Constitutional Militias?

[nullvalu]

What do some of you think of these unorganized militias? Is anyone here a member of one? I was thinking about attending a meeting at some point for the Indiana Militia Corps (http://www.indianamilitia.org/).

I'm not a "survivalist", nor do I really care to become one. Are most of the members of these militias also survivalists? I'm just curious is all.. Thanks..

[STRATIOTES]

The Dick act has always been unconstitutional, unorganized militia is not in the U.S.C

Well regulated and necessary are in the second amendment though.

I am in the Well regulated militia and coordinated the publishing of the National Militia Standards, there is a link in my sig line.

[Mini-Me]

The Dick act has always been unconstitutional, unorganized militia is not in the U.S.C

Well regulated and necessary are in the second amendment though.

I am in the Well regulated militia and coordinated the publishing of the National Militia Standards, there is a link in my sig line.

The "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment is not a qualifier or a requirement. If it was, who do you think would assume the authority to determine what constitutes a "well-regulated militia?" That's right - the state - and they'd obviously disqualify anything that's a real threat to state power (i.e. anything that can effectively counteract a tyrannical government), completely defeating the entire purpose of the Second Amendment. Therefore, the "well-regulated" adjective cannot be construed as anything other than an additional right: The true meaning of it is that you can create or participate in a paramilitary force, and no matter how well-regulated, organized, or powerful it is, the state cannot intervene - because it is your right. In other words, unorganized militias are as legitimate as any other.

Now, in terms of how practical or effective these unorganized militias are...can't help you there, nullvalu...but at least I'm bumping your thread :)

[Doktor_Jeep]

... It is the whole people except for a few public officials. "
-- George Mason


And you can find more pearls of wisdom from this man who gave us the Bill of Rights here: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_mason.html

As for what a militia is today, it is still what the Founders intended it to be. It only seems "odd" for two reasons:

1. There are a lot of groups that do not fall under the definition of militia as the Founder prescribed, but call themselves militias. The term itself is generic. Patriots banding together to fight for their freedom is a militia, as were the hurricane Katrina survivors who got together under arms and brough order back to their neigborhoods. Sadly there are a lot of morons out there who call themselves militia, and many criminals operating within identity or radical groups, when caught by the feds, are instructed to use the M word more for propaganda purposes. Even the media said that Timothy McVeigh was in a militia when in fact he was not. For a time the ADL pushed that line until a lawsuit started brewing over it.

2. People are so fearful of not only the M word, but of guns too. Therefore while the militia comprises the people, so few of the people actually train in that context it appears rather extreme. Add to that the work of the NRA pushing the gun are for hunting and personal defense angle for so long that the mere implication that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep tyranny at bay is enough to get most of the "golfers with guns" nervous.


As for "joining" a militia, the closed recruitment thing is falling to the wayside as well. Failing to recognize the militia for what it is, according to what the founders thought it should be, opens a door to various problems. That of which most prominent are those who end up calling themselves "general" and start strutting around in a uniform all because they got their two cousins to agree to the idea.

So over the last 10 years there is a slow migration toward the concept that the militia already exists in the populace, and those "militia operators" are becoming more of a training cadre and offering time and effort to the cause of training the populace in the use of armaments, along with other ideas and related topics (survival, rally points, self reliance, etc).

Funny that you mentioned survivalists. Survivalists and militia are usually considered the same group and many times the equipment and ideas are the same but survivalists are more interested in getting away and hiding out in the hills and waiting out the trouble while militia are not going anywere, or only long enough to escape immediate danger. And considering the changing times and the growing police state, hiding out in some cabin on a mountain only means the tyrants minions have all the time in the world to make you their project. From tyranny, esecially with the control grid being put in place, there is nowhere one can hide.

As for what to expect from going to a militia meeting or something like that, I would be wary of anyone who outright and openly calls for the making of machine guns and bombs or the killing of people who have yet to give good reason for it (indeed that is a sore subject considering the level of treason going on these days). Since the mid-1990s the feds have made it their MO to join up with militia groups and then bring illegal stuff and push for crimes, thereby setting up everyone involved. Then the media gets another hit piece calling 2 guns an "arsenal" and the club house a "compound". I would agree that the NFA is BS and there are a lot of treasonous types needing tar and feathers but he who openly tries to get something done like that or make these items is usually an informant on a fishing expedition. In all setup cases I know of the feds try to make informants out of their targets.
Again, if you have guys strutting around calling themselves "General" or colonel or something like that, you might be dealing with people not running on all 8 cylinders. Groups that use cronyism and giving themselves or each other rank tend not to be very productive and when all is said and done they do more harm than good.

(but...... I AM NAPOLEON!)


While it is often said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, politics is the first. Therefore the militia is plagued with egomaniacs, blowhards, and various other negative nabobs of negativism. I could tell stories all day about this and some of the crap I have seen.

