situation.
Those who were not called to militia service still had the right to individually, or collectively, defend themselves. The above statutory laws addresses the “first-line” for call up. Those not called up, depending on the situation, may be required to serve in a militia capacity.
You can click on federal militia law, or a state militia law, to read the actual text. Your own state, or territory, would also have its own militia law.
What are your random thoughts?
Category: Open thread
Nicely done.
Thanks.
The militia crap doesn’t hold water, finish reading that, then it says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed” The clowns do the same with the Bible, pick out a sentence that justifies their B.S. and forget what comes before it or after it if it conflicts….Are they purposely STUPID? or is it an act of nature? lol imo
I think that the vocal ’90’s era “anti-government” militias impressed a negative image of unorganized militias in many people’s heads. Also, the false advertising by the ARNG about being founded in 1636, almost 150 years before the establishment of this nation (my ancestors were among those called to muster in 1600’s Virginia) lays claim to what were truly unorganized militiamen mustered to counter local or regional threats from Natives, foreign entities, or other threats.
So, between anti-militia bias, an effective advertising campaign by the ARNG, and public ignorance, there’s no way Joe Citizen can be a member of the militia…
By the way, I found a short but interesting article explaining why early militia mustard were not necessarily organized despite the definition of the word: https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/02/history-of-the-early-american-militia-muster-notices-calling-members-to-parade.html
The concept for the “Citizen Soldier” applied to the colonists, letter to the residents of the United States, who were regular John Doe citizens liable for militia service. They went about their lives pursuing their interests. Then, when the need arose, they did their duty in a militia capacity. Then, when the need for the militia ended, John Doe citizen returned to his normal life.
Mustering as militiamen was common throughout the colonies, and even was common shortly after the American Revolution. My ancestors were mustered as such in New England and North Carolina starting in the early 1600s. It was another one of our ancestors’ duties.
Did you mean no way that Joe Citizen would want to be a member of the militia? The way the federal, and state militia laws are written, those Joe Citizens may end up disappointed.
I was being sarcastic…in this day and age, the idea of the common citizen being expected to mobilize in defense of, well anything, is preposterous at best.
They thought this same thing during the colonial period as well, when the threats from the Indian tribes became remote. Many even gaffed their training, treating them as socials. They didn’t expect to be mobilized to fight a war.
In one of the wars, where England slugged it out with France in wars that spilled over to the colonies, a mayor in one of the English colony towns was notified that the French were operating in their AO. His response? Have a snowman built at the town entrance, then call it a night. The French came in and messed their night up.
Even up to the American Revolution… one of the complaints that George Washington and others had of the militia was the lack of real training experience. Even when it came to basic bivouac administration, the militia were disorganized and even defecated within the bivouac in areas not designated as latrine areas. They hadn’t thought that it’d come to what they were doing then.
I am that well regulated Militia.
So much for that graphic on tomorrow’s FGS…
*grin* kidding of course.
The States’ Guards are/can be Federal troops and the Federal government is us therefor we don’t need gunz.
And what up with those commas? My Liberal Arts majored ex-wife swore they change the meaning and she was neeeeevvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr wrong.
Just think, if our ancestors were sticklers for grammar, punctuation, pronunciation, etc., we would sound kinda sorta like this:
I volunteered to serve my country in two branches and I did not stop just because my enlistments ended.
My oath expires when I do. Just do not ever lump me in with the “Oath Keeper” assclowns.
Second that!
Third that.
Fourth.
Excellent article Brother.
Thanks
I am a member of the unorganized-grabbastic, pieces of amphibian shit, why we are not even human-fucking beings! militia.
I’m assigned to the Retired Reserve and eagerly await my call to active duty should President Trump order me to our southern border. I’m old, occasionally organized although usually unorganized, yet I remain an army of one.
A Bama Fan is NEVER Old…
🐘😎
RTR! Loved the second half destruction of Auburn in this year’s Iron Bowl. Next up a beatdown of Georgia.
