Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

The Real Definition of Militia

"TRUE or FALSE Congress has the power to provide for organizing the Militia (National Guard) to carry out laws, suppressing insurrection and repel invasions.”


The Real Definition of Militia

by Mike Pierce

In the “Constitution Quest Board Game” A card came up with this question,

“TRUE or FALSE Congress has the power to provide for organizing the Militia (National Guard) to carry out laws, suppressing insurrection and repel invasions.”

Instantly my highly tuned Constitutional “spidy sense” alarms were going off. “LOL”

Let me say at this point, I love this game, and recommend it. I will continue to play it and believe the makers have good intentions to educate people on the U.S. Constitution. My point addresses the question, not the game.

This is one of those questions designed to appear as a legitimate question and many fall for this trick, however is like rat poison, you see you don’t give a rat a bowl of poison, you give him a bowl of good food with a little bit of poison mixed in. The rat eats the food not noticing the danger lurking in side.

The real question here is the Militia and the National Guard the same. The answer is “NO” they are not.

Another card in the same game helps to clear this up. It reads:

In the U.S. Constitution, the militia refers to: A. state police B. armed, trained, able-bodied citizens C. regular, standing army

The answer is “B.”

In today’s world, here in the united States, many have a misunderstanding about the “Militia” which usually takes on two forms.

  1. Militia is that bunch of anti-government crazies on the lunatic fringe, who run around out there in the woods and play army. and,
  2. The real Militia is the National Guard. Both of these answers are wrong.

Many advocates of the 2nd amendment will recite only the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment when ask, IE “the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”. However the first half states. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,”

What ?

You “MUST” have a well trained group of able bodied Citizens or your State is not a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

“Infringed” to cross the line on the edge of the subject. Let that soak in for a moment.

Do you believe that you and your State are free. Does your State have a Militia?

To really under stand what a Militia is you must go back to its roots. Back in the day, land owners would have peoplemilitia who worked and defended there land from invaders. They would have a person for each portion of land they owned. IE one person per acre. This was the original Militia. They were not government solders.

Because of the experiences our founding fathers had with corrupt governments abusing there power and eventually there people, They learned that “standing armies” or a army that is in a continual state of existence, is a vary dangerous thing to have, as it is eventually turned and used against its own people. This is not some conspiracy theory or fear, this is history.

So with the historical knowledge possessed by our founding fathers, they constructed our Constitution to include a “Constitutional Militia” as a defense to our States and State rights against invaders and the overreaches of an all powerful federal government, “as we see today.”

It is interesting to study the history of the Militia and safeguards installed into our Constitution for the organization, regulation, and calling forth of the Militia. In the course of such a study, you come away with the strong impression that, our founding fathers were pretty smart guys that really knew what they were doing.

Where are our militias today ? Disbanded by the very people they were to protect us from and replaced with a so called national guard, “some of which have been called to serve over seas by the way“… It appears they are no longer even a “Nation-al Guard.”

I listened to a radio program the other day, one of the people speaking, “who I perceived to be trying to uphold Constitutional values in some what of a conservative manner,” listed 3%ers Oath Keepers and Militias together in the same category and presented them in a negative fashion.

This is the effect of that bowl of food being feed to the rat. The embedding is subtle but very effective. It appears as if they perceive good, god fearing, patriotic Americans, as a bunch of rats.

Is this the type of government our founders intended us to have, or the one they warned us about and safe guarded against?

Please share what you learn with others. Just how important is it to do so… Take a look at our nation today and ponder these quotes from our founding fathers…

“A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” – James Madison


“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson


“A primary object should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?” ― George Washington

Thank you.

6 Comments on The Real Definition of Militia

  1. Daniel Webster: “We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. That chart is the Constitution.”

    The US Constitution does not only PROTECT our natural rights (and no, not all are listed but are still protected – Ninth Amendment), in the case of weapons it requires the American people to be armed and trained BECAUSE they are the Militia that is constitutionally required to be use by those that serve within our governments to;
    — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    The above is found in US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. The duties that those that serve within the federal and state governments have TO THE MILITIAS are found in Clause 16.

    Richard Henry Lee: “Whereas, 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; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican (lower case “r”) principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” (Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, member of the first Senate)

    George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (Found in the “Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

    One of the first versions of the Second Amendment sent from the House of Representatives to the Senate on Aug 14, 1888 said: “A well regulated Militia, being composed of the body of the people being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;” “Free State” in the language of the times referred to a free country; not to any governmental entity, but to the people themselves.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with arms usual in the regular service (military). But this injunction was always indifferently complied with, and the arms they had have been so frequently called to arm the regulars, that in the lower parts of the country they are entirely disarmed.” (“Notes on the State of Virginia” (1782))

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

    The congress not only has the duty to declare War, but it also has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….” (caps are mine)

    Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of C but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    Why was “the unlimited power of the sword” to NOT be put into the hands of those that serve within our governments?

