Right to bear arms clearly delineated, law professor says

Blade ^ | February 14, 2003 | BLADE STAFF WRITER

[ZULU]

The meaning of the Second Amendment is crystal clear, said Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University school of law in Fairfax, Va.

"In fact, for over a hundred years after the amendment was adopted, there was no controversy about its meaning," Mr. Lund said yesterday during a taping of The Editors television program. "Everyone who wrote seriously about it agreed that it protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, just like the individual rights in the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment."

[Gargantua]

"The Taliban was a militia."

So were our Minutemen, and the Viet Cong. They both handed a "real" army its bloodied ass in a handbag.

[dljordan]

Excellent! I once got into a flame war with a policeman about whether the police could control a community during a rebellion. He was insistent that he and his "brothers" could defeat anyone who came against them. I tried to tell him that the draconian methods they would have to employ would be counter-productive but he blew me off. I guess that's good in a way because it shows an institutional over-confidence that would prove deadly. I tried to point out that police are not used to opposition and are surprised when it happens. I don't think I got through to him.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Minute Men were not capable of fighting a sustained battle. Their fame came from a small skirmish not a set battle. After the British built up their forces they chased militias from one state to the other. Militia might in the Revolutionary War is highly overblown for anything more than ambushes.

The Viet Cong fought guerrilla style which is conducive for militia success as I have said. But you must not forget that the North Vietnamese Army was deeply involved. General Giap was not head of the V.C. but the NV Army. Lack of U.S. will (due to LBJ's lying) allowed the North Vietnamese to win not militia.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Virtually every history of that War mentioned Washington's need to train a real ARMY to fight the British and there are repeated instances of him taking the back of his sword to fleeing militiamen in battle. Militia members were notorious for just leaving in the middle of the night and deserting in high numbers. They had zero discipline.

The war was won because a modern army was trained by Hamilton and Von Steuben not because of militia. Militia was only useful for harassing the enemy, hit and run and ambushes. No military thinker ever considered them as anything more than that.

[Shooter 2.5]

You continue to repeat the same argument. I'm looking for your statement from a history book that agrees that the militia were useless.

All military units are valuable within their design. Mounted cavalry doesn't work very well in deep forest, however no one could ever call them "useless". The militia suckered the British at Cowpens while fighting with the Regulars. If the militia was so bad, why were they still fighting as a unit?

[american spirit]

There's a group called JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP (JPFO) and they did a study which resulted in the conclusion that every major holocaust in this century from Russia, Cambodia, Germany, etc. were preceded by MAJOR gun control then confiscation which left the public essentially helpless to defend themselves against gov't oppression. The ultimate result was the deaths of millions of people. That should be a perfect response to any talk of gun control.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[Stat-boy]

The militia were very useful during the War of 1812 (the forgotten war), especially during the following two key battles towards the end of the war:

1. Fort McHenry, 13 September 1814. While the British marched on Washington, Baltimore had time to hastily strengthen its defenses. Maj. Gen. Samuel Smith had about 9,000 militia, including 1,000 in Fort McHenry guarding the harbor. On 12 September the British landed at North Point about 14 miles below the city, where their advance was momentarily checked by 3,200 Maryland Militiamen. Thirty-nine British (including General Ross) were killed and 251 wounded at a cost of 24 Americans killed, 139 wounded, and 50 taken prisoner. After their fleet failed to reduce Fort McHenry by bombardment and boat attack (night of 13-14 September), the British decided that a land attack on the rather formidable fortifications defending the city would be too costly and on 14 October sailed for Jamaica. Francis Scott Key, after observing the unsuccessful British bombardment of Fort McHenry, was inspired to compose the verses of "The Star Spangled Banner."

