Forming militias to defend the Constitution may not only be unlawful, but downright treasonous according to one historian and legal analyst.
Patrick Charles, the Senior Historian for U.S. Special Operations Command, told CBS News that the civilian-led militias in Virginia that have emerged in direct response to Democratic efforts to infringe on gun rights over the past several years may be betraying the very country they claim to be protecting.
“I would say it could be treason,” explained Charles, who appeared in the CBSN Originals, “Reverb: Gun, Fight” (see embedded videos above and below).
“Are they just acting on behalf of the First Amendment, ‘I’m declaring myself a militia’? Or are they performing state-sanctioned militia functions? If they’re doing the latter, that is arguably treason,” he added.
Mary McCord, the legal director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University, did not go so far as to use the word treason but indicated that there is very little doubt that civilian-formed militias are unlawful.
“There’s a gray area in the Second Amendment, and there’s a lot of unanswered questions, but this is not one of them,” said McCord. “Under the U.S. Constitution, it’s Congress that has the ability to call forth and regulate a militia through the Militia Act that established the National Guard.”
McCord went on to add that governors have that power as well, but was careful to note, “No one else has that authority.”
SEE ALSO: Other States Watch Virginia as 2A Sanctuary Movement Grows, Militia Mobilizes
Neither McCord nor Charles’ analysis would matter much to Kurt Feigel, a proud gun owner and militia organizer.
When talking to CBS News for the two-part exposé, he was blunt about his stance, “We have the right to assemble peacefully, and we have a right to defend our communities. Not as vigilantes, but we aren’t going to let people roll into our town and burn it down like in Portland and Seattle.”
In Feigel’s defense, Bloomberg.com recently published a story last month mostly backing his perspective. Erik Larson, the author, wrote:
There’s nothing inherently illegal about a militia or any other group of like-minded people, since the First Amendment guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” and the Second Amendment generally protects the right to possess a firearm. But gun restrictions vary by state, most states have laws prohibiting paramilitary training for the purpose of carrying out civil disorder, and self-deploying a militia to carry out law enforcement duties is illegal everywhere. Enforcement can be sketchy, as when armed men, unchallenged by police, positioned themselves in some U.S. cities this year, ostensibly to protect property during Black Lives Matter protests.
In other words, peaceful 2A protests in opposition to new gun laws are legal. Coordinated armed resistance to violent agitators, looters and arsonists may also be permissible depending on the circumstances.
While the latter might violate the letter of the law, one can argue most prosecutors are not going to charge law-abiding civilians for defending their homes or businesses from unruly mobs. (Most*** because we all saw what happened to the McCloskeys.)
Makes sense. But, of course, not everyone agrees. Mary McCord told CBS News, “They [militias] have no authority to deploy publicly, while armed, organizing themselves together and asserting authority over the public to protect property [or] statues, that we saw throughout the summer during the racial justice protests.”
McCord’s last comment raises questions about the politics of militias. It seems, depending on which side of the aisle one sits on, the characterization of armed demonstrators radically changes based on their political ideologies.
For example, BLM and Antifa are militias of a sort. Violent militias to be exact. Armed agitators within their ranks are responsible for looting, burning, and destroying local businesses in cities and towns around the country. Armed killers within their ranks are also responsible for the murder of American citizens, including Retired Police Capt. David Dorn.
SEE ALSO: Nighthawk Custom Teams with Turnbull and Agency Arms on VIP Agent II
But for whatever reason when it comes time to condemn their actions and call them out for who they are, domestic terrorists, many on the Left are not just mum but they go to great lengths to sweep these crimes under the banner of “racial justice protests” or “mostly peaceful” demonstrations.
Meanwhile, those who actually assemble — PEACEFULLY — under the banner of gun rights, like the hundreds who did at the Michigan Capitol in Sept of this year, are characterized not as, say, concerned patriots but as “gun extremists with assault-style rifles.” The suggestion is that gun-rights advocates are the true threat to America, even though every 2A rally in recent memory has gone off without a hitch. No violence. NONE.
With all that said, where do you come out on the militia question? Do you believe civilian-led militias are unlawful? Do you believe when they act in a coordinated manner to defend their neighborhoods they are committing treason?
I think an organized militia would be ok. My only concern is would it turn into a personal police force for the governor. Imagine the governor of Michigan or New York with that power. Or a radical governor of any party.
These accusations of treason by so-called “experts” raise multiple issues.
First, in the light of objectivity, the militias at Lexington and Concord who shot the British police for coming to search their homes, seize their guns, and arrest their leaders were guilty of treason. (Yes, I am aware that the British Regulars were officially “soldiers”, however, they were actually performing police functions rather than military functions in the colony of Massachusetts at that time.) We were British at the time, so if repeating the same actions, for the same reasons, against our recognized government at whatever time in history is treason in one case it is treason in all cases. But if that treasonous act was foundational to establishing our current government, then wouldn’t that make our current government, which was established through treason, treasonous as well? And if that is the case, it is treasonous to oppose those who are treasonous?
Second, the Second Amendment clearly and unambiguously prohibits governmental infringement of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Fait accompli does not, by any measure, imply legitimacy of existing gun control any more than the successful robbing of a bank grants the robber lawful ownership of the money taken. Each simply stands as a crime unpunished.
Third, the government, itself, was established though treasonous acts, as mentioned above. This same treasonous government is only granted whatever legitimacy it enjoys through serving the people and through compliance or obedience to the charter that established it. Since the government under which we live was originally established through an act of t reason, and since this same government only receives its legitimacy from the Constitution established by “We, the People,” it is arguable that it is the agents of the government who are, in fact, guilty of treason whenever they either violate their authorizing charter or violate the rights of the people.
