Talk:Militia movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon gun.svg

This Militia movement related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

2nd amendment[edit]

Amendment II

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.

So this is it? A militia is necessary to protect the USA from Canada and Mexico? This is what gives individuals in the in the USA the right to carry arms for personal defense? Or as a non USAin am I missing something here?--Bob_M (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Hey, we beat them twice already, they wanna be ready for the third time! --Kels 14:31, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, don't forget, at the time the war of 1812 was just about 25 years in the future, so things hadn't simmered down yet between the British and the United States, and since many Tories fled to Canada, we had known hostiles directly abutting us. (Even today we still have Fort Drum in upstate New York -- no one seriously expects hostilities to break out between the US and Canada (except maybe Trey Parker and Matt Stone), but they aren't closing that base any time soon). As for Mexico, well, the relationship has always been an uneasy one, probably even pretty close to a cold war for much of the late 19th century and during WWI. If there were hostilities, it would make a lot of sense for every citizen to be armed and training in a citizen militia. In practice, however, unfettered access to firearms has done more harm than good in a lot of areas -- I don't think that's an argument against complete elimination of private gun ownership, but it does indicate that something has to change about our regulatory structure. Too many gangbangers shooting up inner cities, too many unbalanced old white guys with too many rifles in their closets. EVDebs 18:39, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Considering that the militia has been mobilized as part of the federal Army during the Civil war, Mexican war, WWI, WWII, that is ALMOST established by history, save for the UNORGANIZED militia, per the Militia Act of 1903. Or doesn't an ACT OF CONGRESS mean anything, as no mere AMENDMENT means nothing?Wzrd1 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Try as I might, I can't really figure out what your point is. (You do realize the unorganized militia is a legal fiction designed to cover the government's ass from a constitutional standpoint, right? The proper way of activating the unorganized militia is by draft.) EVDebs (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The unorganized militia isn't quite a fiction, otherwise, militia groups would have been prosecuted for forming their organizations. The draft was secondary, but necessary, but not exclusive to ALL unorganized militias. That is readily apparent in both the historic documents written (to include debate on the act and diaries written by those involved) and in codified law. The draft selects ALL male citizens, not necessarily unorganized militias, who WOULD be armed and acquainted with the usage and handling of weapons. Hence, it is not a legal fiction, as there ARE currently militia groups in this nation, who band together armed, who train (to what level of proficiency is questionable), without any legal oversight, discouragement or prosecution of any lawfully armed members or groups. If it were a "legal fiction", said organizations would not be permitted to exist. As one example, one known unorganized militia groups actually owns tanks, a legal fiction wouldn't permit such a thing.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nnnnot exactly. You're conflating two different things. The unorganized militia is a legal construct meant to satisfy the constitutional requirement in name only; independent militias are rednecks playing cargo cult soldier. Much as said rednecks have convinced themselves otherwise, there's no legal relationship. I'd say in those cases, there are either no laws being broken or the government doesn't take them seriously enough to prosecute; when they step on the wrong toes or start harassing people, the government has a history of taking notice right quick. The Hutaree found that out the hard way. EVDebs (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Not quite accurate. There was zero legislation that made the unorganized militia unlawful or a "legal fiction". Meanwhile, some states HAVE used unorganized militia during emergencies. MOST other unorganized militias are more like clubs or re-enactors, so rather outside the scope of this article. But, some unorganized militia units remained after the Militia Act of 1903 as sister units and remain extant today. I've met some who were sister units of my old National Guard unit, the unit being mobilized for WWII and never disbanded back to the unorganized militia, but the sister units remained unorganized. Said militia and NG unit were founded by none other than Benjamin Franklin.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

quote mining is for silly liberals[edit]

First Amendment (context for second)[edit]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Hmn, I suppose this means that I don't have the right to complain to my government, since the term "people" was used in the clause. Silly liberals, quote mining is for kids. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 10:21, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Not being a USian, how far apart were the 1st - 4th Amendments enacted? You say they're context for each other, so I'd assume they were pretty close together. --Kels 14:22, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
The first 10 amendments were enacted together. Though I'm not sure what point HG is trying to make. Times have changed. At the time the amendments were enacted, a single person in a crowded place with a gun could get off one, maybe two shots before he would be brought down by the people around him. With modern guns, a single person can cause incredible havoc. ThunderkatzHo! 14:28, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Irrelevant. One could say the same of speech that is not protected, such as "fighting words", "hate speech", etc. One can get out a few words to incite riot until they were shut up. With modern technology, that is no longer true. For a test of an argument about restricting a right, use another right in the same general scenario. If it is absurd or objectionable (such as outlawing free speech), it failed the test. Indeed, religion could also be argued the same way, where churches were used by the KKK to plan burning of occupied churches of black citizens, where the religious text of another faith was burned for the outrage value, knowing violence would ensue, etc. Meanwhile, the law abiding citizen is punished by the loss of a right previously lawfully enjoyed due to a few scofflaws and troublemakers. The danger then being when do we STOP removing abused rights? Before or after coerced confessions, warrantless searches and random search and seizures? Because then, the "Bill of Rights" became the "Bill of Optionals".Wzrd1 (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment (context for second)[edit]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Oops, there's that "people again." So warrantless searches are okay as long as they are carried out against an individual. (Application of liberal thinking) HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 10:24, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Im sorry HG, but your reasoning works against you. In the amendments you quote, the PEOPLE are given a particular right to be free of something, or free to do something. The second says that a "well-regulated militia" is necessary, and therefore people will need to arm themselves. It doesn't say one way or another, or even imply, whether individuals outside of this militia should be able to keep arms, or what kind they should keep. It's open to lots of interpretations, hence the controversy.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 16:28, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