2. New Orleans, 23 December 1814 - 8 January 1815. On 20 December 1814 a force of about 10,000 British troops, assembled in Jamaica, landed unopposed at the west end of Lake Borgne, some 15 miles from New Orleans, preparatory to an attempt to seize the city and secure control of the lower Mississippi Valley. Advanced elements pushed quickly toward the river, reaching Villere's Plantation on the left bank, 10 miles below New Orleans, on 23 December. In a swift counter-action, Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson, American commander in the South, who had only arrived in the city on 1 December, made a night attack on the British (23-24 December) with some 2,0000 men supported by fire from the gunboat Carolina. The British advance was checked, giving Jackson time to fall back to a dry canal about five miles south of New Orleans, where he built a breastworks about a mile long, with the right flank on the river and the left in a cypress swamp. A composite force of about 3,500 militia, regulars, sailors, and others manned the American main line, with another 1,000 in reserve. A smaller force—perhaps 1,000 militia—under Brig. Gen. David Morgan defended the right bank of the river. Maj. Gen. Sir Edward Pakenham, brother-in-law of the Duke of Wellington, arrived on 25 December to command the British operation. He entrenched his troops and on 1 January 1815 fought an artillery duel in with the Americans outgunned the British artillerists. Finally, at dawn on 8 January, Pakenham attempted a frontal assault on Jackson's breastworks with 5,300 men, simultaneously sending a smaller force across the river to attack Morgan's defenses. The massed fires of Jackson's troops, protected by earthworks reinforced with cotton bales, wrought havoc among Pakenham's regulars as they advanced across the open ground in front of the American lines. In less than a half hour the attack was repulsed. The British lost 291 killed, including Pakenham, 1,262 wounded, and 48 prisoners; American losses on both sides of the 4iver were only 13 killed, 39 wounded, and 19 prisoners. The surviving British troops withdrew to Lake Borgne and reembarked on 27 January for Mobile, where on 14 February they learned that the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, had been signed on 24 December 1814.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While it is true that the militia was crucial at the BoNO there is also no doubt that the lack of a significant standing army (thanks to Jefferson) caused us to lose almost every battle for three years in that war. We were so weakened by the Republicans that 5,000 soldiers were able to burn the nation's capital. Disgraceful.

Nowadays militias are even less signficant due to the highly technological nature of modern weaponry. Militia is a concept that the nostalgia-ridden have fallen in love with along with the other popular myth of how great the Old Days were.

[Shooter 2.5]

I don't think it was regular troops at Breed's Hill[ Bunker Hill ].

I also forgot about Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys.

[ZULU]

A logical conclusion, but anti-gun people don't think any more logically than animal rights extremists. Any politicians are either intimidated by them or see them as a larger voting block.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I didn't say they were useless just virtually useless.
For actions requiring little or no training such as ambushes, sniping they were fine for battles with large forces they were generally not worth the effort.

I rarely do battling quotes since it is very easy to distort the meaning of an author by selective editing.

However, Washington's attitude about militia is not a secret and he had once been the head of the Virginia militia so he knew whereof he spoke. "Here today and gone tomorrow" was one of his comments in his papers. You may also check Washington's Partisian War-Kwasny wherein he is quoted as saying that the militia should be kept away from the regular troops to prevent the "spread of the seeds of licentiousness among the regulars." They were notorious for taking arms from the government then deserting. And plundering citizens pretending they were Loyalists. Militia officers often stole their recruits' enlistment bonuses. See the Papers of George Washington- Revolutionary WAr Series Vol 8&9.

Cowpens was one of the few victories the militia can claim though I am not sure it wasn't more of an ambush than a pitched battle. Militias refused to march on Charleston for fear of the small pox. Inoculated regular soldiers had to do it.

[Shooter 2.5]

All of what you said could easily have been said about the regular troops. It's the reason Thomas Paine wrote about the "Summer soldier".

[Stat-boy]

For actions requiring little or no training such as ambushes, sniping they were fine for battles with large forces they were generally not worth the effort.

The Texas Revolution was fought by a militia force. While it is true that a few had military training, and technically some were appointed as members of the Texas Army; the reality is that almost all were local farmers. In my mind the words “Who will go with old Ben Milam into San Antonio? exemplify the spirit and potential of a militia.

Notwithstanding Texas history, I am persuaded by your comments regarding potential effectiveness of a militia against an organized military force. A battle would likely resemble the German blitzkrieg against the Polish cavalry. I think the true value of a militia is that an oppressive government would have great difficulty maintaining control of land so that an invading force could never feel secure from unpredictable ambush-style attacks. But what do I know.

[Travis McGee]

Nice try. The Taliban was a despised minority in their own country who imposed their theocratic Sharia rule through stark terror and Al Quead money and muscle.

How that is a "militia" I utterly fail to see, unless you see anyone carrying a gun without a uniform as "militia."

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

I fear we are too divided.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Militias are defined differently within the different states. In some they are as self-defined as the Taliban. That was the term they chose not me.

In Illinois every able-bodied adult is defined constitutionally as a member of the militia. This is in the
context of the RTKAB arms in the Illinois constitution. Thus, there is no doubt that the individual has the right to keep and bear and that bogus argument used wrt to the U.S. Constitution. Of that hasn't stopped Illinois from having some of the most infringing gun control laws in the nation.

How do you define militia or your state? Is there a federal definition too?