Ah, the conundrum. The reality is that in the end, however, it is only treason if 1) the shooting actually starts, and 2) your side loses. Power is real. The concept of legitimacy is bullshit sophistry designed to make life easier for those in power.
Shouldn’t stand your ground laws apply (here in Florida) and be used against people who don’t
wear masks? They are threatening you life!!
Geez, you must be a liberal to spew such nonsense… are you really comparing a person without a mask ( Who you don’t even know is infected with Covid) to an individual Quite possibly with a weapon intending to do you physical harm??? Clearly you can’t be serious, then again all the liberals claim to be intelligent I fail to see it very often
This Gault libtard always talks like the uneducated chicken shit that he is..you know this douche will keep taking vax until he croaks,LOL.
Militias are being trained to defend the Constitution. The traitors are the Democrats and their fellow travelers who want to destroy the Constitution and set up a one-party socialist system like Venezuela.
State militias were an important component of the combat of 1776 and beyond. In the eyes the Brits and their lackeys in the colonies, General Washington and every man under his command were traitors. But the good guys won the war, which is why people like Patrick Charles — who clearly does not think like a true America — enjoy a free country. In 1776, he would have been loyal to the “legal” authority of King George.
We are now in our own version of 1776. The hope for the short term is in the courts to throw out illegal ballots. If they fail, it’s up to the Republican State Legislatures to appoint electors who will vote for President Trump.
But if the State Legislatures shirk their patriotic duty, then it’s time for the Second Amendment solution. At that stage, there will be patriots, neutrals, and traitors, just like in 1776.
Please join or support a militia if you can, but be careful. A website does not a militia make. Get in touch with actual responsible people, and avoid the extremists.
Otherwise, just go the shooting range and prepare yourself. This includes psychological preparation.
Meanwhile, put as much pressure on your Republican State Legislators as possible. Make it clear to them that it is literally up to them to decide if we will have a peaceful transition to the second term of President Trump, or another 1776.
McCord obviously is not familiar with history at the time of our founding fathers or he would understand the legal principles of “the third fyrd”.
Sorry McCord, but the simple fact that you’re out of Georgetown U is all I need to read to simply shrug off your opinion.
MY reading of both the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers seems to differ from yours.
Frankly, in light of my reading of those documents, I find your statements to be foolish. if not outright partisan and misleading
agree with big Al 45……Sorry McCord of Georgetown, the 2nd amendment is there to protect “the people” from a tyrannical govt among other things. The main stream media needs to be renamed Pravda. A question I have is when did the communist party become legal here in the US ? When I served in 1951 it was illegal and Joe McCarthy was busy pointing it out while being vilified by the left. The teachers union has done a fine job of indoctrinating our children over the years. To further my rant, the shot heard round the world took place at Concord Bridge against the British military who had come to empty the arsenal of powder and shot , in other words disarm the people who were having none of that.
Wow, it’s cringy how this guy has held such high positions yet is so clueless about what the 2A says. The term “militia” has been discussed many times with the founding fathers in the past and there are quotes from them that anyone can look up, including this moron, where the explicitly clarify that the “militia” is NOT a state-run organization, but is made up of all of us…
Not history. Marxist propaganda. A government like Virginia’s commit unconstitutional second amendment acts (treason) are blaming constitutionalists for what they themselves are doing to uphold the Constitution.
Just read an article about a Stafford, Ct. police officer who was suspended for a facebook article he wrote about BLM being a terrorist group. the newspaper( online ) would not allow any replies in defense of this officer, but did say BlM was demonstrating against injustice. If the media is afraid to tell the truth, and the Gov’t will not protect you; then we have no choice but to form up and protect each other.
Do you think it’s intelligent to ask people to give an answer to a question that surely some federal spyware software is searching for key words to incriminate themselves? I think not.
LOL! Based on your own comment, wouldn’t they think you’re hiding something?
And since this subject is in fact a VERY ‘grey’ area legally, ‘incriminating’ evidence would be highly subjective across the board.
After all, you still have a right to speak your mind and opinion.
And I would point out that IF they have already convinced you NOT to speak your mind, then they have already won.
Looks like you have a real Catch -22, eh?
Every militia I have heard of or seen has not caused any damage or looting, rioting or anything dangerous. Most of them peaceful , now there are some that shoot themselves sometimes , groups like that I don’t consider militia, just more people acting out . But real Militia are in this country are standing up for the constitution and our god given rights. No they are not treasonous at all . Treasonous is people on the left , I will leave it at that !
Free Men don’t ask permission. He can continue to be a historian. I will continue to be a rifleman.
Enough said.
Best Regards,
Red in OleVirginny
I would like for Patrick Charles to comment on the Pentagon’s misleading and disobeying the POTUS on US military’ withdrawals from Syria. Of course, Patrick Charles probably considers that circumstance hardly as dangerous as US citizens organizing to protect their neighborhoods from violent left wing mobs while Demshevik politicians are calling for dismantling Police Departments.
This is y they lied about the “Malitia” supposedly plotting to kidnap the Mich Gov and I read somewhere that supposedly VA Gov also was being plotted on. It’s all so they can start going after Malitias soon
The Congress and the Governor of any state are representatives of the will of the People and therefore subordinate. Any authority held by those offices of government is granted only by the will of the People.
If the need for militia arises and the Congress or a Governor refuses to act, the People are the sovereign authority. The People do not need congressional or gubernatorial permission to defend themselves, but the Congress and Governors most certainly do need the approval of the People. (e.g., what if they declared a war an nobody came?)
John Adams saw OUR day in HIS day and commented, with obvious regret;
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Oh.