CCR:
I know this will never happen, but always wonder what I would do if Alabama played against West Point.
Gonna be an interesting game between Crimsom Tide and the Dawgs…🤗
Count down to 8 December for another victory for the Black Knights…😎
Well the next best thing happened the week before the Iron Bowl when The Bulldogs from the Citadel went to Halftime against Bama tied at 10-10.
On a related note the faculty at the Citadel hold commissions in the UMSC (Unorganized Militia of South Carolina)
Pease don’t confuse that with the South Carolina Unorganized Militia (SCUM)
If I recall, there are some Militias that are NOT recognized..and some of the “Officers” in those Organizations have identified themselves as General Officers. Think there were a couple of them exposed as Phonies on TAH.
I’m also in the Retired Reserve. I doubt that the Army would call me back to active duty unless crap hits the fan. They don’t have that much of a window with regards to mobilization orders that would put me into active duty sanctuary.
You know that if the Big Green Machine calls us back the end of the road is nigh.
🙂
Well written and very informative, thebesig.
Thank You for sharing and posting.
Say, is the “Gulf War” Kid’s Doctor who is now the Governor of Virginia under 55? You know…the one who falsely advertised his military service on TV to the public during his Campaign..
Or what about Kaine or the Carpetbagger.. Or Elaine who beat Taylor in the last House election..
Wonder why Virginia picked 55 years old…😉
Thanks, glad to have shared it. I used Dragon NaturallySpeaking to dictate the above post, as well as these supplies.
The folk that you mentioned would be exempt from militia duty if they were in the age range to be members of the unorganized militia. Their party affiliation, on the other hand, is just a symptom of Virginia going down the toilet.
I suppose a gun grabber would say, “Fine. Then everyone who is not a member of the to Federal or state unorganized militia, turn in your firearms.”
If the right to bear arms is an individual right, untied to the militia of any flavor, then the militia argument is unnecessary, as I see it. Consequently, the militia laws merely provide the legal basis for calling people into service, as needed, and do not speak to firearms. And this makes sense. Of course, some old state laws may require a male of a certain age to keep a rifle and ammo at the ready, but that’s a different matter.
Both go hand in hand:
“Those who were not called to militia service still had the right to individually, or collectively, defend themselves. The above statutory laws addresses the “first-line” for call up. Those not called up, depending on the situation, may be required to serve in a militia capacity.” – thebesig
Militia action could be either impromptu in response to a legitimate threat, or organized by proper authority. This ties into our natural right to defend ourselves, individually or collectively. When it goesfrom just the person doing the defense, to multiple doing the defense, we have a militia action going.
George Mason explained the basic understanding of what constituted a militia, as of the time the Second Amendment was drafted James Madison was aware of George Mason’s philosophy:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
A “well-regulated militia” clearly did not apply to the FANG (i.e., f’in Air or Army National Guard depending on who is using it) pre-Desert Storm. My regard for the FANG has substantially increased in the past 15 years although there is still too much state politics involved. BTW, they called those of us who were “advisors” to the Oregon FANG, RAFSOB’s.
What you say may well apply to the ARNG, and in only one state I know of for the ANG. Prior to DS, we in the ANG did 100% of what might generically be called “tactical” type flying among transporters. We low level folks had long suspected that to be true. Unfortunately, we were correct.
We ANG folks deployed with our aircraft in 1990 fully qualified and ready to fly any mission handed us under any circumstances. We found that the active duty folks were not, as most had not flown contingency type operations since flight school. We scratched our heads at the concept that we part-timers were ready to go to war in spite of having full-time jobs elsewhere while the folks who had no other jobs were not ready to go to war and had to fly training missions to get up to speed. Weird.
Is everyone in the ANG exemplary? Of course not, but during my association with the ANG over enough decades to have two of those little stars on the coveted NDSM, they more than carried their load. My personal experience was limited to refueling and transport, but ANG fighter units with which we worked appeared to have the same standards.