Partly because of that crap, and partly because of the changing landscape of lawfare where there are many pitfalls (like informants) and gotchas (PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, SB1955, etc), the new structure for militia is actually going back to the original old structure of a community based decentralized organization using standing orders, a well regulated set of standards for shooting, and a code of ethics. The days of large centralized groups practicing infantry tactics from 1960s Army manuals are gone. Small units are now encouraged and those looking to be a more active militia operator are encouraged to create their own small unit consisting of friends, family, and close neigbors. There are arguments against this however because decentralization can lead to trouble with mission crossover and fratricide but these issues are in consideration for quite some time now and they are being dealt with. Communications and networking through smaller channels (individual contacts between small groups) are heavily emphasized along with standardization of target selection. Did I mention ethics? I mention ethics again.


I could go on all night about 5th Generation Warfare, 4th generation warfare (of that Bill Lind writes about best), special weapons, etc. But there are others who are better at that. I am mainly too busy leading my troops into Prussia right now but I alerted better men to this thread who will explain things much better than I can.

[Doktor_Jeep]

The "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment is not a qualifier or a requirement. If it was, who do you think would assume the authority to determine what constitutes a "well-regulated militia?" That's right - the state - and they'd obviously disqualify anything that's a threat to state power, completely defeating the entire purpose of the Second Amendment. Therefore, the "well-regulated" adjective is actually an additional right: The true meaning of it is that you can create or participate in a paramilitary force, and no matter how well-regulated, organized, or powerful it is, the state cannot intervene - because it is your right. Therefore, unorganized militias are as legitimate as any other.

Now, in terms of how practical or effective these unorganized militias are...can't help you there, nullvalu...but at least I'm bumping your thread :)

In the context of the times the Bill of Rights was written, "well regulated" does not mean having lots of laws, standards, and rules to follow. Well regulated in those days meant "well trained".

The Founders said we must train.

[STRATIOTES]

Now, in terms of how practical or effective these unorganized militias are...can't help you there, nullvalu...

Thats why there are standards Mini-Me with verified skill levels, allowing the incident command system to best manage available assets.

Skilled teams have been known to have kill ratios of 10 to 1 making good organization well worth the trouble.

[STRATIOTES]

Well regulated in those days meant "well trained".

The Founders said we must train.

Best to define "well regulated" as in good working order, the founders learned a hard lesson using poorly equipped and poorly trained militia while minute men lead and well trained militia saved the day for the continentals.

[Hawk45]

Reguardless of what some think the MILITIA is NOT the National Guard. It is an entity our founders knew would be necessary for us ALL to remain FREE men and women, and not serfs to an overgrown national government!

Today the mass media is doing everything it can to make both 'Survivalist' and 'Militia' dirty words. You know the same folks who are doing everything in their power to keep Ron Paul's message from reaching the masses they want to control TOTALLY!

My family started in this country in 1645 by being in the 'militia' fighting whatever needed fighting. Now almost 400 years later my family is still fighting for this country. Some in the 'active' military, and some in the Militia. No matter which one we are in though we are still fighting for the same thing......The Constitution!

[pcosmar]

I am a "Friend of the Militia" , as I am disarmed by current laws.
I have contacted the local group, but due to my infringement I do not train with or have any official contact. This is for their protection.
I obey the laws, though I disagree with them.
When the SHTF I will not be so encumbered.

[NeoRayden]

nullvalu: I am glad to hear that you are interested in contacting our group.

I am the IMC - G2 Officer and the 1st Brigade Commander.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via PM.


Everyone may want to checkout http://www.thirdcc.org We are currently updating our Militia Certification System. When completed all affiliated Militias will need to accept and practice the militia standards promoted by the AWRM with a few differences and changes.

All delegates for the 3CC must complete the Delegate Certification program.

[1000-points-of-fright]

In the Founders day and age, Well Regulated meant well trained AND well supplied. The militia included every able bodied male citizen and they were expected to provide their own weapons, ammo, and other equipment such as bed roll, water containers, food etc.

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

In the Founders day and age, Well Regulated meant well trained AND well supplied. The militia included every able bodied male citizen and they were expected to provide their own weapons, ammo, and other equipment such as bed roll, water containers, food etc.

agreed...
get involved. here (http://www.michiganmilitia.com/literature/level_1.htm) are some ideas on gear to have on hand (as required for level 1 status in the michigan militia)
h ttp://www.michiganmilitia.com/literature/level_1.htm

[Sharpstick]

What do some of you think of these unorganized militias? Is anyone here a member of one? I was thinking about attending a meeting at some point for the Indiana Militia Corps (http://www.indianamilitia.org/).

I'm not a "survivalist", nor do I really care to become one. Are most of the members of these militias also survivalists? I'm just curious is all.. Thanks..


That particular group is a great bunch of guys! I'm right below in KY and consider the very group you are speaking of allies in the fight to restore the militia to its once proud state and insure Liberty is help sacred. I urge you to contact them and get involved!!

You never know, you may meet me up there this year if i have the time ;)

[garrettwombat]

i am part of the Georgia militia...

they are really fun... more about personal benefit and training to survive tyranny and disasters. you learn a lot.

[familydog]

Militias were a pain in the founders' ass especially Washington. They didn't last long, they were rag-tag, you couldn't tell them to do very much, and they weren't trusted. Though I would say as long as militias weren't acting as vigilantes or violating any state or local laws, they have every right to exist Constitutionally.