There really is no controversy, aside from modern citizens who do not like modern guns but refuse to follow the ammendment process and instead rely on pullying the rug out from under the amendment by changing the meanings of words. The ammendment itself says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...and you're right, the introductory rationale is provided "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". Even the WP article seems to be fairly objective on the 2nd amendment.
Yes, there is controversy. But the controversy is strict constructionists v. "living, breathing constitution" types. Anybody who argues that the purpose of the second amendment was for the national gaurd is just pandering to popular ignorance. Also, you should know something about the Bill of Rights, why it wasn't included at the Constitutional convention (Jefferson was in Paris during the Constitutional Convention, if my memory is correct). The constitution enumerated government powers, and some at the convention argued that anything not so enumerated means that a legitimate government cannot wield any such power (e.g., along the lines of John Locke's thinking on what makes a government legitimate, viz., it weilds no power not given to it by its citizens).
Some argued that by having extra provisions (Bill of Rights) explicitly denying the government other powers would weaken the enumerated powers intention. In any event, this is based on memory, and while I do not remember the details, I remember the conclusion I came to after studying the issue. The 2nd amendment is not providing something to the government--it is recognizing and spelling out a right to the people, that is, a collection of political persons. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir
Wow, dude you typee drinky. I thought that was my problem. Here is my take: The constitution is a piece of archaic crap, the one thing that never got done was amending it/rewriting it every ten or twenty years or so. Is it any wonder that no democracies on the planet have copied it? Most, or all, modern democracies use a parlamentarian model - one in which the elctions of 2006 would have ousted GWB from his monstrous and ugly hold on power. And for good reason. The US is the most retrograde democracy still standing. Wake up and smell the coffee (or, roses). humanbe in 23:55, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
I seem to remember that Liberia copied our Constitution (or at least used it as a model). HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 23:59, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Oops, gee, that's one. Versus every other republic on the planet? humanbe in 00:02, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, it is (or was) one. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 00:05, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I await your essay: "Liberia, the model of modern democracy." Sheesh, humanbe in 00:09, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I do not intend this as an insult, but were you serious when you mentioned you were drunk? The liberian example was a response to "no democracies on the planet..." comment. I'll avoid the essay, but might make an article. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 00:12, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
To address one of my ealier comments....Okay, I did write "(Application of liberal thinking)" My mistake, and my apologies for forgetting that I wrote it. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 00:13, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

It was only historically recently that the rights outlined in the constitution was considered to be bound to the states as well. Previously, the legal thought was all rights outlined in the constitution were for the federal government and states themselves, but not to the general populace. See .Wzrd1 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

IP drive-by[edit]

This article was hit by a BoN drive-by edit, with a lot of vague and/or unsourced statements (as P-Foster noted). Rm the edits? ThunderkatzHo! 20:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


Where is the boundary between the militia and some of the historical reenactment groups (ballistas and crossbows are not to be messed with - nor a sarissa for that matter). Anna Livia (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

From my understanding of the two, a militia intends to act as part of a military or paramilitary police. Historical reenactment groups just do a battle over again for fun. Maybe they change up the outcome a bit, but they're just pretending in the end. Militias want to be very real.Oshawottalot 16:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The re-enactment lot are probably more useful - they interact with the historians and archaeologists over the practicalities.
If the situation envisaged by the militia movements were to arise, would they or the reenactionists have a better chance of survival/surviving an encounter? (Given that bamboo and pollarded tree arrow shafts are a crop, unlike bullets.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure militia movement would use modern technology, whereas reenactment groups are stuck to historical accuracy, unless you count reenactors of the World War I tank gunners versus random morons with glocks or something. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
But once the 'fuel or power sources' and bullets were used up the situation might well change (and appropriately garden tool-caltrops are very low tech but can be rather effective).
The way to get rich/survive 'should the apocalypse occur' - stockpile 'seeds, first aid materials, 'how to do it books', useful spares, hex keys, gaffer and duct tapes, small tools and parts thereof and similar - and know how to use them (so you are more valuable alive than dead). Anna Livia (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Could 2016-present be considered a "third wave" of the militia movement?[edit]

The period from the 2016 election to the present (and especially since 2020) could arguably be considered a seperate "era" of the militia movement from the "second wave" that emerged during the Obama years. The main difference is, obviously, while the militia movement in the past had a general distrust and hatred of the government in general, much of the movement today has wholeheartedly embraced QAnon and the cult of Trump. Not to mention, their involvement in the anti-lockdown, anti-BLM, "Stop the Steal", etc. movements has given them much more acceptance from mainstream conservatism than ever before (I don't think you'd see many mainstream conservative pundits calling Kyle Rittenhouse a "patriot" a decade ago). Overall, I would argue that the general forgoing of libertarianism and paleoconservatism in favor of simplistic Trump worship, plus the increased mainstream acceptance, would arguably make this a "third wave."TheEndlessVoid (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)