Well regulated militia?

[Sling Blade]

saw a program on the "Militia" in Arizona the other day. Where do you get fatigues in 3XL?

Same place I get my running clothes.

 

[Member 18201]

My quote was what you wrote.

IOW, I am not sure where you are connecting your paid for training with the training of the "well regulated militia" in Oregon.

I do not base my choices of action on a particular definition. I choose to be well prepared for whatever I may encounter. I am prepared for power outages due to weather ( or an idiot hitting a power pole ) as much as I am prepared for having life and liberty threatened from any source. I am willing to assist my neighbors in these situations as well. As I believe there should be no infringement in being well supplied and trained, I do not ask for Governmental assistance or permission to do what is proper and timely to preserve life and liberty. This is a point of philosophy, not ordinance.

I do hope that helps.

I am very used to people viewing my premise as odd. That is Ok, too.

 

[fd15k]

Just a heads up.

The militia in Oregon is no longer. It is now jointly ran with the federal government since 1961. Any person in Oregon can not join the Oregon State Defense Force (militia) unless they have prior military service.

I believe if the federal government turns on The People of the Untied States so will the Oregon national guard. They are now joined at the hip, per-say.

If you want to know more read these.....

Well, I have checked this :

<broken link removed>

What qualifications must I meet to enlist?

Age, height, weight, physical fitness and education are the primary factors. We are strict about applicants meeting them, but in some cases, we can help you get there if you fall short. To find out if you measure up to National Guard standards, click here.

Following a few links takes me here :

Eligibility Requirements | Guard Basics | NATIONAL GUARD

Am I eligible to join the National Guard?
Share

Most people between the ages of 17 and 35 (must enlist before their 35th birthday) are eligible to join the National Guard.

Where did you see "prior service" being a requirement ? I know there are special provisions for persons with prior service, but it's not a requirement to join the Guard.

 

[Father of four]

Oregon State Defense Force Home Page

JOIN THE ORSDF

Every person possesses skills and qualities that they can use to benefit the community. You can make a contribution toward the success of the ORSDF and consequently the community. Prior military service from any component is a prerequisite for all positions. Look for a unit in your area and contact them directly or email CW5 Kim Johns if there is not specific contact information for a unit in your area.


Oregon State Defense Force History

Military Beginnings
Oregon has a long and distinguished military history of selfless volunteerism and notable "firsts" described later in this text. Oregon's provisional government passed the first militia law on July 5, 1843, almost sixteen years before Oregon became a state. Soldiers of Oregon's military were not paid for training until 1916, and prior to the Spanish American War, were not paid at all. .....

As a result of the "cold war," the ORNGR was reactivated in September 1961 and has been active ever since. The ORNGR was organized as headquarter cadres so that the ORNGR could rapidly expand to a full strength compliment of 4,900 soldiers if the National Guard was called into service.

By 1970 the ORNGR had over 500 members, 99% of which were prior service. ....

 

[Father of four]

In 1989 the name of the ORNGR was changed to the current Oregon State Defense Force (ORSDF) by the Oregon Legislature to better coincide with federal laws.

 

[fd15k]

In 1989 the name of the ORNGR was changed to the current Oregon State Defense Force (ORSDF) by the Oregon Legislature to better coincide with federal laws.

I'm a bit confused. Is it the same as Army Guard ?

 

[MattBG]

Penn has a thing or two to say about this. NSFW

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment - YouTube

 

[davemata]

So what do you folks say to people that doubt the validity of the 2nd Ammendment, stating there's no such thing as a "well regulated militia"?

These folks state that all we are is a bunch of people with guns and are not technically well trained, disiplined, nor organzied as a militia should/would be - thus the "well regulated militia" does not exist and the 2nd Ammendment as written doesn't hold water as a right to bear arms.

I don't say much to them other than: MYOFB & I signed up for the selective service, as any adult american does except for dodgers. That makes me part of the militia.

 

[Misterbill]

I don't really blame Bill for this. I understand his objection to being labelled with the term militia. It has been demonized and given a bad ordor in the press. It's like being called a racist. Some sh*t will stick when people start flinging poo, even if you weren't involved in the poo-flinging contest. Nobody wants to be labelled a kook, or extremist, or associated with racist movements. The problem is that the poo wasn't true, or at least not true of the majority.