A Well Regulated Militia being Necissary for the Security of a Free State isn’t the case when there is no Free State. It’s a Good thing Governor Hogan changed Maryand’s Motto from “the Free State” to”Were Open For Bussiness” just before his Draconian Operation Covid Psy-OP Lock Down.
The cited “historians” and “legal analysts” have obviously studied neither American history nor the Second Amendment to the Constitution in any depth, if at all.
For a rebuttal of their nonsense in the words of the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court, see the collection at
The comment process stripped off the URL that was at the end of the above comment; it was supposed to say “see the collection at zellich.com/founders_arms_and_militia.html”.
Black Lives Matter and Antifa are NOT militias, they are terrorist groups, plain and simple. Militias are created to protect something (life, property, freedom, ,etc.) not to tear it up and burn it. In the beginning of our country, we did not have a standing army. All citizens were to be ready to defend the country at a moment’s notice. The only thing bad about militias is the garbage spewed by the “progressive” leaders who demonize the militias for protecting freedom. They want to take away our guns so they can run rough-shod over our rights. They are the ones who are acting treasonous.
Black Lives Matter and Antifa are NOT militias. This is true and correct. But they are not terrorist groups. either. One point to remember: The Constitution defines what “treason” Article III, Section III,” Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies ,giving them aid and comfort.” The definition was so important to our Founding Fathers that they used the word “only” just once in the entire document ! The reason was that Treason had been misused for centuries by every thug, King, Queen and dictator. James Wilson, considered by many to be the most well educated lawyer in the Colonies told story at a ratification meeting. Seems as how a certain guy was arrested when he killed a stag on public lands. He was tried for Treason. He had killed a stag belonging to the King.
I disagree, a very reasonable argument can be made that BLM is using terror to get their way, wearing masks to disguise themselves and violence to frighten people into toeing their political line.
That is in fact, the definition of ‘terrorism’.
Richard, are you certain of your claim?
I’m certain of mine.
I didn’t see mention of BLM et. al. being treasonous in Big Al 45’s comment. I read it as referring to the politicians providing political aid and cover to the terrorist actions those groups commit.
No one can deny that BLM and Antifa, specifically, use violence, mass intimidation, and threats upon life and property to further their political ideations and coerce others into acquiescing to their demands. That is the definition of terrorism. Thus, as terrorists self-proclaimed to be against the American Government, Justice System, and most importantly its People, they are enemies of the state and supporting them, giving them aid, and condoning their actions could be reasonably argued to be treasonous.
I absolutely agree that “It’s TREASON!” has been misused and abused throughout history by monarchs and dictators to condemn any opinion, act, or speech that they did not personally approve of. That’s why I am not outright labeling them as treasonous but arguing that when presented with the objective evidence there is strong indication that the actions, inactions, and abuse of authority by politicians to dismiss and condone the actions of those groups that engage in terrorist activities can be equated with treason.
Correction to my previous post: The OP is CGA, not Big Al 45. I glanced at the wrong comment. The rest of my post stands as written.
To CGA….you got the picture clearly. Disarm you changes you from citizen to subject. Very clearly, over my dead body !
The Congress and the Governor of any state are representatives of the will of the People and therefore subordinate. Any authority held by those offices of government is granted by the will of the People.
If the need for militia arises and the Congress or a Governor refuses to act, the People are the sovereign authority. The People do not need congressional or gubernatorial permission to defend themselves, but the Congress and Governors most certainly do need the approval of the People.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Agreed.. that’s y they’re lying about the MI Gov and now they’re saying the VA Gov as well supposedly were being “plotted to be kidnapped” by “Malitia” groups it’s so they can start going after them
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
This is the same liberal argument against individual rights to bear arms. Our founders did NOT leave power all to government.
Government is of enumerated powers, and is of, by and for the people, NOT of by and for the politicians.
To argue national guard is militia then how would the people who are the true power holders fight a tyrannical governor or have any power at all to stop any tyrannical government? This article and argument gives all power to state governors over the people and in the end ends individual rights to bear arms.
Our founders were much more intelligent than even the most intelligent leftist.
When leftists argue that our 2nd amendment is not clear, all they need to do is dig a little deeper into what went on and was said in those times by the very people who wrote it. Our 2nd amendment does not give us any right, it limits government and is instruction to government as to what is off limits to them. Our constitution lays out limited government and lays out the powers that government has, if not a power given then they dont have it plain and simple. Government has absolutely no constitutional authority to limit or take rights period.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Jefferson said “The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
There is NO grey area in the second amendment. This was established by the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session February 1982.
{{An examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution; Pamphlet, 1787}}
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.” — Noah Webster (1758-1843)
They complain about Second Amendment advocates breaking their little laws at the same time that they think nothing of violating the Law of the Land!
And notice that they say nothing about the causes behind and the conditions of those people who shoot up their communities! Who are they? Where did they come from? No one seems to care about real causes. Instead they blame the instrument. But if this little batch of new anti-gun laws don’t work, and the can’t if they don’t address the true causes, then, what will they do given their mind-set? Well that’s easy. They will make more laws. For indeed, their little batch of laws is already incrementalism at work, isn’t it?
And notice that they don’t mention the American Trinity of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Certainly life is the material basis but not the highest which is the freedom (Liberty) to pursue Happiness according to my own light and not according the the will of my neighbor who would violate my Liberty to achieve his or her focus upon materiality (Life) at the expense of what the Constitution and the Declaration gave them, namely the freedom of conscience and the freedom to seek my own ends according to my own Light.
