Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,481 posts)
Mon May 21, 2012, 01:41 PM May 2012

The Militia

During the Revolution the Militia and the Continental Army fought for the independence of the American colonies. It was the wisdom of the Founders that disdained the existence of a standing army in a time of peace. That wisdom also recognized the need to raise an army in short order.

During the War the British looked down on colonial militias. Frequently those regular citizens were defeated and run off due to the superior equipment, training, organization and experience of the regular army they faced. It was the dedication on the part of its members and the steadfast support of their friends and families that led to the success of the militias. For example, Paul Revere was a militia member. After Boston fell to the British, he and most of his family moved temporarily to Watertown, MA. His son, Paul Jr., remained in Boston to watch over the family's properties. Paul Jr. helped in establishing a mill near Boston capable of producing gun powder. Paul Jr. was 15 at the time. Henry Ludington was a militia commander in New York State. His daughter, Sybil, undertook a ride similar to Paul Revere's to alert the Duchess County Militia in April of 1777. She was 16.

The point is ordinary people successfully stood against a professional army. Today's militia, in part, staffs the military.

The militia consists of armed ordinary people capable of staffing a military force. We haven't had seen this type of independent militia action since the Battle of Athens in 1946. The Second Amendment protects the arms of the ordinary people.

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Militia (Original Post) discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 OP
Yours is a fantasy version of history... rfranklin May 2012 #1
No doubt all these problems were rampant. discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #5
Was Heraclitus under Washington's command? rfranklin May 2012 #8
Were you under Washington's command? discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #10
Your ability to reply with a non sequitur is not in questions either... rfranklin May 2012 #12
Your ability to... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #13
LOL, thread-crusher right there. Atypical Liberal May 2012 #18
I must confess... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #20
All one needs to ask is how long have citizens been allowed to own firearms? ileus May 2012 #2
That depends... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #7
Second Militia Act of 1792 safeinOhio May 2012 #3
ironic thing is gejohnston May 2012 #4
You mean like... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #14
kind of gejohnston May 2012 #15
And if you use that car on public roads. Atypical Liberal May 2012 #19
Big difference between state and federal authority Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #16
Different how? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #6
conscripted for one thing. safeinOhio May 2012 #9
I'm not sure that... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #11
Don't base your entire opinion on one section of law . . . DanM May 2012 #17
 

rfranklin

(13,200 posts)
1. Yours is a fantasy version of history...
Mon May 21, 2012, 01:49 PM
May 2012

One expert estimates that as many as 25 percent of the men who enlisted in the cause of American Independence ultimately deserted the ranks. As Joseph Lee Boyle explains in the trenchant Introduction to his new two-volume work, "He Loves a Good Deal of Rum" (see also Volume 2, June 30, 1777-1783), a number of factors coalesced to foster this problem. Short-term enlistments were the norm, causing some soldiers to take a casual attitude about remaining in the ranks for their full term. Others fled the service in response to harsh punishments meted out for relatively minor crimes. "Hardships due to poor or non-existent food and clothing, infrequent paydays and those in the face of rampant inflation, fear of combat, homesickness, family problems, crowded unsanitary life in camp, and rampant disease were all contributing factors to soldiers refusing to join or abruptly leaving military life."

Soldiers deserted from all theaters of the Revolution, although roughly as many deserted during the first two years of the war as in the period after June 1777, as the Patriot army became more professionalized.


http://www.genealogical.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&item_number=9946

The citizen soldier was very unreliable.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,481 posts)
5. No doubt all these problems were rampant.
Mon May 21, 2012, 02:43 PM
May 2012
Out of every hundred men, ten shouldn’t be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back. - Heraclitus

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,481 posts)
13. Your ability to...
Mon May 21, 2012, 05:22 PM
May 2012

...provide only an example of irony is, while amusing, rather off topic.



While your initial response was factual, I don't see any fundamental conflict between it and the OP. Maybe you could highlight the issues for me.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
2. All one needs to ask is how long have citizens been allowed to own firearms?
Mon May 21, 2012, 01:58 PM
May 2012

3 weeks?

3 years?

30 years?

Who would make up the milita anyway?

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,481 posts)
7. That depends...
Mon May 21, 2012, 03:00 PM
May 2012

...on the urgency of the situation. In the most urgent situation the population will ultimately be divided into two groups, those who fight and an amalgam of causalities, prisoners, slaves and the disabled.

safeinOhio

(32,713 posts)
3. Second Militia Act of 1792
Mon May 21, 2012, 02:25 PM
May 2012

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[4] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

Sounds a little different than what you are talking about.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
4. ironic thing is
Mon May 21, 2012, 02:29 PM
May 2012

the act required you to go buy your own stuff including the gun. If SCOTUS decides that forcing one to buy a good or service from a private company (like health insurance in the latest version of NixonCare) by logical extension, would the Militia act would also be unconstitutional?

The Swiss issues the assault rifle or pistol and is your to keep after your service.

Glaug-Eldare

(1,089 posts)
16. Big difference between state and federal authority
Mon May 21, 2012, 11:18 PM
May 2012

that I think a lot of people either don't understand or willfully ignore. The states are inclusively sovereign -- they can exercise any authority whatsoever (in accordance with their own constitution) not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, including requiring citizens to purchase goods. The federal government is exclusively sovereign -- it has only the powers delegated to it by its member states, which may or may not (pending several SCOTUS cases) include requiring citizens to purchase goods. There is no reason a state could not exercise its authority to maintain a conscripted militia.

 

DanM

(341 posts)
17. Don't base your entire opinion on one section of law . . .
Tue May 22, 2012, 08:22 AM
May 2012

There is, in fact, both organized and unorganized militia, and "militia" is not a word that refers to any kind of military unit, but refers to the *individuals* in the society who are suitable to fight. And, to top it off, US law recognizes that there is an unorganized militia, and it properly uses the word "militia":

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The Militia