All I ask is that when people start a discussion here, that they give the benefit of the doubt to honest debate, that you interpret things the way they're meant and don't deliberately twist them (as best as one can determine, it may take some further eliciting of info to determine) and treat people like they generally are: adults of generally good will, trying to participate in a community of enthusiasts to further our own knowledge and self-police what our own ethical standards should be, further our knowledge of and perhaps affect the status of the law and how society perceives this issue.

I sell a lot of prepping supplies through my shop, and I cater to the prepping community. We are somewhat cautious about using the term militia or survivalist in our marketing. We don't need the general public sticking an incorrect denigrating label on us, and we don't need the rather fringe elements starting to patronize the place and stinking it up with wanna-be NAZI BS. I'm pretty up-front about my household being multi-racial, and if anybody's got a problem with us, they can go piss up a rope.

But in a forum like this, where the general education level on this particular topic is a little higher, we should be discussing principle and facts, not using code words and marketing obfuscations. A gynecologist doesn't use a vulgar nickname for a vagina when he's talking shop with his other colleagues. Mechanics don't say "thingamajig" when talking about a carberator. Precision in the terms we use leads to clearer thinking on the subject.

Well thanks for the tone of the post, which I appreciate.

My objection to a 'militia" (which I put in quotes for a reason), is that I fail to see any need for a militia beyond the NG for any actual, real foreseeable purpose beyond armed insurrection.

Pretty much ALL of the "militias" I see are dominated with right-wing kooks and racist ideologues.

I frankly want nothing to do with EITHER.

Again, I state the point. In the event (God forbid) of some radical takeover by the Federal government, I would feel compelled to resist.

FACT is that I'm too old to be of much use except as a trainer. WAY too old to be a trooper or front line guy. (nearly 50).

But I DO know a few things about insurgency. And being a known anti-government group would be the first NO-NO I would advise any group I was involved with against.

Who the HELL thinks that some "militia group" organized here on NORTHWEST FIREARMS COMMUNITY would be anything other than well-known and first raided by federal authorities?

It's not even smart if you THINK there is some imminent threat, which I contend that there IS NOT.

Once again, in the event that there is a general threat to welfare (I'm thinking natural disaster or foreign attack) my neighbors and I will be JUST FINE. We Need no help to organize. We NEED no federal authorizing law. WE'LL JUST DO IT.

If it's a by-God Revolution, then I'll pick my side and lets go to Fing war. EITHER WAY, I need no unorganized militia. CERTAINLY not through a public forum like this.

Pretending like the federal government is the devil and just about to suspend the constitution while simultaneously believing they are too stupid to see a forum like this as one of the FIRST places they need to send the SWAT teams is dream-like magical thinking.

You guys don't even make sense as a nutjob militia. You certainly present no case for a militia (that I give a rat's *** about authorizing federal law for) in any other case, or even, for that matter, as yours.

 

[Misterbill]

Well, Bill:


Take the Japanese military leader in WWII who said it would be ridiculous to invade America because there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass.

That "quote" never happened. It's a complete fabrication. Look it up.

We will never be invaded because we have FING ICBMS.

Not to mention a supply-line thousands of miles long. "Amateurs study tactics, professionals look to logistics." -Van Creveld.

So lets look to REAL reasons why in 2012, anyone is talking about "unorganized militias."

It's not for natural disasters, we have the NG and the NG for that, not to mention FEMA and the state government.

So for what possible reason in 2012, is anyone talking about this stuff except for anti-government or racist zealots?

And if you're SERIOUSLY anti-government, why are you STUPID enough to be doing so on an open forum like this? -Unless you have a desire for federal prison?

Otherwise you're a wanna-be reject from the army, a racist idiot with delusions of invulnerability or an anti-government wannabe too stupid to grasp that this is the LAST place you would want to be talking about your nonsense.

Jesus people, grow up and smell the coffee. If the the EEVUL .GOV is about to put us all in FEMA camps, then you'd best figure out a HELL of a lot less public place to do your recruiting.

If not, then you're all a bunch of tinfoil hat-wearing nincompoops talking about playing army men in the woods with real guns like you're still 10-years-old.

For any other possible need, you're wasting your time. Our state governments have it well in hand and the federal government has what is beyond our state's capability well in hand. In not ONE of these threads have I seen a critique of the WA NG's response plan. NOT ONE. Put up or shut up.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Bill, I think you are missing the point about the militia. It is current Federal law, whether you think it is necessary or not. (I'm not talking about the wanna be right wing guys running around in fatigues on the weekends, but the actual law).