[Truth Warrior]

Kiss Your Second Amendment Good-bye
http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/chartier101.html

[Athan]

I'm seriously considering joining a militia. I was wondering if those members in a militia would like to expand their numbers using the Ron Paul meet up group members. I was wondering if there would be a general call by militias to try to recruit Ron Paul meet up members so we can organize a bit better nationally.

I mean can I just say "hey guys.. lets be a militia, k?"

Or is there some sort of organization I need to follow?

[Allen72289]

I think we should return to some sort of militia reserves.

We should also abolish the police department, cia and fbi.

It should be the responsibility of law abiding citizens to protect their property.

[nate895]

I think we should return to some sort of militia reserves.

We should also abolish the police department, cia and fbi.

It should be the responsibility of law abiding citizens to protect their property.

You then eliminate the only purpose to have a government, which is to defend the rights of her citizens from those that want to take them away.

[pcosmar]

You then eliminate the only purpose to have a government, which is to defend the rights of her citizens from those that want to take them away.

No, There was to be NO Federal law enforcement in the Constitution. The place of Government is to step in when rights are violated by the State.
The Highest Law enforcement should be the local Sheriff.
There should be NO standing Army (including an army of police) , that is the place of the militia.
Should a Sheriff need assistance, he could call on the local Armed Citizens.
Citizens are responsible for their own protection, and should have the means to do so.

[nate895]

No, There was to be NO Federal law enforcement in the Constitution. The place of Government is to step in when rights are violated by the State.
The Highest Law enforcement should be the local Sheriff.
There should be NO standing Army (including an army of police) , that is the place of the militia.
Should a Sheriff need assistance, he could call on the local Armed Citizens.
Citizens are responsible for their own protection, and should have the means to do so.

Things have changed since the Constitution was adopted. While I don't think there should be an FBI, a police department seems fine to me as long as it merely enforces the law. This is the kind of position that causes us to lose elections. People like the message, and then they hear wacky ideas like "let's eliminate the PD." and they then leave because who else is going to protect them? If you substitute in the sheriff, you get the same end result, just you have a beefed-up Sheriff's Department with just as many patrols as the cops, just brown instead of blue.

[pcosmar]

Things have changed since the Constitution was adopted. While I don't think there should be an FBI, a police department seems fine to me as long as it merely enforces the law. This is the kind of position that causes us to lose elections. People like the message, and then they hear wacky ideas like "let's eliminate the PD." and they then leave because who else is going to protect them? If you substitute in the sheriff, you get the same end result, just you have a beefed-up Sheriff's Department with just as many patrols as the cops, just brown instead of blue.
Well if you accept the Corrupted system that we have it is difficult to see life and law as they should be, and as they were intended.
Were it not for the abundance of unconstitutional and convoluted laws, and federal laws overriding state and local laws, we would not have the need for a Huge Law Enforcement army.
The FBI and Rise of the Police State and the abundance of laws are the result of ignoring the Founders. Organized Crime was the result of violations of Individual rights. The War on drugs was a excuse to grow the police state, and to control the population.
It is all about CONTROL.
If their job was protecting RIGHTS, less would be needed.
It is the purpose of Government to protect the rights of citizens, not to control them.

[Allen72289]

If we respected property rights and the second ammendment enough we wouldn't need a police department..

Would you target an individual knowing that everyone around you is armed?

I think criminals would reconsider.

Criminals attack weak opponents.

If everyone has a gun then it becomes a fair fight.

I have to agree, most people who do not understand property rights would think abolishing police departments is absurd, that's why I don't speak of it unless I'm in such a place as this forum.

[nate895]

If we respected property rights and the second ammendment enough we wouldn't need a police department..

Would you target an individual knowing that everyone around you is armed?

I think criminals would reconsider.

Criminals attack weak opponents.

If everyone has a gun then it becomes a fair fight.

I have to agree, most people who do not understand property rights would think abolishing police departments is absurd, that's why I don't speak of it unless I'm in such a place as this forum.

When everyone owned a gun, there was still crime. We would need less law enforcement, but there still would need to be a police department and sheriff's department. I don't know what is so wrong with a police department as long as they enforce just laws and show probable cause.

[Sharpstick]

Police are necessary!

The problem as i see it is the way police are taught and used. The sheriff should be the only police force, I don't care if they increase the numbers I just care that the man we choose to serve as sheriff is an Elected member of the community. The Police force serves many roles beyond the criminal way the federal and state governments are using them.

This is a huge issue though and is very entangled in the corrupt way our government operates. All funding for such a force should come from the local community and not through government funding or grants paid for by the funds they still from us and with hold if out community dose not submit to there tyranny. There is little difference between the Sheriff and the police as both have become grossly federalized.

The rights of the people to self defense, community defense, property defense , should be restored. This would cut down the number of violent crime, as well as the need for a large police force.

The problem now is that most people see the police as the evil force stealing there birthright and with some justification. The police force should be seen as protectors of the community and not the enemy. For this to happen the other things I mentioned would have to happen first.

