🚀 go-pugleaf

John M Atkinson wrote:
> 
> Thus Spake mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn):
> 
> %John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
> %: The Virginia Militia Law.  I'll quote it all if you like.
> %
> %Are you actually trying to make the superfulous argument that the Virginia
> %Nation Guard - part of the US Army no less - is the state militia?  That
> %somehow the Guard is created by STATE law?
> 
>                         Article 1
>                         Classification of Militia
> Para 44-1.  Composition of miliita.--The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia
> shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other
> able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared thier
> intnention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen
> years of age, and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five
> years of age.  The militia shall be divided into four classes, The National
> Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the
> Virginia State Defence Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.
> 
> Sounds like it to me.
>

Sorry - the Militia is more a creation of our simian ancestors who
banded together to defend against predators and competing simians, than
it is of law.

Law defines the Army, the Organized Militia, etc, but the Unorganized
Militia, which is to say all persons between the ages of etc etc etc not
enrolled in either the National Guards, or the Armed Forces of the US
("standing army"), is not defined by law, it's simply an historical
tradition. Men of arms-bearing age are the unorganized militia, that is
all.
 
> %Where on earth do you think the fuding for the Guard comes from?  The
> %funding fairy?  The last time I got an ARTEP in the Guard my evaluators
> %were all FEDERAL - not State people.  I can follow for the money trail can
> %you?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 is what formed the National Guard.  Note the title.  Anyway,
> under the provisions of that law, militia units which met a certain standard
> would be supplied and equipped by the Army.  Previous to that time, the
> Commonwealth's forces were known as the 'Virginia Volunteers'.

Unfortunately recent developments no longer deliver funding and training
to militia units which qualify by adhering to certain standards,
instead, the National Guards are not being absorbed as a part-time
mostly-logistic corps of clerks who do part-time administrative work for
the "standing Army".

> 
> %: %when I was in the guard, we never considered ourselves a milityia. 

Hmm, I like the slavic phonetic spelling! cute!

> %: The
> %: %last time I checked my uniform still said "U.S. Army" - but then again
> %: %what the hell do I know - I was only an Infantryman for Uncle Sam (Active
> %: %and reserves) for Ten years.
> %
> %: It does-but check the State law authorizing the Guard to exist.
> %
> %And then check the Federal laws that govern the guard.  IF you think for
> %one second that the Virginia Guard would follow the Governor and not the
> %President if it were asked to do otherwise, then you missed ever word of
> %your oath.  Its *all* about upholding and defending the constituional .of
> %the United States - not the consitution of the State of Virginia.
> 
> You are right, BUT it does mention the constitution of the Commonwealth of
> Virginia.  And as far as another Civil War, any scenario is so far-fetched that
> what-ifs are meaningless.

Insofar as regards another replay of the original Civil War, nobody
would argue.

but insofar as regards civil war, rest assured, unless very radical
steps are taken (and not military ones, rather think "justice=peace"),
in my humble opinion I believe civil war on a variety of scales and
within a variety of modes to be absolutely inevitable - in fact, within
a purely philosophical mode, I call for it. there are huge segments of
our population that are hagridden, disenfranchised and abused - and
rather than that much blood be shed later, I call for a recurrent
program of disruptional demonstration at all levels from here on in
until justice is served and tyranny is recognized, in all of its forms,
and summarily quashed by whatever means are necessary.

And no I am not talking about the damnd treasonous successionist rebels
calling themselves the Republic of Texas.

> 
> %You can play semantics all you want on this one, but the fact remains that
> %the Virginia Guard is 100% a part of the US Army.  And the US Army is
> %*not* a militia.  Its an Army.  Go look that one up.
> 
> Yes, Yes and No.  Yes, the National Guard is part of the Army.  Yes the US Army
> is an Army.  However, the National Guard fills a dual role.  Say it slowly...
> D-U-A-L. R-O-L-E.

But by design they are being reduced to a merely clerkly and logistic
role. Militias should be, like the Boy Scouts, Prepared to aid any and
all of their fellow citizens, particularly in cases of natural disasters
which I predict an outraged god will continue to inflict on the United
States until it gets its act together.

> 
> %So the fact that a unit was once a militia does not mean that it is a
> %militia.  If we buy into that logic, then a large measure of the units
> %today would be flying confederate flags.
> 
> There is one on my Batallion crest, but hey, who's counting.  Due to the fact
> that the WBTS was a civil war, the regiments on the loosing side ended up in the
> same Army.
> 
> %Let me be clear about this one, the National Guard is a full blown arm of
> %the US Military - its got Staff level offices in the Pentagon - its part
> %of the Military, under federal control and in most cases its armories are
> %on FEDERAL property. Except for SMR, all the bases are owned by the US
> %Government.
> 
> I am very aware of that-one of my good friends works in the NGB retention
> office.
> 
> %Gratuitous assertion.  Just as gratuituously denied.  I'll give you the
> %benefit of the doubt though, I challenge you to support that supposition.
> %(Otherwise, by the position of the null hypothesis, its a false assertion)
> 
> OK, I'll go halfway on this one.  The NRA vociferously supports those who affirm
> the basic premise of the Whiskey Rebellion, which is that the Federal Government
> does not have the power to tax (whether it be in general or them personally).

As an aggregate of the taxational powers of the States, I argue that it
does. But I might be tempted to argue that this power to tax should be
only the result of a legitimately-enacted Constitutional Amendment.

> 
> %: OK, who in hell would this hypothetical militia fight?  If criminals, then
> %: vigilante.  If armed invasion, let's just say anything that gets this far is
> too
> %: mean for a couple of rednecks to stop with hunting rifles. 

What about every single citizen who can get their hands on gasoline,
fertilizer and diesel fuel? which is to say just about every citizen?

> %: If the Federal
> %: Government, fsck them, I'll be helping hunt them down.
> %
> %Thats your opinion.  History doesn't support it though.  The American
> %revoluntion was won by partisians.  And so was Vietnam.  But why let facts
> %stand in the way of rhetoric eh?
> 
> Really?  Let's take this backwards.  Vietnam-was won by the conventional forces
> of the PAVN.  I invite you to HIST 386, Sec 002 The VIetnam War.  Meets in
> Thompson Hall, room 138 on Wednesday nights at 7:20 pm.  We just covered this
> last week, but I'm sure the prof would be happy to explain it to you.
> 
> American Revolution-I don't suppose those 4,000 French Marines or the fleet
> parked off Yorktown had _anything_ to do with US victory.  Nothing at all.  I
> also would challenge the definition of the Continental Army as a partisan force.
> Especially after von Stuben turned them into a conventional army using
> Prussian-style drill.
> 
> Next point-name a insurgency that suceeded without outside support.  There's
> been one in history, and it's obscure enough that I doubt most people will pick
> up on it.

The Haitian Slave Revolution, where all on the same day absolutely every
servant served their masters with puffer-fish?

> 
> John M. Atkinson
> jatkinso@gmu.edu
> "A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon
> have a despicable army
>                  --Jerry Pournelle

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.