Trying to imagine a situation where it would be necessary to call out the unorganized militia isn't that far fetched. The draw down of the active force has placed the Army in the position of using the NG a LOT more than they did during earlier years. Many NG units are not stateside, but deployed to SW Asia.

Further, imagine that the Cascadia Subduction zone fault gives us that 9+ quake that is expected "sometime", or Mt Rainer goes off...destruction on that scale would be catastrophic, and I can imagine that any governor would be up for calling out the militia for help. Calling out the militia doesn't have to be for insurrection or invasion...do you think that we should all sit on our thumbs and wait for the Feds? What if they are busy with another disaster? What if there are more than one or in more than one place(i.e. Cascadia fault quake would impact more than WA)?

If you don't think we need an unorganized militia, lobby your congress critter to change the law.

 

[davemata]

Trying to imagine a situation where it would be necessary to call out the unorganized militia isn't that far fetched.

Yeah it is.

Did the militia get called out for Mt. St. Helens?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Little Bill is a domestic enemy

 

[JGRuby]

To my knowledge after living 50 years on this earth I have never seen the militia called out yet either, I question thier need not necessarily thier legal standing.
I wonder if that makes me an enemy of the state as well.
Just because I dont agree with someone doesnt mean that they are wrong. There are many ways at looking at a subject.

James Ruby

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Oh for God's sake, people! Get a grip! This whole discussion is off in the weeds because you don't understand what the founders were talking about in the 2nd Amendment when they used the term "militia". Do you remember what happened in WWII? There was a world wide threat to freedom and the US started drafting people to serve in the military. Yes, people also volunteered, but the draft was random. Anyone between 18 and 45 was eligible for the draft. Now, what was the average skill level and familiarity level of the average new soldier with weapons? It was extremely high compared to the countries we were fighting against (where only nobles, for instance, are permitted weapons). Why? Because the citizens were allowed to own guns in their private lives!!! They were farmers, cooks, mechanics, ditch diggers, carpenters, bankers, etc. but everyone (nearly) was familiar with guns. That is the sum total of what the 2nd Amendment is talking about. "Militia", as used in the 2nd Amendment means everyone potentially able to serve if called. it does not mean a standing army. It does not mean the National Guard. It does not mean groups of fruit loops running around the countryside in fatigues looking for 'gubmint' agents. It means all able bodied citizens who could be soldiers if needed.

"Regulated" means trained and practiced. It doesn't mean trained in a classroom or by a drill sergeant. It means "skilled", as in taught by their fathers or uncles, or self-taught. It means "experienced with their weapons", as in plinking at tin cans.

It literally means "A populace experienced and comfortable with the weapons they own who could be called to service if needed". And that call might not even come from the federal government. As the founders saw it, the federal government getting out of hand and trying to dictate to the citizens might be the reason for the call. That's not paranoia and it's not something to be hidden in the shadows by subversive paramilitary whackos. It's part of the writings of the founders of this country. Read the Declaration of Independence, for God's sake, and then tell me that distrust of the government is crazy or should be hidden from sight.

This is a central point to the Supreme Court's deliberations. They've been asked to determine whether the 2nd Amendment means an organized militia or individual citizens when it talks about the "militia". They've rightly determined that it means all potential soldiers, in short, everybody, and that makes it an individual right. Argue about organized militias is you must, but remember that every time you talk about officially recognized, organized "militias" you are knocking holes in your own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that is of course, unless you think only "Bubba's Irregulars" should have the right to own firearms. SHEESH!!!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Doh!

 

[sig]

I don't understand this discussion. As far as I can see the constitution and country was just sold for free cell phones, rubbers, free abortion, food stamps, welfare, and whatever else the hind tit suckers can get. Two hours after being re-elected, Obama (Proven Communist) has called for the resume of the UN small arms treaty. Our Constitution and Bill-of-Rights are a mute subject. Wake up; it is happening right before your eyes.

After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks | Reuters

 

[FortunateSon]

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.

In my mind no portion of the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation. It is very clear.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

End of discussion.

 

[trainsktg]

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.

In my mind no portion of the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation. It is very clear.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

End of discussion.

If they can find the Right of an Abortion in the Constitution, they can certainly find the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (unless there is a personal bias against said keeping and bearing).

Keith

 

[fd15k]

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.

In my mind no portion of the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation. It is very clear.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

End of discussion.

It is so clear, that it took a war and the 14th Amendment to actually apply it against the states.