In KY state police are not deployed to the county they live in, this is to prevent them from respecting the bond they have with there community and to insure that can steal the liberty's of free people with no sense of being one of the victims. Our sheriff on the other hand is a very respectful man who very much understands his ties to the community.

[Allen72289]

Police think they are above the law.

Sure, crime will never stop, however we can decrease crime rates.

Since our police departments came into play our crime rate has soared.

Well armed law abiding citizens can do a much better job.

Ending the war on drugs, legalizing moonshine and a 0.3% vat tax would end crime as we know it.

Most criminals turn to crime as a way of making an income or an emotional outlet for stress which is caused by poverty most likely.

End unnecessary taxes and you'll have less poverty.

End welfare and everyone has to pull their own weight, no jealousy.

[familydog]

Police think they are above the law.

Sure, crime will never stop, however we can decrease crime rates.

Since our police departments came into play our crime rate has soared.

Well armed law abiding citizens can do a much better job.

Ending the war on drugs, legalizing moonshine and a 0.3% vat tax would end crime as we know it.

Most criminals turn to crime as a way of making an income or an emotional outlet for stress which is caused by poverty most likely.

End unnecessary taxes and you'll have less poverty.

End welfare and everyone has to pull their own weight, no jealousy.

Not all police think they are above the law. Please rephrase your statement.

[pcosmar]

Not all police think they are above the law. Please rephrase your statement.

I don't think ALL police are corrupt. And I am not saying the we need to do away with the police altogether.
Through a hundred years of bad law and corrupted government we are a twisted society.
If we were to return to Constitutional Government we would overturn 90% of the laws, and with them gone crime would be less, and police could concentrate on keeping peace rather than enforcing laws.
I understand that we are so far from what was intended that it is hard for some to imagine.
The Militia was meant to be the ultimate Peace Keepers.

[familydog]

I don't think ALL police are corrupt. And I am not saying the we need to do away with the police altogether.
Through a hundred years of bad law and corrupted government we are a twisted society.
If we were to return to Constitutional Government we would overturn 90% of the laws, and with them gone crime would be less, and police could concentrate on keeping peace rather than enforcing laws.
I understand that we are so far from what was intended that it is hard for some to imagine.
The Militia was meant to be the ultimate Peace Keepers.

Who says they were meant to be the ultimate peace keepers?

[pcosmar]

Who says they were meant to be the ultimate peace keepers?

The founders, in their writings.

"Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final]
resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend
themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check
the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people...
entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army,
composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain
under the direction of the most wealthy citizens."

Quote by: A Framer
Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution
Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791


"The militia of these free commonwealths,
entitled and accustomed to their arms,
when compared with any possible army,
must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms
each man against his own bosom.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birth-right of an American ...
the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,
in the hands of the people."

Quote by: Tench Coxe
(1755-1824) American political economist
Source: Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Quote by: Tench Coxe
(1755-1824) American political economist
Date: 20 Feb 1788


"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own
defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our
own possession and under our own direction, and having them under
the management of Congress? If our defence be the_real_object of
having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more
propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Quote by: Patrick Henry
(1736-1799)
Source: June 9, 1788, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, in_Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,_ Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.168 (Philadelphia, 1836)


"The right of a citizen to bear arms,
in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.
He does not derive it from the State government.
It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen,
and is excepted out of the general powers of government.
A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it,
because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Quote by: Cockrum v. State
Source: 24 Tex.394, at 401-402 (1859)

I can post many, many more.
Can you post anything from our Founders that backs the Police State?

[pcosmar]

Who says they were meant to be the ultimate peace keepers?

A few more on this point.


"[The People] are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty."

Quote by: Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President


"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these:
first, a right to life;
secondly, to liberty;
thirdly to property;
together with the right to support and defend them
in the best manner they can."

Quote by: Samuel Adams
(1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."


"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution,
are worth defending at all hazards;
and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.
We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors:
they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure
and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence.
It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation,
enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us
by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them
by the artifices of false and designing men."

Quote by: Samuel Adams
(1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."


"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or
give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end
of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to
freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man
to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

Quote by: Samuel Adams
(1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." Samuel Adams instigated the Boston Tea Party, was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, called for the first Continental Congress, and served as a member of Congress until 1781. Samuel Adams formed the Committees of Correspondence, which were largely responsible for the unity and cohesion of the Colonists preceding the Revolution. The original committee, formed in Boston, had three goals: (1) To delineate the rights of Colonists as men; (2) To detail how these rights had been violated; (3) To publicize these rights and the violations thereof throughout the Colonies


"What, Sir, is the use of a militia?
It is to prevent the establishment
of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
Whenever Governments mean to invade
the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Quote by: Elbridge Gerry
(1744-1814) of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Member of the Constitutional Convention
Source: spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

I think the point is made, and is clear. It is not MY point, but that of the Founders.

[familydog]

The founders, in their writings.









I can post many, many more.
Can you post anything from our Founders that backs the Police State?

No. But thanks for assuming that is what I'm advocating just because I disagree with you. I can post some things about Washington about how much he distrusted and didn't like militias.