My guess is that these folks wouldn’t know a Principle (self evident truth) if it walked up to them and said, “Hello.” And to place Life before the freedom than without which that life did not have meaning for the revolutionaries is what we call, “Anti-Principle. And when you have Anti-Principle presenting itself as Principle, the Devil is afoot!
JWC
Since my retirement, I spend a good portion of the day reading articles, listening to alternative sites where I’m able to garner some truth pertaining to a particular incident. I think that we can agree that CNN, MSNBC, and the other so-called mainstream media are tools of the agenda to destroy this Republic.
History is replete with tall tales, lies, and misquotes, but there is truth to be found if you look in the right places and do so with an open mind. The so-called second amendment community is one that operates under the banner of, I know what I know, and you can’t convince me otherwise.
I have been writing articles and speaking about the right to keep and bear arms for years. In that time, I have learned some very disturbing things about the group that claims to be patriots and supporters of the right. They know little to nothing about the subject, their attorneys are sell-outs, but most disturbingly, the adherence to the “individual right theory” relieves them all of any responsibility to secure liberty and freedom. They can always claim the second says I have a right, and those mean old people in government are infringing. So, what can I do in this corrupt environment?
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.” The term Militia, as it applies to the second amendment and the original Constitution is a fact of law. In our statutes it means all able-bodied men from 18 – 45 able to bear arms of the type currently in use by the military, and those people not exempt by their religious beliefs or function within the community.
There are currently about Seventeen Million Veterans, of which I am one, that served from WWII to the current everlasting wars and policing actions around the globe. This is important when you look at the “individual right theory”. Seventeen Million taken out over the course of more than Seventy years is a ridiculously small percentage of the population. What it says is that even in times of crisis, the general public is unwilling to step forward. Militia is “the whole people” and they must be organized, armed, and disciplined. That requires a certain amount of commitment when considering that you must train with arms supplied by yourself, and you must do it in a military environment under rules designed to make a soldier of some sort, whether front line or support.
I could go on about the legitimacy of the militia when it operates as a State institution under statutes, but it is significant, and disturbing to note that the so-called credentialed people in the article are not very credible. It is deeply unnerving that Mary McCord with the questionable title of “legal director” makes the statement “There’s a gray area in the Second Amendment, and there’s a lot of unanswered question, but this is not one of them.”. The core purpose of the Second is settled law by, not only the statutes, but also by Justice McReynolds ruling in US v Miller, in which he wrote “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.”. Anything after Miller is simply an attempt to further muddle the issue and render the sovereignty of the people mute.
What each one of these so-called experts should have advised is that there is a lawful path to what these individuals are trying to accomplish. Your State has militia statutes, and the Constitution clearly commands that there must be a “Militia of the several States” in order to perform the duties stated at Article I, § 8, Cl. 15. This is irrefutable, and it cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment, nor by corrupting the lawful authority by intermingling one clause with another that serves a completely different purpose, e.g. Article I, § 10, Cl. 3, which is the clause in the Constitution under which the National Guard exists.
Those quoted within the article could have shown some credibility by presenting valid advice. Instead they showed their true nature and lack of integrity. They could have instructed and even offered to assist by stating that if you want to be the constitutional militia, with all its power and authority, then you should petition your State legislature to revitalize the statutes. You can go before any committee at which the subject of gun control appears, and provide the information showing that the State is usurping the authority of the people. Flat out tell them that if you don’t revitalize the militia, you will work to remove them from office, and run people who are in favor of restoring the law.
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
He full of it more leftist propaganda!
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
100% militia can be formed without consent of the Government. We formed them before the Constitution was written to take on the tyrannical government of England. So as these new emerging power hungry tyrants from state to state and maybe soon in the white house that trample the Constitution AMERICAN PATRIOTS need to step up and defend our way of life.
If you went through 400 years of the history and law of this nation, you could not find anything at all that would support that.
Militia was a lawful entity formed under colonial statutes in compliance with British law. Militia was made a permanent function of law in the Constitution and subsequent uniform statutes.
But, but! One of these guys is a historian! Doesn’t he know better than we do? I mean, he’s an “expert” and besides that he uses the scientific method and is completely “objective!” Honest!
JWC
Exactly correct. ALL militias are civilian to begin with, state “sanctioning” not required.
The US is a nation of laws. It loses that status when we operate under fallacies created by people who are ignorant of the law, or those whose intent is to destroy the rule of law.
You are 100% incorrect. Militia is a lawful entity. That entity is formed under law and subsequent statutes or code. The State is the people, it is not a fiction of law. “We the People” recognized at the outset that in order to maintain our sovereignty, we must place it as a matter of law, not subjective opinions that can be twisted to invite a vehicle for diminishing the proper enforcement.
What authority to you have as this so-called militia without the “sanctioning” of the rule of law? If you think you have some form of authority, then why aren’t you using it “to execute the Laws of the Union” as the Constitution commands?
If you don’t say what is allowed by the left it’s hate speech
If you are law abiding and own a gun you are a criminal
You are guilty until proven innocent
You are guilty with out due process
Right to assembly is illegal for whites (you are labeled as nazi supremacists)
You are guilty of things from before you were born, and guilty of things you have yet done
your property can be seized on a whim
I think militias are the least of this country’s problems!
lol. I am sure the English called the first American militia treasonous also. These militia groups may be mis-guided, but not treasonous if their goal is to defend our constitution, which the Democrats would lover to eliminate. The 2A was not included in the constitution to assure our right to hunt deer. It was included to allow us to protest ourselves from a corrupt government, whether it be our own, or that of a foreign power.
