Nat'l Armies vs. State Militias?

form city, county, and regional citizen militias, that support the constitution, the declaration of independence, and "we the people"

" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Most of the wiser Founders objected to the idea of a standing army. Someone should have listened.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

turn a tin ear to this information. Just like they have to everything Dr. Paul has tried to tell them about other issues and is totally ignored. Thank you for getting this information out it is good to know but as far as making a difference. I don't see it happening unless there is a HUGE awakening in the country. It might be an interesting topic on Revolution radio or some other show. Peace Patriot

I have always been opposed to guns; but, that was before I found out why we really have "gun control"....so I am learning to clean, load and fire a gun! Better to be prepared as they say. . .

The tactic of using soldiers from one part of an empire to police the population from another has been used repetetively throughout history. The former Soviet Union did this with success throughout the eastern bloc and its own member states. For the UN to do this would be right in line with history. The company Blackwater fills its ranks with a multinational collection of former military from the world over. It is as likely that it would be a mercenary army as a UN force imposing military control.
Rest assured that there are plenty of patriots with military experience, as well as the means to defend our neighborhoods. And they think that the Baghdad neighborhoods are hard to subdue.

This is also worth a read, you can do a lot of research on keep and bear arms.com

http://www.keepandbeararm...

also a " LIBERTY " letter from Attorney Peter Mancus, print this one off 37 pages but well worth the time to read it. Peter Mancus is very fired up Patriot as you will find out !

http://billstclair.com/li...

We've all felt a bit unnerved at the idea of U.N. forces coming into our country to, er, assist in maneuvers. Many have voiced concern about the questions posed to our U.S. Marines as to whether they would have any problem taking action against U.S. citizens. I think there are many reasons to be concerned about a large armed group all under the auspices of a large, centralized power, particularly a centralized power headed by the current administration (and incoming administration, if the PTB get their way).

But fifty separate militias all run by the individual states, with a small federal militia portion (serving the U.S. as a whole) as part of that body...well, I think that right there's some checks and balances we could live with -- literally.

My guess is that it might be more likely (I hope I'm wrong, but let's consider possibilities) to convince U.S. Marines to attack "generic" U.S. citizens; however: ask a Georgian to attack a Georgian? Order a Texan to attack a Texan? I think as the threats come to a more local level, the likelihood of mindless participation drops significantly.

I suspect this would be especially so, if the soldier in question were not a member of a federal force, but of a state force.

You see now why I keep wanting this to be discussed? :D

Perhaps it means that it has to be agreed upon again at least every two years.

Great post!
BUMP BUMP!
How can this be enforced?
That is always my biggest question. How can we force the elected reps in Washington to follow the constitution?

Yes, trying to get our government to abide by our Constitution feels so futile much of the time; I know...but just as we are taking steps to force our government to adhere to the Constitution by responding to our petitions for redress of grievances, ought not we to add this to our pursuits?

Look, I'm not claiming to know about this subject; in fact, I'm expressly declaring I Don't Know. Which means it's worth finding out about, right?

Now, it might be as simple as this: the armies can exist forever and ever, but can only be funded in two-year clips of time. Hence the panic to pass a bill every couple of years to keep the war machine humming. Okay; that can make some sense.

But read Section 8. After it discusses Armies (a force to be funded in limited-time increments), it then describes Militias -- a separate entity, otherwise the word "Armies" would have been used again. The role of militias includes executing the law of the union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions. Also, Congress can govern only the portion of militias employed in the service of the United States (federal), while reserving to the States respectively the appointment of officers and the authority of training the militia (state activity). E.g., militias are NOT purely federal organizations, but are mostly to be operated by the states themselves.

Have the terms "armies" and "militias" ever been clearly delineated and defined? I'm not asking for our layman opinion; I'm seeking legal precedent.

We all hear plenty about our army, but when is the last time you heard of "militia," outside of some TV news report trying to put a terrorist-type slur against a group of citizens taking it upon themselves to defend our Constitution?

When is the last time our legislature raised a militia? Do we have State militias in place? Would that be the National Guard? Is there a "State Guard?"

It seems to me -- and again, I'm no barrister! -- that "armies" (federal organizations, it seems) are intended to be temporary entities, funded by limited-time increments. Compare this with "militias" (comprised of federal and state portions) which have no time limit of funding or existence placed upon them in the Constitution.

And what seems really important to me about this, is that state-run militias would be less likely to, ahem, misdirect their energies against members of their own states or get caught up in federal directives to perhaps do things which might be against peoples of other states (since each state runs its own militia).

Does anyone else see the value in militias over armies for most of our nationwide protections? Thoughts on this?

Congresscrooks completely trash the rest of the Constitution, so why would they pay attention to this l'il part? Like everything else, it doesn't suit their purposes, so they ignore it. And ignoring the Constitution doesn't hurt their incumbent re-election chances one iota. So there you go... (and I know you're not surprised :-))

http://groups.yahoo.com/g...