Re: On the Militia of the US Constitution


"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99F37B836BA3Cloneweaselgml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99F3707C1ABA5loneweaselgml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


[begin excerpt]

It is said that Congress should not possess the power of
calling out the militia, to execute the laws of the Union,
suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; nor the
President have the command of them when called out for
such purposes.

I believe any gentleman, who possesses military
experience, will reform you that men without a uniformity
of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a
mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting,
they interfere with one another. If a soldier drops his
musket, and his companion, unfurnished with one, takes it
up, it is of no service, because his cartridges do not fit
it. By means of this system, a uniformity of arms and
discipline will prevail throughout the United Stares.

Page 522

I really expected that, for this part of the system at
least, the framers of it would have received plaudits
instead of censures, as they here discover a strong
anxiety to have this body put upon an effective footing,
and thereby, in a great measure, to supersede the
necessity of raising or keeping up standing armies.

The militia formed under this system, and trained by the
several states, will be such a bulwark of internal
strength, as to prevent the attacks of foreign enemies. I
have been told that, about the year 1744, an attack was
intended by France upon Massachusetts Bay, but was given
up on reading the militia law of the province.

If a single state could deter an enemy from such attempts,
what influence will the proposed arrangement have upon the
different powers of Europe?

In every point of view, this regulation is calculated to
produce good effects. How powerful and respectable must
the body of militia appear under general and uniform
regulations! How disjointed, weak, and inefficient are
they at present! I appeal to military experience for the
truth of my observations.

James Wilson on the militia of the US Constitution

Elliot's Debates, Volume 2. 521-522

[end excerpt]

Note Wilson's use of the term "regulation", "general and
uniform regulations".

He means federal and state laws applied to the militias of
the several states, which is what makes them
well-regulated.

No, that is ONE means by which to achieve a status of
"well-regulated", does not mean it is the ONLY means.

You mean the militia can be trained to march and shoot well,
of course that context of well-regulated applies in training.

Certainly, and that training can be provided by anyone, including members of
the militia who know how and are willing to teach.


But we're talking about the same thing James Wilson's talking
about, coordination of the militia laws between state and
federal governments.

<yawn>

It includes constitutions & statutes &
federal & state regulations, none of which conflict between a
state and the federal government. Wilson was impressed by the
new well-regulated militia as a veteran of the military and
the Continental Congress.

If you want to apply the term well-regulated to the training
or performance of the militia, okay. Just don't confuse that
conotation with the meaning of well-regulation in Art I Sect 8
Cl 15-16,

Sorry, but well regulated doesn't show up in Art I, Sect 8, Cl 15-16, nor
does "well-regulation" for that matter. Simply those clauses give Congress
certain authority to aid the militia in becoming "well regulated". Nothing
more.


in the Second Amendment,

Sorry, but "well regulated" has nothing to do with the authority given to
Congress in Article 1.

and in state constitutional

Which again has nothing to do with the authority granted Congress.

and statute law.

Which is a result of the authority given Congress and state government.

Under which many people ARE members of "the well regulated militia" and not
just those in the National Guard. Interesting how you ignore the statutory
declaration of the militia and their "well regulated" nature.


Consider for a second by what means can government impose
their will? Legislation and thus regulation. If the people
have enough self interest and self direction they can
achieve being well regulated without any government
involvement in the least.

Not in military matters, that was a major problem with the
Articles of Confederation.

Certainly, because the militia isn't a military matter.



It's just that history as shown
that few people have this sort of dedication, hence some
need for government involvement.

Anybody care to dispute these facts?

<yawn> and still does not touch upon, nor alter the fact
that the people, not just the militia, have the right to
keep and bear arms AS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

Why don't you take a nap, Mr. Glaser, then maybe you can read
the text I just posted as it's written, instead of how your
ego changes it.

As much as you lie, I'm sure he doesn't pay much attention to you anyway. I
mean you're not even talking to Mr. Glaser but you randomly address him
anyway. I can only wonder about the lack of your mental capacity.



You can dodge around all you like Lee, but you can't alter
than one irrefutable fact.

Nonexistent facts are hard to refute but impossible to prove,
Snout.

Oh, so the 2nd Amendment is nonexistent?

Intersting assertion you just made.....


You've never proved anything except your pigheaded
adherence to NRA disinformation, eh Porky Pig?

IOW, facts, history, language, context, grammar, and all those other things
you ignore, dismiss, deny, or otherwise call 'horse***'.



.