Tea party and Trumpism formed from an ideaology of racism and fear of diversity ,sexism ,xenophobia when Obama was elected to whitehouse.. …I bet trumps idols,Putin and Kim Jung un .keep that shit in line in those countries!…. nationalistic dictator is this countries worst fears…reminds me of 1933 germany when I listen to you fu#$ers! SO ….can’t wait to meet you fools on the battlefield like my uncles faced the fascists of Europe so many years ago !SEE YOU SOON !
The modern militia movement began when Bill Klinton was elected president is a result of the democommunist party”s alignment with communist ideology. Has nothing to do with race as evidenced by Donald Trumps increase of the black and latino vote in the late election. It’s all about American freedom.
You references to Pres Trump and Putin shows your are ignorant. It is the democommunist media’s job to keep your ignorant. The greatest danger to American Liberty is ignorance.
You are brainwashed, for certain. Being a Tea Party supporter myself, we support smaller federal government and all persons individual liberty. We are fighting against the tyranny of and overblown federal government trying to be our dictator of morality and of what we can and cannot do. True freedom starts with individual liberty, no matter your race, sex , or creed.
Aaand another idiot spewing Putin nonsense long disproved and found to be a paid for lie.
Bones ‘ol man, YOU need to seek psychiatric help, that little rant of yours is rife with deeply rooted hate and is bereft of any reason or logic.
You are one messed up dude.
Such much fear and lies here…so much hatred and racism from all the “good ole boys”..scared diversity is taking their power and control as they cling to an obsolete and fatally flawed constitution..let me guess ..the same fools didn’t care about the treatment of humans…slaves,immigrants,woman,people of all colors,people of all sexual orientation so let’s intimidate and bully with our speech and actions over an innate object..fuck people right? Let me guess you’re Christian on top of it also?😂🤣😂…truth is ..gun owners are outnumbered.. and in a democratic society that’s what makes the difference…you fools and ALL YOUR FAKE CONSPIRACY THEORIES ….Russians wanted trump to win and helped him..TRUTH ! “Hey russia if your listening”…..Putin’s asslicker..ITrump tower meeting,manafort connections ,17 people in campaign talking to Russia,leveraging Ukraine Aid for joe dirt… show me your taxes !..adultery,porn payoffs , grab m by the pussy,I’m the greatest business man scam,I’m smarter than the generals,Kim Jung in debacle..I could go on and on but you fools only believe fake news and lies ..and trump is the biggest fake ever and he duped you stupid f#$ers !…AND PROVE ELECTION IS A FRAUD? Show me the money you losers!…..GF Y p,ease
You have zero evidence…ZERO
That comment must have been written in China!
Chinese communist trolls on this thread.
This guy’s starting point is the claim that we have “an obsolete and fatally flawed constitution.”
Let’s look at this. Most who would get rid of the Second Amendment are not as honest as this guy. He is stating up front just what his basic ground is. Let’s look at what Aristotle said about this. He said, and I will paraphrase, If you don’t share a common principle as a starting point for your discussion of some issue with your neighbor, get our of the Room!
If you don’t share a starting Principle then a genuine conversation is impossible. That is why it is not possible to have a conversation with these people who are convinced that they know better and have as their sole argument that there is violence and people die by violence–a thing that has been true since long before guns came into existence!
And their method is not to change the Constitution by the means given in that Document, but to parse it away by a bunch of little regulations until it has no force. There are big laws and little laws. Stand with the Big laws. And don’t waste too much time with those whose basic position is, “We know better.” Ask them to place that on the basis of some universally recognized First Principle. If they can’t just walk away because you are wasting your time on someone who doesn’t know how to have a conversation–and isn’t interested in having a conversation–because you are not their neighbor at all, but a blight to be exterminated. “Leave the room immediately.”
JWC
Your user name sums up your fucking one brain cell. Everytime you people rant and call us all your little same same names you always are actually describing your party of fools. One day soon your gonna wake up and find your fucking heroes just used you idiots and you are no longer of use to them. It will be epic and we will laugh all the way to your demise. Stupid assholes, everytime I see one of you clueless fucks I want to just decrease your gene pool. Public school illiterates.
LOL! You wouldn’t know “truth” if it bit you on your silly T.D.S. riddled ass. After all this time, and the evidence, ANY person claiming ‘Russian Collusion’ is an ignorant fool.
YOU speak of hatred, while espousing the same.
That’s called ‘hypocrisy’. And you bring up racism, yet no post was racist. mentioning BLM and what they have factually done and stated in their demands is NOT racist, except it small, stupid minds.
You’re the problem dude, failing to recognize your own hypocrisy and hate.
Of course it’s “treasonous!” What the hell do you think the entire revolutionary war was? It was treasonous. Treason against a government. Treason is a matter of which side you are on.
The liberal media, liberal government officials, and those seeking power and dominion over the American people (I’m talking to you AOC) OF COURSE are going to call anyone fighting against tyranny treasonous. Socialism is tyranny, liberalism is tyranny, anyone attempting to take away my rights and freedom (including my right to own an ar-15) is tyrannical.
I am willing to commit “treason” against these people rather than have my freedoms taken away. I will fight. I would rather die fighting for freedom than live in fear under tyranny.
If the American people have truly elected these people who want to destroy freedom, then we are ripe for destruction.
The only thing left to do is trust in God and prepare.
They underestimate us patriots!!
If they think they will get away with this shut they are only fooling themselves
Looks like Soros/Everytown got to that ignoramus.
You all rural faux-historians sound like a bunch of crybaby losers! Wahwah!
Hmm, guess you were asleep during English Composition classes in school, eh?
Pray for peace… Prepare for war. Always, Always, ALWAYS, STAND AGAINST COMMUNISM.
Exactly!!!