"Washington probably never understood the anomaly of his wishing to make a revolution with a conventional eighteenth-century army--to establish once and for all American independence with an organization which systematically broke the personal independence of its members. But he never gave up this desire. Yet he believed passionately in the American cause as its most enlightened advocates defined it: as a struggle for the rights of man. When those rights were translated into personal codes and into behavior, they did not necessarily subvert the will and discipline of an army--once a genuine army was created, an army which orders were followed and men did their duty. But why should anyone expect the unbridled creatures who appeared in the militia to fight and to hold fast when their lives were endangered? They should fight--Washington insisted--for their honor, their fame, and glory, those aristocratic virtues which free men might value were they properly instructed and trained. Free men might fight for their honor and for a great cause. But they would not fight in their present organization--the militia, for example, with its local orientation, its incompetent and democratically chosen officers, its disdain of discipline, and its short enlistments.
Washington's distrust of civilian-in-arms ran so deep as to blind him to the possibility--realized twenty years later in the French Revolution--of drawing the entire population into the war...the best that could be done in the Revolution was to create a standing army composed of free men broken of some of the worst habits freedom engendered..." The Glorious Cause by Robert Middlekauff p. 343

"George Washington admired European military doctrine. He had begun reading the European authorities while serving as commander for the Virginia militia and soon confirmed their judgments for himself. That books told the truth--sometimes--did not surprise him, but his own experience with the militia did, and discouraged him as well. Under arms his fellow Virginians resembled those in civilian life--stubborn, undisciplined, and lacking in public spirit...A week after he arrived at Cambridge, he was writing Richard Henry Lee that 'The abuses in this army, I fear, are considerable and the new modeling of it, in the face of an enemy, from whom we every hour we expect an attack, is exceedingly difficult and dangerous.' The weakness of his army, he believed, was inherent in any nonprofessional force--its members, officers, and men alike, had interests and ties which could not be reconciled with the purposes of a professional army." Middlekauff p. 306

The fact is, while militias played a role in the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army was the key to victory. I'm not sure where the founders promoted no police force and that civilians were to be the ones that enforced the law.

[xd9fan]

I'm seriously considering joining a militia. I was wondering if those members in a militia would like to expand their numbers using the Ron Paul meet up group members. I was wondering if there would be a general call by militias to try to recruit Ron Paul meet up members so we can organize a bit better nationally.


this is a great idea...we need to spread the word...educate.....and others will join.

[familydog]

A few more on this point.










I think the point is made, and is clear. It is not MY point, but that of the Founders.

First of all, you're taking Jefferson's quote out of context. Where does he suggest civilians take up arms to defend liberty? Against foreign aggression? I'll buy that. But to be a vigilante force? Or the people be its own police force? I agree we ought to defend our liberty, but can't defend it at the ballot box? Maybe that's what he meant? You don't know because that quote is so incredibly vague. But that's ok,not taking a quote out of context wouldn't serve your purpose.

Second. Sam Adams definately was not the "Father of the American Revolution." Again, you have no evidence to suggest that what he meant was civilian police force. You just assume that is what he meant.

Third. Elbridge Gerry's quote is nothing but a rail against a standing army. Madison did it as well in the Federalist papers. But so what? A standing army has nothing to do with civilian police force. You're taking all these quotes out of context, just like liberals do when they quote the founders to promote more big government. It's all in the name of entrapping ignorant people who can't think critically or who don't know real history.

EDIT: Upon reading your post again, I don't blame you for having bias. "Sam Adams instigated the Boston Tea Party." That is simply not true. There is no historical evidence to back that up. I'll be happy to provide you with why it's not true.

[pcosmar]

No. But thanks for assuming that is what I'm advocating just because I disagree with you. I can post some things about Washington about how much he distrusted and didn't like militias.


The fact is, while militias played a role in the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army was the key to victory. I'm not sure where the founders promoted no police force and that civilians were to be the ones that enforced the law.

Washington was looking at it as a Military commander, and in fact the Continental Army was composed of those Militia (the people), which were later trained and disciplined.
The Standing Army was later disbanded, and those people returned to the local Militias.

As far as Law enforcement, The problems began as Federal Laws were imposed on the whole country. This was never intended. The Gun Laws of the 30s, and the drug laws have been imposed and were not challenged.
Federal Enforcement that should have been disbanded after prohibition, was increased, and new laws created for them to enforce.
The marijuana Tax act was found to be unconstitutional, but new laws were created to take its place.
Laws have been written to deny the right of self defense, and are only now being challenged.
It has been incremental, but it was never the intention of the founders.
It is the intention of those that want to Control and Shape society.
There is a valid purpose for Law enforcement, but is has been perverted into a Control Arm of those that do not respect Liberty.
This Power was to be in the hands of the People, Not at the whim of Government.

[pcosmar]

In an effort to bring this back to Ron Paul's position, which I agree with.
This from the RP Library.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=46

May 18, 1998
Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution

Last week, Congress moved our nation closer to a national police state by further expanding the already-unconstitutional litany of federal crimes.

