Minnesota Militia(s)?

[minnhawk]

Collector: You seem to take everything I wrote in my last post to be personally directed at you. We don't know each other; I didn't call you out in this last post. as I said, I am indeed greatly saddened by the revelation of the disconnect. I disagree with what you call errors in my thinking. You believe your science, I'll believe my experience from military leadership, learned and practiced, and we will part ways.

The Minnesota National Guard is not the Chinese Red Army. Have American officers shot a soldier for refusing to obey orders? Probably somewhere, but rarely. Have American soldiers shot their LT or NCO for giving a bad order? Probably, and a lot less rarely than an officer shooting an enlisted man. Would you have the cojones as an officer or NCO to shoot an infantryman with his buddies, all brothers and professional killers, watching you do it? It ain't Hollywood out there......

[Collector1337420]

Just because I responded to you, doesn't mean I think your post was directed towards just me...

Peace and God bless.

[MaryB]

That was an isolated event. During a US wide need their family is going to be living next door to some of us.


We already have documented instances of the military being used against US citizens domestically, so you're really arguing a moot point (remember the tanks at Waco?). Its happened before, and it will happen again.
You'll either follow the order, or get a bullet to the head or ten years in Leavenworth for your trouble. The US military will never rise up against the government.[/quote]

[xracer390]

Naw, they let the interns monitor the Intarweb traffic!

नमस्ते, मेरा नाम कुमार है, आप कृपया अपने टिकट नंबर दोहराने और हमें अगले उपलब्ध एफबीआई एजेंट के लिए एक कॉलबैक नंबर दे सकते हैं?

I did a google search for this and got https://www.google.com/search?q=%E0%A4% ... hannel=rcs

I think they are on to us.

[jshuberg]

“Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... 07-290.pdf

The US Supreme Court in DC v Heller found the “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. They also found that the federally-organized militia (The Nation Guard) is but a subset of the militia at large. Also note that they found the Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The National guard is a subset of the militia, which is comprised of all able bodied males capable of acting in the common defense. It is likely that this would also now include women, as women are now recognized as being capable of acting in the common defense, and are able to act in combat roles in the Army.

[peckerhead]

That was an isolated event. During a US wide need their family is going to be living next door to some of us.


We already have documented instances of the military being used against US citizens domestically, so you're really arguing a moot point (remember the tanks at Waco?). Its happened before, and it will happen again.
You'll either follow the order, or get a bullet to the head or ten years in Leavenworth for your trouble. The US military will never rise up against the government.

[/quote]
Its definitely not an isolated occurence.

In the Milgram study, 65% of the subjects administered a 440 volt shock to someone screaming jn pain and complaining of a heart condition, simply because they were told to be someone perceived by them as an authority figure. And that's not even taking military discipline into account.

[XDM45]

That's their problem right there....they believe in authority.

I'm sure my comment will spur some replies, and I'm not posting it to do that, rather because that's my real answer. If you really care to understand what I mean by it, PM me. I'd rather do that than derail this thread by my comment. Suffice it to say, I only comply with "authority" figures, agencies, laws, etc, because I choose to, not because I feel that I have to. Authority isn't something I'm vested in or believe in. I'm sure on the surface you probably think it sounds crazy, and again, PM me vs derailing this thread. If anyone PMs me and wants to understand why I think and feel the way I do, cool. If not, cool too. I'd rather keep this thread on-topic.

[Heffay]

Suffice it to say, I only comply with "authority" figures, agencies, laws, etc, because I choose to, not because I feel that I have to.

So, you "choose" to not go to jail or get fined, and have life-long complications as a result of standing up against "authority"?

What a rebel!

[XDM45]

Suffice it to say, I only comply with "authority" figures, agencies, laws, etc, because I choose to, not because I feel that I have to.

So, you "choose" to not go to jail or get fined, and have life-long complications as a result of standing up against "authority"?

What a rebel!

Clearly you'd rather troll than not.Trolling is fun for you. Since you really aren't interested in a real conversation with understanding, and since you can't get the desired effect out of a PM that you can in a public post; what's a troll like yourself left to do in order to get their ego fix?

Rather than derail this thread or feed the troll; I repeat what I wrote above: If you're interested in communicating and understanding, PM me.

Sorry about this bump in the road kids. Some people either don't understand written English, or they choose to ignore it. Remember, don't feed the troll. It's the kind thing to do for everyone.

[Heffay]

Clearly you'd rather troll than not.Trolling is fun for you. Since you really aren't interested in a real conversation with understanding, and since you can't get the desired effect out of a PM that you can in a public post; what's a troll like yourself left to do in order to get their ego fix?

Why do you care?

[XDM45]

Why do you care?

That you troll?

Think of the children...........

[cobb]

Thread derailed, name calling has started and the thread is now locked.