Nonsense. I live in a very conservative community filled with armed and angry citizens who threaten their neighbors simply because they wanna look tough and impose their political philosophy by potentially lethal intimidation. To me (as a strong 2A supporter), the goals and actions of many of these armed so-called militias are treasonous in this country.
I don’t believe you. I think you are lying in this instance. I have been involved with firearms in many different environs, for over 50 years. I am a firearms safety instructor for over 30 years. I have lived in rural and urban locales my entire life. I have competed against CEO’s and Bubbas. The behavior you describe most accurately reflects on BLM, Antifa, and most leftist groups I have known over the years.
What you don’t (won’t or are not capable of understanding) is that there is a very big difference between rioting and looting, and protecting one’s home and family. What you don’t understand is that I have a god given right, if not an imperative to protect myself and my family. It is a decision you do not get to make for me. You do you, but you don’t get to tell me about my rights.
Lastly, I strongly suggest you get a copy of the US Constitution and a dictionary. And then read them both. It is apparent to me that you have not done so at this point.
LMAO @ you being ‘a strong 2A supporter. For communists, lying is as natural as breathing.
The definition of Treason in the US Code is very narrow, and to bandy it about willy-nilly is egregious in itself.
Here it is: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
If Hanoi Jane and Ho Chi sKerry didn’t commit treason, there is no such thing as treason.
LMAO ahh yes everything clearly enumerated in the constitution is treason but every stupid communist shit brick talking point is a right. Fuck Off.
So their position is, we have to call on gov authorities to save us from tyrannical gov authorities! Yeah that should work! NOT!
Sound the Charge.
Militias are Patriots , everyone Patriot should join.
I hear a lot of ruses and bad excuses.
Most of these “Militias”, besides worshiping their guns and a NY conman, also worship the KKK and the Nazi Party. They are not Gun Clubs. They are White Supremacists.
After the Civil War, we signed peace treaties with the new governments of the conquered States. After WW II we signed peace treaties with the new governments of the conquered governments.
We NEVER signed peace treaties with The Confederacy, nor the Nazi Party.
These toy soldiers have thrown in their lot with America’s enemies, with whom we are technically still at war.
That is the definition of TREASON in Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution.
Excellent comment Mr. Muckelroy. I agree.
“Most… worship the KKK and the Nazi Party”
Let’s see your proof of this assertion.
Best way to defeat body armor.
Head shot.
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Just like most good communist you leave out in your propaganda that the KKK was founded by the democrats and sen Bird was revered by Joe BIden! As hard as you try you will not erase history!
The KKK was the terror arm of the democommie party. Today Antifa and BLM are the terror arms of the democommunist party.
Amen JB. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Our forefathers saw these times as a possibility. They knew from their studies that every great empire falls and mostly through those in power seeking more power. It’s not enough for some men to be in a republic. They want to rule, like dictators or tyrants. They want full power similar to kings and queens of old. They truly believe that they know better than you what is good for you. They believe it so much they will stop at nothing to accomplish that goal. This has been the case since the first government was formed and will be the case until we are gone. Our forefathers were students of history and knew this fact. They did everything possible to form a free nation but knew that one day it would be distorted and twisted. They formed a government that was supposed to work for the people, not one that was tyrannical. They knew the less power the government had the more power the people had.
We are living in a time where the media controls the narrative and they try to control everything we do. They are part of the liberal agenda like Pravda was for Mother Russia. While Trump was president they wanted us to think that he was bad so inherently government was bad. Now that they think they are in control government is good again and speaking out against it is now treasonous and they are trying to form a truth and reconciliation counsel to fix the problem. Some are even talking tribunals. Of course they are going to label militias as treasonous, they are labeling Trump supporters the same way. As long as they control the media and half the government they are above the law and that will continue until people wake up and vote these people out before it’s too late.
Exactly, our unique republican form of government is predicated on states rights. The major power was to be vested in the individual states, and the federal government was to have a very limited amount of power and specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Today the federal government has vastly overstepped its constitutional authority. This, and the fact that the media is a part of one of the political party’s and that party being antagonistic to the Constitution is the reason that at some point in the future there will be a civil war.
More crap. Its fight club, first rule is dont talk about fight club. Militias can be constitutional, get your sheriff involved, if he isnt onboard, vote in someone else. Go to sheriff Mack’s website and provis institute for all your constitutional needs on militias. https://provisinstitute.com/
Take heart all those that feel they are too old to participate. For every shooter, there are 17 support elements, old guys, fill those support elements.
If this were true, there would be absolutely no reason to codify this right in the Constitution. Free men need not ask permission.
I find it troubling that a “senior historian” is labeling as “treason” anything not explicitly included in that word’s Constitutional definition (Article III, Section 3).
This is the very definition of PROPAGANDA. This is all that is spewed out of the FAKE NEWS outlets(including FAUX news). Anyone with an ounce of brains should see right thru what they are trying to accomplish. Don’t fall for this shit patriots.
The government is given NO authority in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to regulate or control the militia. The Bill of Rights outlines individual natural (God-given) citizen rights that are to be recognized by all governments and protected against any infringement. The militia is comprised of all able-bodied citizens capable of bearing arms in defense of our country and liberty. Discourse by the Founders reveals that they did not consider certain government officials to be eligible as militia members. The National Guard is nothing less than the standing federal army that the Founders never wished to see – that entity being organized only in times of need. The National Guard is NOT the militia. The militias are self-regulated groups and precisely because of the Second Amendment may not have their activities suppressed by government when they are engaged in otherwise legal behavior in training or when they act in defense of persons, property and their state or country. One is correct when saying this man thinks like a typical Democrat. They refuse to acknowledge the true reason for the Second Amendment.
Clearly you’ve never read the Constitution, nor the statutes.
Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 – “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”
Article I, § 8, Cls. 16 – “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
The Congress wrote the Militia Act of 1792 to make uniform all the colonial militia statutes.
Absolutely. To equate a state National Gaurd unit to a militia is ignorance. National Guard members go through a basic training system designed by the US military. They can be activated as auxiliary military units and deployed in the same manner. They are equipped, trained, and advised by the US military.
While a militias may train in similar methods as National Guard units, the training lacks the uniformity, resources, and legal restrictions.
Free forming militia, IMO, is the originating concept the founders had in mind to defend this country from out of control government. This is what is referred to in the 2nd Amendment, not the National Guard, which is an actionable arm of the US military.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
This is exactly correct. The National Guard can NOT be the militia, because of its ties to the federal government.
{{An examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution; Pamphlet, 1787}}
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.” — Noah Webster (1758-1843)
Have these people studied history? It was the civilian formed militia’s that fought against the Redcoats for independence. There was no army to begin with. It was the militia’s who were the people who provided the initial fighters who eventually formed into an army. In New York State organized militia’s are illegal.The media and their sycophants have painted militia’s as white supremacists, red neck anti government racists. Every Hollywood movie reinforces this stereotype. These communists are threatened by free armed men and women and do everything they can to demean them and paint them as domestic terrorists and traitors.
There was no such thing as civilian formed militia’s. Militia were organized, armed, and disciplined in accordance with their colonies statutes. The colonies were required to maintain militia under British law.
The statutes varied from colony to colony, but they were non-the-less a part of the colony’s operation under law.
From the Virginia statutes:
•[1775] “[I]n each county * * * all free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, above the age of sixteen, and under fifty years, except such as are * * * excepted [under the statute], shall be enlisted into the militia[.]”
•[1777] “[A]ll free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, between the ages of sixteen and fifty years [with various exceptions] * * * shall * * * be enrolled or formed into [Militia] companies[.]”
I invite you to read the article “The Individual Rights Theory” [http://www.restoretherepublic.org/?p=3937]. Militia is a State institution, and the State is the people. Militia is an enterprise of law that the People institutionalized within the Constitution so that “We the People” would have the ultimate authority to protect and defend our laws, our freedom, and our liberty.
We’ve disgracefully abandoned our duty.
Well, you are partially right. Originally we were 13 INDIVIDUAL colonies. With the adoption of the constitution, we became a nation of 13 states. As colonies, each was responsible for it’s own security. Once we became a nation, a standing army was formed and a national gaurd of organized militia members was the back up to that army. The Militia acts, based on Virginia’s concept that you refer to, was actually the beginnings of the modern Gaurd units.
The National Guard are “Troops *** of War” that the States may “keep” by “the Consent of Congress” under Article I, § 10, Cl. 3. They cannot be Militia as defined in the historical record and the statutes.
Militia is recognized under Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16, and the clear difference comes into account at Article II, § 2, Cl. 1.
This is all laid out by those who wrote the Constitution, and significantly by the doctrine of law that prevents an alternative view of the stated provision. So, Article I, § 10, Cl. 3 cannot change what Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16 make law. It can only be done by an amendment. Justice McReynolds points out the difference in Miller.
The Dick Act, which allowed for the States to “keep *** Troops of War in time of Peace” under Article I, § 10, Cl. 3 cannot supersede the Militia clauses. The Dick Act is an organic act of the congress, but it is not an amendment that can change anything within the Constitution. It was enacted by an authority granted to congress, and “Denied to the States”. The States are required under the Constitution to maintain militia but were failing to do so.
Again, you cannot change the Constitution to fit your misunderstanding. The S. Ct. has stated in numerous opinions “We inquire, therefore, what, at the time the Constitution was framed and adopted *** did those who framed and adopted it understand the terms to designate and include?” “Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood.”
I am befuddled by the refusal to understand the law as it is written, and to employ the provisions that would not only require the overturning of all gun control, but also protect all our rights.
Fear a politician, political party, or government, that fears an armed citizenry.
George Washington dealt with such militias. He sent in troops and wiped them out. These fools are enemies of the American People
Plz read below . George Washington condoned armed civilians ……derp
Jerry Stubben – you are as ignorant of history and the law as is Patrick Charles. Militias fought alongside and as part of Washington’s Army. Militias are not necessarily patriotic nor are they fools or unpatriotic. What they are is entirely dependent on their actions. There existence is ordained and recognized by the constitution. A quick reading of the document by an 8th grade level reader would reveal that. The mere existence of a militia is perfectly lawful.
Despite his lofty degrees and protestations to the contrary, Patrick Charles knows nothing about firearms nor the tactical realities nor the law of self-defense. Militias, however, have nothing to do with self-defense against criminals, but rather the preservation of communities and states against a tyrannical threat, including that posed by a tyrannical central government. Tyrants uniformly don’t like organizations that have opposition to them as their raison d’etre. That is the purpose of a militia as well as the purpose of the second amendment. As such tyrants…like the entire democrat communist party…react to both militias and the second amendment like Dracula to sunlight. Patrick Charles is just another mouthpiece for the tyrants of our day. Someone at US SOCOM should think about hiring a real historian with real legal expertise.
If you are referring to the Whiskey Rebellion, you are incorrect. For any matter you would be incorrect because in such instances the Militia was called forth. If you read the Constitution it specifically recognizes “the Militia of the several States” as the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”.
In 1794 Washington sent in the Militia to quell the mobs protesting the taxes levied on those who distilled whiskey.
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. – George Washington
The historical context is that Militias were formed OUTSIDE of traditional law! They are contra-legal because the “legal” forces are taking people’s inalienable rights!