Of course, it is much easier to ride the popular wave of federalizing every misdeed, than to uphold a Constitutional Oath which prescribes protection from what is perhaps the worst evil imaginable: totalitarianism.

What Member of Congress, especially in an election year, wants to be portrayed as soft on crime or deadbeat parents, irrespective of the transgressions against individual liberties and a trampling of our Constitution?

The federal government was designed to be limited in power. In fact, there is a strict enumeration of the spheres in which Congress is allowed to act. For every other issue, only the state governments or the people, in their private market actions, enjoy constitutionally protected right to those powers. The tenth amendment is brutally clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

But rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress recently passed two pieces of legislation - neither containing a shred of constitutional authority - which, of course, were "non-controversial" despite moving us further from the notion of a limited government. One piece of legislation pledged that the Congress will "pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence." Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably with alcohol in the 1920s, the threshold question must be: "under what authority do we act?" Whether any governmental entity should be protecting individuals from themselves and their own stupidity is certainly debatable; whether the federal government is constitutionally empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one's sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.

The second legislative fiasco was the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill expands federal criminal law by imposing more sanctions on those who fail to meet child support obligations imposed by individual states. Further, the bills shifts some burden of proof from the federal government to the accused, a radical departure from the American notion of "innocent until proven guilty." Even worse, this legislation seems to reintroduce the notion of federal "debtor prisons," a vestige of the past best left in the past.

Perhaps more dangerous than either of these items individually is what they represent collectively: a move towards a federal police force. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The argument is that states are less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with individuals who flee one state for another to avoid prosecution. The Constitution preserves the integrity of states, and provides the means for them to exact penalties from those who violate their laws, and the Constitution provides for the return of fugitives from one state to another. There is, of course, an inconvenience imposed upon states in working with one another, rather than relying on a national police force. But there is a greater cost to individual liberty from a centralized police power.

There is a simple, sound reason to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions -- it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the liberty of the citizenry, be allowed to compete.

When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet, moving to a "competing" jurisdiction. If, for example, one state has a high income tax which the residents feel is inappropriate, they can move to Texas (as many have done) to keep more of their earnings. But as government becomes more centralized, it becomes more difficult to vote with one's feet. There must be ample opportunity for citizen mobility: to proper governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.

And the federalization of every problem takes us further and further from the Constitution, and liberty.

A couple more worth reading.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=16
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=498

[familydog]

Washington was looking at it as a Military commander, and in fact the Continental Army was composed of those Militia (the people), which were later trained and disciplined.
The Standing Army was later disbanded, and those people returned to the local Militias.

As far as Law enforcement, The problems began as Federal Laws were imposed on the whole country. This was never intended. The Gun Laws of the 30s, and the drug laws have been imposed and were not challenged.
Federal Enforcement that should have been disbanded after prohibition, was increased, and new laws created for them to enforce.
The marijuana Tax act was found to be unconstitutional, but new laws were created to take its place.
Laws have been written to deny the right of self defense, and are only now being challenged.
It has been incremental, but it was never the intention of the founders.
It is the intention of those that want to Control and Shape society.
There is a valid purpose for Law enforcement, but is has been perverted into a Control Arm of those that do not respect Liberty.
This Power was to be in the hands of the People, Not at the whim of Government.

That's fine. I'm not arguing for federal law enforcement. I'm simply trying to set the record straight. There is no credbile evidence to suggest the founders wanted civilians to be the law enforcement as opposed to a government entity doing it.

You can't say that the Constitutional thing to do is to get rid of 90% of the laws that don't respect liberty, at the same time advocating a republican form of government. If the local or state government wants to be a Control Arm that's their business because they are allowed to Constitutionally. At least if we are to go by the original understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as only pertaining to the federal government). This changed after the Civil War and especially the early 20th century when the Supreme Court felt that the Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the state government as well as the federal (which I disagree with).

Shifting gears, you're assement about the make up of the Continental Army is only partially correct. Militiamen did join the Army, but they were not part of a militia anymore, Washington made sure of that. The fact is, Washington strongly disliked militias for fighting and he felt they weren't useful in doing anything other than rabble rousing. The militia were used in certain battles to back up the Continental Army, but they didn't play some tremendous role. The French soldiers played more of a role in winning the revolution than militias (as entities).

[Truth Warrior]

Not to be forgotten <IMHO> is that Washington and many of his officers, many of the British generals and many of their officers were all Freemasons, whatever that brotherly affiliation may imply. :rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

That's fine. I'm not arguing for federal law enforcement. I'm simply trying to set the record straight. There is no credbile evidence to suggest the founders wanted civilians to be the law enforcement as opposed to a government entity doing it.

You can't say that the Constitutional thing to do is to get rid of 90% of the laws that don't respect liberty, at the same time advocating a republican form of government. If the local or state government wants to be a Control Arm that's their business because they are allowed to Constitutionally. At least if we are to go by the original understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as only pertaining to the federal government). This changed after the Civil War and especially the early 20th century when the Supreme Court felt that the Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the state government as well as the federal (which I disagree with).