If i remember correctly, the 2nd Amendment was authored by George Mason. When asked who the militia was his response was something along the lines of every man, woman and child.
The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied man to be a member of his local militia company. In the South this system remained in place after the Dick Act was passed in the early 1900s creating the National Guard. One state used their militia call ups for doing civil work projects (clearing roads), which required some Supreme Court intervention when a member filed suit claiming that it was slavery. The Courts ruling was one of the few times it weighted in on the subject of conscription.
There is the organized militia, the unorganized militia, and the disorganized militia. See “The Great Blandensburg Races” of the War of 1812 for an example of the disorganized militia.
Preach it brother. Seems pretty clear to me and I’m just an ignorant ‘deplorable.’
Thanks
Good article. Many times the argument from the ‘tards is “what about ‘well regulated’ as if this means buried under a ton of government regulation. That is bullshit of course, because the 18th Century meaning of the word was understood to be “regulated, as in well functioning” and effective for its purpose, like a clock.
To be “well regulated” the militia must be drawn from people who have a right to keep and bear arms, and are accordingly familiar with their operation, and not from some other source. Further, this forms the very foundation of a “free” State.
And to add to the above comments, the BoR was a compromise amongst the Founders. There was a faction of them that did not want individual rights qualified or stated BECAUSE they would be open to interpretation.
My how the world has turned.
A well regulated militia is one made regular. that is, armed, equipped, provisioned, and trained as -regulars-
In other words, as well as the pros.
That would mean -universal- training as Infantry, and issuing an M-16 and basic load to anyone unable to buy their own.
The Swiss model. I like the idea, but it’ll never fly here. Far too many people who want to partake in freedom without putting any work into it.
Mmmmm, Swiss models (both with boobs and keg bolt handles)….
Wait, what?
“Far too many people who want to partake in freedom without putting any work into it.”
Yep, and it’s killing us.
Even those who take civics classes do not recognize the meaning of those words at the time they were penned. Having lived their entire lives in a world of permissions doled out by the bureaucracy class, they think of regulations in entirely different terms.
When George Washington wrote to Henry Knox in July of 1776 “From a view of the present important contest with Great Britain it appears that the war is but in its infancy. To carry it on with vigour and success a well regulated and numerous body of Artillery will be necessary.” ‘Well regulated’ clearly means provisioned and trained to proficiency. It is impossible to read it any other way.
In an era where even -cannon- were privately owned (if not exactly commonly) it was said “…every other terrible instrument of the soldier…”
Strictly, that would not even limit it to individual arms. Even crew- served weapons (-cannon-!) were included as “arms”.
thebesig – good one, but I have some questions. You quote the 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes:
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”
The danger I see focusing on that is that those over 45 could be said to have no right to own a firearm. I know this is not what is being advocated here but it is a possible reply from the hoplophobes that one would be well advised to be prepared to refute.
Quoting what George Mason said in a debate could be held (by the hoplophobes) to be irrelevant to what the law is. The hoplophobe could reply “if that is what the Founders intended, then that is what the Amendment would have said.”
A strong argument would have to be prepared to demonstrate what the understanding of the Founding Fathers and the citizenry was, and how it is relevant to our current situation.
Do you agree?
“The danger I see focusing on that is that those over 45 could be said to have no right to own a firearm”
Used to be a man would live until his forties and then a mountain lion would get him.
For the period of the 1820s-1860s, concerning the mountain men in the Rocky Mountain fur trade, for those of whom we have record (quite a number) most lived into their 60s and retired as farmers with their families.
FWIW
The anti-free crowd will pervert any rule, custom, or understanding to invoke their March to worldwide socialism.
No matter what, it will be interpreted as “obey your betters! Submit, serfs!”
I’ve been debating the opposition for over 15 years, this has been my experience. I still hammer them anyway.
You’re nice to them, I call them the Free S(BEEP) Army.
