Video: Dr. Christopher Larsen on The Purpose of the Militia
The excellent Dr. Christopher Larsen talks about the purpose of the Militia and the correct context for its use. Well worth your time to watch or listen to the whole thing. -Mike
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: admin
5 Comments
Comments are closed.
GUNS N GEAR
I watched this until 13:27 when he says, “…private American militia….”
There is no such thing, and never has been. Back in “the days” when somebody wanted to raise a militia company he applied to the Governor for his commission, usually had to pay for the whole project out of his own pocket, and if the commission was granted the militia company he raised was under the authority of the Governor. During the pre-Constitution Colonial days, that militia would have been provided with Brown Bess muskets (out of the Royal Armory) and assigned a Royal Army drill master (usually a senior sergeant). [Yes, they were; I have the 18th Century manuals about it.]
And please don’t blather any shit about some “Constitutional Militia,” whereby just anybody can raise his own armed gang. Such a thing never existed (and when they did they were referred to as “banditii.”) And, bluntly, doesn’t exist now — except as armed gangs. If such things are (here-and-there) grudgingly tolerated it’s because they are overwhelmingly, and rightfully, considered “mostly harmless,” because they are whites and “patriots.” But they are useful foils for Communist propaganda purposes and it won’t be long before they are stepped on. (Negro and Anarcho-Communist armed gangs will be perfectly okay — like they are now.)
Oh, yeah? Barry… what about the “Rebellion and Sedition” (some people call it the American Revolution) as it was called in King George III’s 1775 Proclamation? There was only one body of militia during the Rebellion. They were all Tory.
I’ve cut this short by quite a bit, and I’m not inclined to go further.
Postscript: And it wasn’t the Militia or the Continental Army that defeated the British Army, it was the Royal Army of his Highness King Louis XVI.
S//
I’ve personally never thought it mature of someone to read/watch something partway through and dismiss the entire content because of one technicality.
Cesare Beccaria, criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician, who is widely considered one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment (1774-1776). in his treatise On Crimes and Punishments originally published in 1764 which Jefferson quoted in his Commonplace book which is like a daily ledger of thoughts, ideas, and conversations. He quoted Beccaria in the original Italian because he owned the book which was published again in 1809.
Here are two other translations of Cesare Beccaria in context of his treatise On Crimes and Punishments.
“A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, ‘Be thou a slave;’ who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
“The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.”
The second translation here is by Henry Paolucci and is of the first edition but has an ellipse (…)
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. 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.”
‘Who is the Militia’
http://preparingyou.com/wiki/Militia
“Every man to his family and his possessions”
The current government’s failure to uphold it’s side of the agreement to form and “regulate” state militias in no way makes illegitimate the people’s right to a militia. That “authority” comes from the community up, just like our consent to be governed. Furthermore it is a “natural” or moral right. The people have the collective right to organize to effectively protect their community.
No one cares what King George or his henchmen thought back then, and no one cares what Biden and the statist’s think legitimate now.
“Operational augmentation and a bit of tactical bravado….”
Unorganized militia at the state level differs by age IIRC. For example, my state it is all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 55.
Still that was a good video and it actually helped clear up a misconception I had about militias. Don’t reinvent the wheel (military); augment it.
Regardless, our founding fathers did not want a standing army to begin with. I suppose that is a discussion for another time.