    Because the history of mankind, when they created governments, show that those that serve within governments, or are the governments (kings, dictators, tyrants) always use those armed under governmental control against their own people. The framers felt that if the people were always responsible for defense – of themselves, their neighbors, cities, state, and nation then there could never be armed governmental units (call them what you will) used against the American people. That if those who serve within our governments unlawfully kept a “standing military”, that there would be an equal defense against them if ever used against the American people.

    Why is the fact that our Constitutions being in writing and available to all – inside or outside our nation – important? That way a president cannot make a lawful and binding treaty without the Senate. The judges cannot make laws, decide guilt or innocence as ALL legislation must be created and from those that serve within the House of Representatives and the Senate. The people are the jury and they decide guilt or innocence, if a law is good, or if a judge needs to be investigated for not using the constitutionally required “Good Behaviour”. So that those nations, or foreign entities that contract with those that serve within our governments have easy availability to discover if the person purporting to have that authority to contract for this nation and the American people actually does occupy a position within a branch or office within a branch with that delegated authority – if that person misrepresented the actual authority that comes from that branch or office within a branch, then they know NOT to contract with that person because the USA and/or the American people can only be held accountable for the LAWFUL contracts/treaties/etc made in our ntme. Etc.

    For the USA, the American people, to retain her freedom and independence; for us to have honest elections; for those who serve within our governments to be held accountable; for constitutional laws only to be enforced instead of “color of law”; etc a Militia is required. But it must be a Militia of those that have been trained as the military is trained; and because they are bound only to the US Constitution and their own state Constitution, they MUST be knowledgeable in the Constitutions mentioned.

    Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.“

    John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

    Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, clergyman, theologian, popular poet, successful diplomat, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

    Tench Coxe, on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it’s the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”. (‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)

    An editorial on Gage’s proclamation stressed that an armed populace must keep government in check: “The opposing an arbitrary measure, or resisting an illegal force, is no more rebellion than to refuse obedience to a highway-man who demands your purse, or to fight a wild beast, that came to devour you. It is morally lawful, in all limited governments, to resist that force that wants political power, from the petty constable to the king…. They are rebels who arm against the constitution, not they who defend it by arms.” (Found in “A Freeman,” PA. EVENING POST, June 27, 1775, at 2. [Vol. 7:2])

    Consider who sided with th0se who serve in our governments on stopping the Militias; Joseph Stalin, 1933: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.

  2. Article one Section 10 paragraph 3 RESERVES the power of each state (and the RIGHT of its citizens) to wage war when it is not possible for the “federal government” or even other states to prevent the first state from being invaded. Article 4 Section 4 “The United States (meaning all the states in total or in parts) shall … protect each of them against invasion; …” The Second Amendment makes it clear how those protections are to be effected: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state (meaning EACH state, not DC), … shall not be infringed”. And how is THAT to be effected? By a pre-extant “right of the people to keep and bear arms”. Not a right of the state, not a right of DC, not even a right of Congress – NONE of which have “rights”. They have LIMITED powers – and those powers include the power to ensure that a state is not invaded and the freedom of a state is ensured. Now the crux. Since the DC government “thinks” it owns refuges, it is in no position to dictate to “the people” what is to be protected from even DC itself. BLM and other federal agencies were the invaders, not the “people”. I’m no lawyer, but words have meaning(s) and one cannot twist them to fit what one wants to be some pre-conceived outcome.

    • By way of clarification. The Feds have claimed that they “own” the refuge. Well, they don’t – not according to the Constitution of the united States, since they are forbidden to own “land” other than is necessary for a few buildings and other appurtenances. IF their claim is valid, then there was NO INVASION, because the “federal government” is not a state under any of the Articles of the Constitution, and therefore NOT protected by the articles and other amendment I referenced above. So, again, there was no invasion of a state. Therefore, there was no violation of the Constitution of the united States by anyone. Ain’t logic grand?

      • The Feds’ claim that there was “an invasion” is invalid on its face because the Feds do not constitute a state. ALL the people of the several states have a right to access all the lands within each state that are “public”. This whole thing is a designed DC plot to enslave all the states to the UN. Plain and simple. The so-called siege was ending peacefully, until the Feds started shooting. ALL blame for the botched “operation” is on the Feds and their stooges in the state.

  3. As long as the people of the USA remain in a state of divided confusion, logical conclusions based upon fact will not be reached. This regime is expert at distracting the American public with petty bullsh*t. Thank you for educating people!

Comments are closed.