• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Militia question 1

CFLarsen said:
That's what you normally call "blackmail".

Just another reason to eliminate the UN altogether...



CFLarsen said:
You "excel" at policing yourselves? You really believe that Americans are superior, then?

Only when determining the course of the US, as I've already stated. That inferiority complex of yours could be simply remedied by requesting American citizenship...



CFLarsen said:
No obfuscation. If you can talk about the UN, so can I.

Revisionist history?!? You, Claus?!?

Nice try, but the evidence shows that you first mentioned the UN when you posted the following:

"But that's my point: The right is defined by making it legal.

Take human rights: They are not something that comes out of the blue - they are set down in law by the UN."



CFLarsen said:
Huh??? Please explain.

Take a good look at world history from about 1935 till the present day. Specifically the WWII conferences between the US, UK, and the soviets (Tehran, Yalta, etc...), and the Cold War, and compare that with how sovereign nations can communicate and meet today.
 
CFLarsen said:
Not correct. There have been cases of retroactive laws in the US.

Ex post facto laws are prohibited by Article I Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution in the case of the Federal government and Article 10 Clause 1 in the case of the states.
 
Kodiak said to Claus:

"We are talking about the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment, aren't we?"

IMO, we are not. Claus has an agenda here. Why else would a rational and intelligent man play dumb?

He wastes replies on the meaning of "creator" and ignores the mountains of leg work done by those willing to reply with rational and intelligent responses.

Although you are wasting your time with Claus, who really has a different reason for this thread than his poor, innocent "just want to hear about this militia thingie" act, you are doing me a great favor.

It is fantastic to read your replies and collected essays and resources. Thank you. While your efforts might be wasted on Claus, they are not wasted on me.
 
CFLarsen said:
BEEP! You lose by default, Luke. You can't use a divine argument here.

Those are the words of a Congressional resolution that passed unanimously.

You have a right, because God gave it to you?

Claus, who gave you your dreams? Who gave a lead brick its heaviness? The answer is that no human individual or authority granted these things; that's just a part of the nature of human beings and lead bricks, respectively.

You cannot take away the rights of humans any more than you can hook up a vacuum cleaner to a lead brick and suck out all the heavy. You can violate a person's rights, just like you can "violate" a brick's heaviness by tying it to a bunch of helium balloons, but either way, there must be a particular and specific application of force to do so.

Our rights, in our LEGAL system, exist without and predate the Constitution. The very language of the Constitution confirms that. Your usual dishonesty in trying to make this a religious issue is just a red herring, and dangerously close to an ad hominem.
 
This game is over. The only reason that I can imagine that you are going on Claus, is that in your system rights are enunciated and granted by government? Is that so? So, therefore, a person with that expectation would want to see the right in black and white. It does not work that way here. The government granting of rights, if that is what is going on, is simply a vestage of feudal society that still exists in europe, I guess. Remember, the founders wanted to avoid that stuff.
 
After 7 pages of discussion, despite many excellent and informed posts discussing the Second Amendment and the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers, it is my opinion that no one has really directly addressed the original question in this thread, which was this:

The question is:

Who regulates this militia?

Forget any possible agenda Claus may or may not have had in posing the question. I took the question at face value and will give my analysis of a direct response.

There is a simple, direct answer, depending on which definition of militia one chooses to use. Claus gave us four possible definitions quoted below, and he immediately ruled out Number 2.

1. an official reserve army, composed of non-professional soldiers;
2. the police in Russia or East European countries;
3. the entire able-bodied population of a state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, or;
4. a private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by the government.


I'll go ahead and rule out Number 4 as well, because it's clear that any private non-governmental force is not regulated by any government. By definition, such a force must be self-regulated and thus the question as applied to Number 4 is trivial.

That leaves us with two possible material definitions: 1 and 3.

The first one concerns reserve forces. With respect to the United States Army, I am positively certain that the reserve forces consist of two components (you can check the U.S. Army's official website for confirmation). They are the Army Reserve and the National Guard.

The Army Reserve is a federal force and is indeed regulated by statutes passed by the Congress and by administrative regulations promulgated by the Department of the Army under authority given it by Congress.

The National Guard is made of 50 individual forces, one for each state. It is ordinarily a state force and is regulated by each respective state by statutes passed by the respective state legislatures and by administrative regulations of the state. The governor of each state serves as the commander in chief of its respective National Guard.

The National Guard can be federalized by the President in times of emergency or wartime. It is then, and only then, that the National Guard becomes regulated by Congress and federal administrative regulations. This is because of federal preemption of state or local laws.

The Air Force and the Navy have similar reserve components, both federal and state.