You can find anti-2A anywhere that control is desired. In America, LET FREEDOM RING!
Under the guise of requiring more efficient and up to date training, noted in the Second Amendment as “well-regulated”, what really took place was the government removing the citizens’ responsibility to stay educated and practiced in the use of firearms, and nudged that responsibility ever closer to federal control, which was the problem to begin with.
When a time should come where seconds count, police are but minutes away (no offense) and the National Guard will rarely be seen. Look how long it took to deploy them during the riots. Had the locals been adequately familiar with their Constitutional 2A responsibilities, I seriously doubt that the level of disenfranchisement that caused the problems in the first place would have ever arisen, let alone led to a riot.
I see the Dick Act (Militia Act) as a double-edged sword that unloaded that cumbersome responsibility from the masses, all the while conveniently disarming the general population as globalist/communist forces in the legislature more progressively centralized federal power.
As long as the legislature and the courts continue emasculating our population, the more that women unconsciously react to their men no longer acting as effective gender beacons in their lives and militant feminism and LGBTQE are the result.
“Well Regulated” had no such meaning when the second amendment was written. It meant to be in “Working Order” or in a “Ready Manner”. Had absolutely nothing to do with being well regulated by the government. That would kind of defeat the purpose of a god given right not given to you by government. Look it up. They have changed the definition to fit their communist agenda a long time ago.
Anyone that believes that “citizen militias” are illegal under the U.S. Constitution seriously needs to have their heads examined and then take a course such as “Constitution 101” offered for free by Hillsdale College! Citizen militias are a part of our founding heritage and always will play an important part of any countries armed forces. History is the teacher in this subject, but not the false history that has been slowly implemented into today’s educational system for at least 50+ years by the communists and socialists that want to see this country torn apart!. The military of any country may be the outward directed defense of a nation, but the volunteer militias will always be the backbone of that nation for homeland defense! Take for example the “vigilante militias” of the mining camps and towns in the “California Gold Rush”. They became what is now the California National Guard! The same thing happened in many other of our States. What about the citizen volunteers that watched and protected the sea coasts the United States during WW II? It has always been the armed citizens that have risen to the occasion and defense of this country when necessary! The Principles that this nation was founded upon will always be the same principles that will hold it together and keep us moving forward into the future! God Bless America!
McCord obviously has some homework left to do regarding the FULL INTENT AND PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment.
I believe the left used the combination of protesters/rioters and mail in voting to frighten voters and also steal election. Too many states like MI had Trump trouncing Harris/biden to only see that margin fade when all the mail in votes came flooding in. As far as Detroit, look at past election blunders by clerks office and the pattern of fraud is there. Detroit, where Police only come if bullets are flying and bodies are laying.
I’m too old to be running around with an AR, but I see no issue with anyone forming a group for the purpose of self-protection. The issue comes in when they apply deadly force. Is it done within the law? Does it mean pre-emptively shooting at perceived threats? How they do what they say they’re gonna do is the key, and unlike this “Special Ops Command historian,” I thoroughly disagree with calling it “treason.” He might want to look up the definition before throwing around inflammatory words.
Perhaps, if the time does unfortunately come, you and I can take note of one of my favorite accounts of the revolution.
Samuel Whittemore was born in England and came to the colonies as an officer in His Majesty’s Dragoons. After his time in the military he decided to stay here where he bought a farm, and was living out his life as the fighting broke out on the Nineteenth of April. On that day, at nearly Eighty years of age, he mustered with the Militia. As the battle unfolded and others retreated to reload and fire again Samuel stood his ground. He rose and fired his musket, killing one of the soldiers. He drew his two pistols and at point blank range fired. Two more soldiers fell. Samuel did not have the time to reload, but instead drew his saber and began fighting off the bayonet attacks from the regulars. Shot twice and stabbed more than a dozen times, Samuel’s courageous stand was followed by Eighteen more years of life, and the proud claim that if he had to do it again he most certainly would.
It is my understanding that the British said that Patrick Henry, John Paul Jones and their colleagues were treasonous, as well.
Yes they were The Governing Powers of the time
So as a Free people in a Free nation sounds like the same shoe on a different (neck) foot again .
Any way sounds like people who don’t whis to pay Another tea tax by Overreaching Gubmint
The people calling the “militias” treasonous ARE, in fact, THE TRAITORS! (By most objective reasoning and historic evidence!) And they can call these folks anything they choose! But the very fact that “REGULAR PEOPLE” are feeling the NEED too arm and organize speaks volumes about the condition of this nation and it’s Corporate Owned government! Very Sad! Our Founding Fathers must be turning in they’re graves!
In Other Words, another example of the Pot Calling The Kettle Black. Patrick Charles and Mary McCord look like “Freedom For Me But Not For Thee” types.
Yup. Bullshit. Its bullshit. When the communists take over the federal government, it means war against the people. The Declaration of Independence tells us we have the right and duty to replace any government that no longer serves the governed. The 2nd Amendment dovetailed into that declaration. If the communists gain power by election fraud thats treason. If the communists try to frame an elected president with crimes he never committed isnt that treason. If anyone should be charged with treason its Obama, the Clintons and Joe Biden and son. A few others too. When these traitors go to the execution chamber then come talk to us about Treason. The traitors are BLM and ANTIFA. Comey. Brennan. Clapper. Why are their BLM leaders still raking in millions? The government hasn’t rolled them up. Or MS13. Or the cartels.
Most of the militia are fat old men playing soldier. The real warriers are greymen. When the balloon goes up it will be the greyman Patriots that save America from the communists. Not the lawyers.
That’s for sure. I remember reading a post on AOL many moons ago stating that the Bar association had or has a socialist agenda.