Jump to content

Talk:Militia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cberlet (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 6 September 2005 (Please use standard Wiki guidelines in editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Invasion of Japan

Projected casualty rates for Allied invasion of Japan was edited to be less specific. 20 million Japanese + 1 million Allied was the official projection from Allied Command. Shall I dig up the reference and re-instate? --EllisWyatt 01:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, there is more controversy on this point than I realized. I concede the issue.--EllisWyatt 01:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Swiss section is opinionated and needs to be neutralized.

The section has been edited with more neutral language.

--David3565 22:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: It is neutral language in the strictest sense, in that it is a pure statement of fact. The previous use of "militaristic" has certain connotations about the policy itself.

--David3565 03:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

armed citizen(s)(') militias

OK, this is tricky. It depends on the source document. armed citizens militias armed citizen's militias armed citizen militias Any questions? Is there a style for this on Wikipedia?--Cberlet 02:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They're all valid, because they are all slightly different things.
  1. "armed citizens militias" are militias consisting of armed citizens (emphasizing distinction from the government)
  2. "armed citizens' militias" are militias belonging to armed citizens (implying acting on behalf of other citizens)
  3. "armed citizen's militias" are militias belonging to a single armed citizen (probably incorrectly used)
  4. "armed citizen militias" are militias that are armed and citizen (no particular emphasis)
The distinctions are minor, and probably an arguable POV anyway. Applying the KISS principle yields "armed citizen militia". Actually, saying both "armed" and "militia" is redundant; "citizen militias" should be sufficient. -- A D Monroe III 15:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question: what requirement is there that a militia be constituted of citizens? Seems many armed insurgent militia often lack citizenship and/or citizen rights. Thank you. Nobs01 16:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--User:Anonymous

Title 10 of the United States Code

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes creates membership in the unorganized (i.e. citizens) militia for citizens and those "who have made a declaration of intention to become..." 


     (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
   males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
   313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
   declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
   and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
   National Guard.
     (b) The classes of the militia are -
       (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
     and the Naval Militia; and
       (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
     the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
     Naval Militia.

In the U.S., the term "unorganized militia" is more technically correct than "citizens militia".


Errr ... why the revert? Tannin 13:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iraq insurgents are not a militia

While I agree that definition of militia given at the start of the article might allow for it, I don't know of any source that refers to the Iraq insurgents as militia -- it's certainly not the widely accepted view. Many of them aren't even Iraqi, much less an official military organization, which is usually a criteria for militia. The different types of irregular military are better differentiated under Irregular military. Unless others object, I'm going to remove the Iraq insurgents references and tighten up the opening definition. --A D Monroe III 1 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

Clarification of National Guard as federal militia as opposed to Constitutional militia

I have just completed an extensive 18 month research paper on this subject. After going over the 6 page treatice at the ADL website, the Brady Campaigns website, the NRA's website, and the various "militia" websites I took it upon myself to do the research and learn the truth about this subject. In short (make that very, very short), all able bodied men (after the 14th Amendment, all races of men are included) are subject to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15, and 16 of the US constitution and the 2nd amendment. This constitutes a compulsory service in the militia of the several states. As this mandatory militia was unpopular (to say the least) the Federal Congress passed the Militia act of 1903 and created the National Guard, which later became part of the federal military in 1933 as part of the war powers act. The federal government had to continue to recognize the militia in order to have the power to "draft" people into military service (the ADL is wrong on this one, Congressman Bob Beauprez was very clear on this). This is why under Title 10, the term "un-organized" militia appears. All US male citizens are memebers of the "un-organized" militia and contrary to the political beliefs of many legal professors, federal courts, and even state and local judges, we are required to train ourselves so as to be of "usefull purpose" to the military of the United States in time of war or emergency. This was the reason for the creation of the Department of Civilian Marksmanship and its successor the Civilian Marksmanship Program, it is also in part the reason for the boy scouts of America, the civil defense corps, and the civil air patrol.

With that said, I edited the United States portion of this article in order to clarify that the National Guard is statutory militia rather than a Constitutional one.

The controversy over who constitutes the militia has been going on for the better part of 200 years of US history. One side claims that Constitutional militia no longer exists, the other side states that it is the people. Which side is right is a matter of opinion, however, what is not a matter of opinion is the status of the National Guard. Tetragrammaton 04:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism to simply delete the entire bottom of the article, including references and links. Your views are not widely shared in scholarly treatments of the subject. Nevertheless, should you wish to cite published work of significance other than your own, your edits could add more detail to this article. It is not, however, appropriate to do what you did. Please use standard Wiki guidelines in editing--Cberlet 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militia&oldid=22705689"