The third definition of militia is simple. It consists of all able bodied males and females who are members of a reserve component. This is implemented by the draft and by activating reserve units, retired members of the armed forces, and members of the individual ready reserve into active duty status. The draft is a federal function and has no state analog. Activating units, retired members, and IRRs is also a federal function. Thus, it is regulated by Congress, and by the President as commander in chief. See Article I, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2, United States Constitution.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:
After 7 pages of discussion, despite many excellent and informed posts discussing the Second Amendment and the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers, it is my opinion that no one has really directly addressed the original question in this thread, which was this:

Actually, we have. As the language for the phrase "well-regulated militia" came straight from the Articles of Confederation, which defined such as "sufficiently armed and accoutered," then the militia, being the armed body of the people, regulate themselves. State governments and the Federal government have the power to call the militia into action, and in that case can regulate them thus as well.
 
"...it is my opinion that no one has really directly addressed the original question in this thread..."

Glad to hear it.

Would that opinion be altered by reading the repeatedly referenced legally binding items, starting with the Constitution which gives Congress the job of regulating the militia, which they not only do, but also define in US Code Title 10 and 32?

Or is that sort of stuff rendered irrelevant in favor of cutting and pasting similar sounding terms like 'reserves'?
 
crimresearch said:
"...it is my opinion that no one has really directly addressed the original question in this thread..."

Glad to hear it.

Would that opinion be altered by reading the repeatedly referenced legally binding items, starting with the Constitution which gives Congress the job of regulating the militia, which they not only do, but also define in US Code Title 10 and 32?

Or is that sort of stuff rendered irrelevant in favor of cutting and pasting similar sounding terms like 'reserves'?

Well, you don't have to be a smart*ss about it. Actually, I did read the entire thread at once. As I said in my post above, there are many excellent responses concerning the 2nd Amendment. You are correct that several responses, particularly Shane's, do address the militia and how it is regulated. I contend that it is incorrect to assert that the militia that refers to all able bodied men is self-regulated. It is in fact regulated by Congress. The only self-regulated militias in the U.S. are private ones, such as the Montana Freeman, for example.

No one specifically addressed the fact that the reserve components are in fact part of the militia, albeit using a different definition of militia. Also, no one addressed the fact that each respective National Guard is a state regulated body, except when they become federalized during wartime or a national emergency.

As for the legal references, I am quite familiar with them. I am a practicing attorney with 16 years of experience, three of which were as an active duty U.S. Army JAG, or army lawyer. I am familiar with the regular active duty and reserve components of the U.S. Army and who regulates each. Regulating them consists of both statutory code and administrative regulations. The statutes consist of laws made by Congress in the case of the reserves, and laws passed by each respective state legislature in the case of the National Guard. Administrative regulations are promulated by the Department of the Army in the case of the reserves, and by state administrative regulatory bodies in the case of the guard.

Finally, I rendered my opinion because another poster e-mailed me and requested that I give my opinion on the matter. Out of respect for and my friendship with that poster I did so. I am not the least bit interested in discussing the arguably implied issue of the 2nd Amendment and the possible legality of gun control, however.

That's why I stated my opinion. If you had read my post carefully, you would have noted that I did in fact reference the pertinent parts of the Constitution. I did not reference the United States Code provisions because stating that Congress regulates the reserves clearly implies that such legislative regulation is found in the U.S. Code. That's where we find federal statutes. I know very well that the relevant chapters are found in Title 10. Administrative regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, or CFR. That's where one can find the relevant regulations of the Department of the Army. Each such regulation is published also by the Department of the Army, with different numbers and citations from those found in the CFR. The actual regulations themselves, apart from the commentaries and forms in each, are identical to those in the CFR. They are both just different places where those regulations can be found.

AS
 
shanek said:
Actually, we have. As the language for the phrase "well-regulated militia" came straight from the Articles of Confederation, which defined such as "sufficiently armed and accoutered," then the militia, being the armed body of the people, regulate themselves. State governments and the Federal government have the power to call the militia into action, and in that case can regulate them thus as well.

That's only one definition of militia. Claus gave four, but ruled out one of them. I ruled out another because it's trivial in this context.

Using your definition, your response is incorrect. Although able bodied males who are not members of a regular armed force or the reserve components and not serving on active duty status due to being drafted into service, are not regulated by Congress with respect to military service, those eligible for the draft are in fact regulated by Congress once activated into service. I contend that it is incorrect to assert that such persons and/or units are self-regulated with respect to military service. That's simply untrue.

You did not address the third definition Claus gave for militia. Although someone cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code (I believe it was Wolverine, but I don't feel like going through all 7 pages again), no one specifically addressed the two components of the reserve forces and how they are regulated by different bodies. That is in fact part of the answer to the question Claus posed, although he may have had the Second Amendment in mind. Of course, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the third definition of militia.