Shifting gears, you're assement about the make up of the Continental Army is only partially correct. Militiamen did join the Army, but they were not part of a militia anymore, Washington made sure of that. The fact is, Washington strongly disliked militias for fighting and he felt they weren't useful in doing anything other than rabble rousing. The militia were used in certain battles to back up the Continental Army, but they didn't play some tremendous role. The French soldiers played more of a role in winning the revolution than militias (as entities).

Yes in fact you are arguing the Federal Law.
If not for Federal Law, there would be NO GUN CONTROL.
If not for Federal Law, there would be NO WAR ON DRUGS.
Those laws ALL come from Federal Law, and are backed by Federal Mandates.
States have the right to make laws, but these were put in place by the FED.
States have tried to change them but have been punished BY THE FED.
The Constitution is the Highest Law. State law is still subject to the Constitution, and what is not forbidden or mandated by the Constitution is up to the States or the People.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the LAW. Any law written that "infringes" is unconstitutional.

Now drug laws could be a State law, but they came into existence through Federal Law and were imposed on the states. They are costly, both in enforcement and in individual Liberty.
The War on Drugs is the cause of most crime. Ending it would be a huge savings to state economies, and cut the need for an Army of police.
With only Fraud, Theft, Rape, Assualt and Murder as crime a smaller force would be sufficient.

[familydog]

Yes in fact you are arguing the Federal Law.
If not for Federal Law, there would be NO GUN CONTROL.
If not for Federal Law, there would be NO WAR ON DRUGS.
Those laws ALL come from Federal Law, and are backed by Federal Mandates.
States have the right to make laws, but these were put in place by the FED.
States have tried to change them but have been punished BY THE FED.
The Constitution is the Highest Law. State law is still subject to the Constitution, and what is not forbidden or mandated by the Constitution is up to the States or the People.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the LAW. Any law written that "infringes" is unconstitutional.

Now drug laws could be a State law, but they came into existence through Federal Law and were imposed on the states. They are costly, both in enforcement and in individual Liberty.
The War on Drugs is the cause of most crime. Ending it would be a huge savings to state economies, and cut the need for an Army of police.
With only Fraud, Theft, Rape, Assualt and Murder as crime a smaller force would be sufficient.

Erm, this is getting way of topic, but since you're falsely accusing me again of something I'm not advocating, I am going to defend myself.

I've never advocated for a federal law enforcement. I've never advocated for federal laws restricting guns or drugs. Where have I said that? You seem to be confused. All I was doing was arguing that because state and local governments can Constitutionally (see the original understanding of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution pre Civil War), make a wide range of laws (like gun restriction and drug laws) that the feds shouldn't be able to make (like gun control laws and drug laws), there should be a governmental police force to do more than to "keep the peace" as you say, and there is no proof to suggest the founders disagreed with that assesment. A state and local police force, you know, like the ones that were in place before federal law enforcements? So I'm not sure what on earth you're talking about.

In the days of the early republic, the Americans knew that the Constitution was basically a check on the federal government. The Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore is a good example of this. States had a lot more free reign to pass whatever laws that tickled their fancy than they do today.

Also, I'm not sure why you think that state and local governments never make laws against guns or drugs unless they are forced to by the federal government. I can give you historical and contemporary examples of this. Please, brush up on your American history.

[GunnyFreedom]

Erm, this is getting way of topic, but since you're falsely accusing me again of something I'm not advocating, I am going to defend myself.

I've never advocated for a federal law enforcement. I've never advocated for federal laws restricting guns or drugs. Where have I said that? You seem to be confused. All I was doing was arguing that because state and local governments can Constitutionally (see the original understanding of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution pre Civil War), make a wide range of laws (like gun restriction and drug laws) that the feds shouldn't be able to make (like gun control laws and drug laws), there should be a governmental police force to do more than to "keep the peace" as you say, and there is no proof to suggest the founders disagreed with that assesment. A state and local police force, you know, like the ones that were in place before federal law enforcements? So I'm not sure what on earth you're talking about.

In the days of the early republic, the Americans knew that the Constitution was basically a check on the federal government. The Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore is a good example of this. States had a lot more free reign to pass whatever laws that tickled their fancy than they do today.

Also, I'm not sure why you think that state and local governments never make laws against guns or drugs unless they are forced to by the federal government. I can give you historical and contemporary examples of this. Please, brush up on your American history.

I have never seen anybody on these boards argue that it was unconstitutional for the citizens of Utah to form the kind of society they desire through the state prohibition of alcohol. Because the US Constitution does not address alcohol, this falls under "powers not delegated to the Federal Government shall be reserved to the States and the People respectively."

Strangely enough, Utah's dry state ordinances do not seem to have resulted in massive crime waves.

However, the US Constitution DOES outright state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which means this is not a reserved power, but a power specifically delegated to the Federal Gov't. Therefore, if there IS a federal police force, they should be directly responsible for enforcing the people's right to keep and bear arms AGAINST the state and local governments.

In other words, individual states do have the right to prohibit alcohol if they so choose, but states who attempt to restrict gun ownership violate the reserved powers of the US Constitution, and should be in danger of Federal enforcement as a result of violating those reserved powers.