GB. I made a similar point above. There are two things going on here. The first is that the 2nd A grants an individual the right to bear arms. The second is that there are statutes that have nothing to do with that right which speak to organized and unorganized militia.
The existence of a militia is unnecessary for the operation of the 2nd A. Were this not true, then we would not enjoy a right to possess firearms untied to membership in a militia. Certainly, anyone who was not “able-bodied” would not because he could never be a militiaman. This would necessarily exclude Veterans who lost limbs in service. If that’s not enough, the militia prerequisite to bearing arms was regarded as absurd by the late, great Justice Scalia in Heller. He wrote, “Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed.”
2/17 Air Cav: The existence of a militia is unnecessary for the operation of the 2nd A. First, the Second Amendment clearly states: “ A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Keywords, “A well-regulated militia.” Supportive keywords, “being necessary to the security of a free state.” Free state, in context of their understanding, consisted mainly of the representative government, as well as each individual person. Each, and every one of us, is a free and independent sovereign. Same thing with each state and incorporated territory. Second, at the time that our forefathers crafted the Second Amendment, it went without saying that we had a right to bear arms, as indicated by this part of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This part touches on natural law, ergo, our natural right to defend ourselves. Regardless of which side of the political aisle a person was on back then, both sides of the aisle agreed that this was a right. It was no-nonsense. Our forefathers would not have envisioned the extent that certain groups today will go to try to restrict this, or eliminate this right for each individual. Now, looking at the supporting keywords, “being necessary to the security of a free state.” Whether they anticipated repelling an invasion, or dealing with an absolute power government bent on eroding the rights of the people, this was intended to ensure that we had a population, proficient at operating firearms, that could muster into militia formations. If they already know how to operate a firearm, and if a good number of the population has gone beyond that to train as part of a formation, the time needed to field a militia needed to repel an invasion, or to address a government on its nonstop way to a dictatorship wouldn’t be as long as it would if people didn’t know how to operate firearms in the first place. In order to remain as a… Read more »
Graybeard: The danger I see focusing on that is that those over 45 could be said to have no right to own a firearm. I know this is not what is being advocated here but it is a possible reply from the hoplophobes that one would be well advised to be prepared to refute. What I said in the post above: “But even then, it was understood that everybody, not just the statutory militia, was expected to serve in “a militia” capacity depending on the situation.” — thebesig And “Those who were not called to militia service still had the right to individually, or collectively, defend themselves. The above statutory laws addresses the “first-line” for call up. Those not called up, depending on the situation, may be required to serve in a militia capacity.” – thebesig The above post pointed out that what was quoted, with regards to statutory law, represented a “first-line” for call up. It wasn’t inclusive. Graybeard: Quoting what George Mason said in a debate could be held (by the hoplophobes) to be irrelevant to what the law is. The hoplophobe could reply “if that is what the Founders intended, then that is what the Amendment would have said.” I’ve debated against those, on the left, for over 15 years. I’ve done that all the time. I’ve used their writings to support my argument advancing the natural law, law of God, philosophy behind these amendments and arguments made supporting the type of government that we have. I can tell you right now that even before you respond to their arguments, there’s generally nothing that you or anybody else could say that would get them to change their positions. The same could be said of our side of the argument. So, in the above situation where I quote George Mason, it’s still a relevant fact regardless of whether the opposition agrees with it or not. Even though the opposition is not going to change their position, those “in the middle” are going to see that the opposition does not have a real argument. Graybeard: A strong argument would… Read more »
“…times have changed…”
(Interrupting). “Correct. For example, we took away your slaves.”
-that- quip caused more than a bit of kerfuffle….
I hope it is understood that I was not trying to tell you what you needed to do in an argument with a hoplophobe, but trying to clarify what to expect and prepare for were one to engage in such a debate oneself without you there to assist them.
My bull dyke neighbour is in ‘Militia Etheredge’ 🙄