AS
 
"...I contend that it is incorrect to assert that the militia that refers to all able bodied men is self-regulated."

Citing US Code as I did, does not equate with making that assertion.
I certainly didn't make it, and somewhere in these threads, I clearly broke out the purported rationale for having 2 components to the militia, one of which did not need to have a command structure or formal drills.
Choosing to include all of those people within the scope and definition of 'A well regulated milita' is Congress' decision, not ours.

I also had recently posted a clear distinction between private militias and the type under discussion.

So imagine my surprise to learn upon reading your post, that "no one has really directly addressed the original question in this thread", to wit, ''Who regulates this militia?

Perhaps by coming into this thread via an emailed invitation, you were not aware that the OP has cross posted the same basic topic in a number of threads, which seems lkely to lead to such confusion over who has and hasn't provided which sort of answers.
 
AmateurScientist said:
I contend that it is incorrect to assert that the militia that refers to all able bodied men is self-regulated. It is in fact regulated by Congress.

Only to the extent permitted in I.8.16, which is not the whole of the militia. Which covers the reserves and the National Guard you mentioned, so I don't see wher eyou get off saying we've ignored them.
 
AmateurScientist said:
That's only one definition of militia.

That's the definition our founders used, so it's the only one relevant to this discussion.

You did not address the third definition Claus gave for militia.

Because it's irrelevant. Our founders had a specific definition that they used, and that wasn't it.
 
AmateurScientist, it is good to see you in this topic and your input is the usual good stuff. But it has become obvious by now that Claus is only interested in the definition of a militia because he believes that if that meaning no longer applies in modern times, then the right to bear arms is null and void. Discussing or defending definitions of "militia" only lends validity to this erroneous belief. And that is why so many of us have focused on the right to bear arms rather than the militia.

If other countries wish to live by the precept they have no rights except those that are given to them by their government, I feel sorry for them. It's like saying the universal speed limit was not the speed of light until Einstein wrote it down.

Claus, there are a number of questions you have chosen to not answer in this topic. Some which have been repeatedly directed to you. Terribly hypocritical of you to choose not to answer. I will think of this topic whenever you demand someone "Answer the question" or compose one of your famous lists.
 
Luke T. said:
Claus, there are a number of questions you have chosen to not answer in this topic. Some which have been repeatedly directed to you. Terribly hypocritical of you to choose not to answer. I will think of this topic whenever you demand someone "Answer the question" or compose one of your famous lists.

No, there are not a number of questions I have chosen not to answer. Yesterday, I was busy, and the forum has been down today, so I found better things to do than sit around, waiting for it to come up again.

I'll try to catch up with the questions as best I can.
 
shanek said:
What does the 9th Amendment say, Claus (in your own words)?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You can't do something that inflicts (on?) my rights.

shanek said:
What does the 10th (again, in your own words)?

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.

That, which is not dealt with by the Constitution is left for the States or people to decide. (whatever that means - what, in the States, is not covered?)

You got a hell of a nerve to demand answers, when you refuse to answer questions yourself, you hypocrite.
 
Kodiak said:
Just another reason to eliminate the UN altogether...

I was talking about the US blackmailing the UN...

Kodiak said:
Only when determining the course of the US, as I've already stated.

What situation would not be determining the "course" of the US?

Kodiak said:
That inferiority complex of yours could be simply remedied by requesting American citizenship...

I prefer to be a Dane, thank you very much. It would be nice if people could make up their minds about whether I have a superiority complex or the opposite.

Kodiak said:
Revisionist history?!? You, Claus?!?

Not at all. I am not trying to rewrite history. I am pointing out that if you can, then I can.

Kodiak said:
Nice try, but the evidence shows that you first mentioned the UN when you posted the following:

Who said anything about mentioning the UN first? You had no problems joining in at first, but then you pulled back, and then chastised me for talking about the UN.

Kodiak said:
Take a good look at world history from about 1935 till the present day. Specifically the WWII conferences between the US, UK, and the soviets (Tehran, Yalta, etc...), and the Cold War, and compare that with how sovereign nations can communicate and meet today.

The fact that we have not had a WWIII is probably due to the UN. I sure as heck don't see much willingness to world peace from the US (except solely on US terms).
 
shanek said:
Ex post facto laws are prohibited by Article I Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution in the case of the Federal government and Article 10 Clause 1 in the case of the states.

So? It doesn't change the fact that there have been retroactive laws in the US.

For once in your life, deal with reality, please.
 

Back
Top Bottom