I, unlike others here, DO see a place for a federal law enforcement body; but that body would be very different from the Justice Department we see today. The main responsibility of the FBI should be to enforce the US Constitution against whatever parties might violate it. In my little universe, the FBI would arrest and imprison the DC Mayor for violating their citizens Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.

In a nutshell, the states CAN regulate/prohibit things like alcohol, drugs, abortion, etc. which are NOT delegated to the Fed under the Constitution, but CANNOT regulate/prohibit thinks like religion, speech, guns, militias, etc. which ARE delegated to the Fed under the Constitution.

[pcosmar]

familydog

I am trying to point out the intention rather than what has come to be expected.

Erm, this is getting way of topic, but since you're falsely accusing me again of something I'm not advocating, I am going to defend myself.
I was not accusing, nor meant as an attack. No need to be defensive.
I was pointing out that the Militia is the whole of the people, ARMED.

As far as the limits on Laws, the 10th amendment is clear.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power to infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear arms is PROHIBITED TO THE STATES by the Constitution.
IT is a RIGHT.


Also, I'm not sure why you think that state and local governments never make laws against guns or drugs unless they are forced to by the federal government. I can give you historical and contemporary examples of this. Please, brush up on your American history.
There have been local laws on guns, and they have been overturned when taken to the supreme Court.
I am hopeful that the Court will rule that the 2nd is an Individual Right, in the Heller Case.
I do know that local Michigan laws have been overturned.
AS far as Drug laws go, I agree that it is in the local jurisdiction, However I would be interested in those laws that were in effect before the 1914 Harrison Tax Act or the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The only one I am aware of is a Utah law in 1915.

1915 Utah passed the first state anti-marijuana law. Mormons who had gone to Mexico in 1910 returned smoking marijuana. It was outlawed at a result of the Utah legislature enacting all Mormon religion prohibitions as criminal laws.
But as I said that is within State rights.
Since that time states that decriminalized or legalized substances are prosecuted federally.
There are ongoing cases in California.

My point was that Local law enforcement can be better handled by the local Sheriff, backed up by Local citizens. City Police would be under the local Sheriff, an elected official rather than a hired or appointed Chief.
As an Elected Official he would be answerable to the local people and could call on those same people for any assistance.
With less intrusive Laws and a Liberty oriented society, a large police force would not be necessary.

[familydog]

I have never seen anybody on these boards argue that it was unconstitutional for the citizens of Utah to form the kind of society they desire through the state prohibition of alcohol. Because the US Constitution does not address alcohol, this falls under "powers not delegated to the Federal Government shall be reserved to the States and the People respectively."

Strangely enough, Utah's dry state ordinances do not seem to have resulted in massive crime waves.

However, the US Constitution DOES outright state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which means this is not a reserved power, but a power specifically delegated to the Federal Gov't. Therefore, if there IS a federal police force, they should be directly responsible for enforcing the people's right to keep and bear arms AGAINST the state and local governments.

In other words, individual states do have the right to prohibit alcohol if they so choose, but states who attempt to restrict gun ownership violate the reserved powers of the US Constitution, and should be in danger of Federal enforcement as a result of violating those reserved powers.

I, unlike others here, DO see a place for a federal law enforcement body; but that body would be very different from the Justice Department we see today. The main responsibility of the FBI should be to enforce the US Constitution against whatever parties might violate it. In my little universe, the FBI would arrest and imprison the DC Mayor for violating their citizens Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.

In a nutshell, the states CAN regulate/prohibit things like alcohol, drugs, abortion, etc. which are NOT delegated to the Fed under the Constitution, but CANNOT regulate/prohibit thinks like religion, speech, guns, militias, etc. which ARE delegated to the Fed under the Constitution.

It really lays in one's interpretation. I have suggested that through the original understanding of the Bill of Rights, the states could absolutely make gun control laws. I pointed to Barron v. Baltimore as the example. The Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment and ultimately all others (that includes the 2nd) only applied to the Federal government. Thus, if a state wanted to put restrictions on guns, the federal government could not do anything about it. It was up to the people making up those states to change the law themselves if they thought it unfair. This is going by their understanding of the drafting process of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It wasn't until Republicans during and after the Civil War changed this interpretation and now we have this modern interpretation that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well.

[familydog]

familydog

My point was that Local law enforcement can be better handled by the local Sheriff, backed up by Local citizens. City Police would be under the local Sheriff, an elected official rather than a hired or appointed Chief.
As an Elected Official he would be answerable to the local people and could call on those same people for any assistance.
With less intrusive Laws and a Liberty oriented society, a large police force would not be necessary.

Lol where have I disagreed with that? :p

[Allen72289]

Switzerland has a militia btw.

Look at their crime rate

[Doktor_Jeep]

On booze and gunz....

yes the founders thought that guns were more important that booze.

I do not know however if they every imagined there would be a ban on alchohol, even on a federal level. Dry towns may have existed then, and blue laws exist to this day as well.

Perhaps the founders did not foresee a society so weak that it could not handle liquor?