Comment: The Issue is the Definition of MILITIA - defined here by Madison

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Look no further than (see in situ)

The Issue is the Definition of MILITIA - defined here by Madison

The Issue is the Definition of MILITIA - defined here by Madison:

"Officered by men chosen AMONG THEMSELVES"; Not by government or military.

First, to do this you must have VERY small republics, as was intended by the founders; As seen by the small size of the original 13 states;

See: regarding this local representation.

These would be like the size of counties in the central and western states;

Then the understanding was, that Militias were represented by smaller local towns.

This makes for the local "Representation" and control the founders intended for a MILITIA as defined here.

The important thing here in there was no real "conscription", as it was "SELF PRESERVATION".

So having the freedom to come and go as you wish; (which was one of the points that irritated Col. Greene in numerous battles when the militia simply went home when they thought the battle was over) You relied on the responsibility to protect your family and friends;

This, when your own family's personal freedom and well being was at stake (as it in fact continues today), was not so much an issue. When you could make it to practice, (after chopping wood, milking the cow, plowing the field and hunting for deer) you showed up for MILITIA practice

(hunting deer could be considered as much as militia practice to hone skills).... Local: i.e. "behind every blade of grass".

Today's arsenal of high powered weaponry such as hand held surface to Air and surface to surface hand held systems, would make a very efficient civilian defense. Add the 25 to 1 in tanks, armament, missiles and aircraft, and the defense would be complete.


The fact remains that citizens, and states have the right to import arms without imposition or consulting congress.

Where does it say this?

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
In Full:

John Marshall: "...To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption.

Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because "Congress" can interpose!


I will show{420} that there could NOT be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section.

But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary...." ---

"...If Congress neglect our militia (citizens), "we can arm them OURSELVES".

CANNOT Virginia "import arms?> >Cannot she put them into the hands of "HER" militia-men?

He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was NOT vested in the states by implication, because, being "possessed of it" > "antecedent to the adoption of the government, and "not being divested of it" by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as "FULLY possessed of it as ever they had been.>

And it could NOT be said that the states derived ANY powers from that (the federal government or Constitution) system, "but RETAINED them," >>>>>>>>"though not acknowledged in ANY part of it". "


Now Stop and give that one some thought...

The federal government has stated that guns crossing national or state boarders gave them powers granted from "interstate commerce" to prohibit or restrict arms transport;

But as you can plainly read here, that is NOT the intent or the case.

Because the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" prohibits regulating any arms.

And, in the same VA Convention 6-16-1788,

the federal Government "...can make "NO REGULATION" THAT (EVEN) "MAY" "EFFECT" the Citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE"...

Give that one some serious thought as well...(social security, government programs, crimes etc.)

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.