Showing posts with label military service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military service. Show all posts

21 December 2009

The Second Amendment in Art!



This is Charles Henry Granger's Muster Day which is in the National Gallery in Washington, DC. There is another version of this at the located at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia.

Many able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were a members of the militia under the militia act of 1792. The annual muster day accomplished actual enrollment of the members into their units.

Local companies of militia would gather annually for parade and inspection at their regiment's muster day which often involved a thousand or more men from half a dozen towns. Food and alcohol vendors, showmen, fiddlers, auctioneers, charlatans, gamblers, and several thousand spectators turned these gatherings into regional festivals in an era of few such diversions. Muster days were structured social events in a regimental towns in ways not duplicated since. By 1830, muster days were under attack from those who resented the required participation. They were joined by temperance advocates, who objected to the considerable public drunkenness attending each muster, and later by critics of the Mexican War, who claimed that the existence of a peace-time militia had in fact led to this conflict.

"Their general good conduct on the field was creditable to officers and soldiers – with the exception of a few, (such as never know how to leave off when they have done), who fired promiscuously about the plain a long time after they had been dismissed, a practice always disreputable to good soldiers and the officers to whom they belong. the occasion attracted an unusual assemblage of spectators, pedlers, rumsellers, rumdrinkers and gamblers; whose noise, ribaldry, intoxication, and violation of the laws in the face and eyes of the authorities, was disgraceful to the place, to the occasion, to those specially engaged in it, and to all who looked on and tolerated it. We leave it to the people to judge whether there be more good than evil derived from ‘making a muster.’" --Report of the Amherst Muster Day from The Farmers’ Cabinet, 1834


Exemptions to Militia service were:
Vice President, federal judicial and executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers, custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states"notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."


Or as the quote goes: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 (that should be quite a few public officials).

So, militia service was NOT universal. In fact, Men actively sought exemption from militia service. This was a reason for the carnival atmosphere at muster days. Again from Story:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

To be quite honest, people had jobs and other things to do than militia service and sought exemption from that duty. The muster day had a carneval feeling because it made the obligation less painful. Still there was an obligation to perform militia service. Thie was compulsory military duty which required time away from your work.

Now, they demand the right without the obligation encumbent to that right.

20 February 2008

National Service

It seems a joke in Britain that a conservative politician will say that "we need to bring back national service" when youth act out of control. On the other hand, I am thinking this isn't a bad idea. For those who don't know what national service was, it was a compulsory two year stint in the military which was in effect from 1939 until 1960 in Britain.

I was listening to the Radio Times interview with Eric Fair and it was pointed out that we probably wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan if there was still a draft. Most Americans want to avoid military service. And they want to avoid military service if there is any risk to life and limb. On the other hand, there is no risk that the average American will go into the army which means most people don't care what the military does.

Likewise, I am pretty sure that any love for the Second Amendment would dwindle away if people who claim to support it were told they had to go to boot camp for a couple of months training, give up a couple of days a month for drill, and then go on exercises for a week or two a year. All this would not count toward their vacation time. I know that it was this type of sickener that caused the institution of the universal militia to die in the first place. Most people wanted exemptions from militia service, or would pay someone to do their militia duties.

But, this isn't about the War in Iraq, it is about something stupid I read this morning.

David McGrath, a university literature professor in Alabama wishes to carry a gun into class to be able to "protect his students". Prof. McGrath's states that:

I am no Rambo. I am a middle-age English professor with no military background. But as an outdoorsman, I have a passing acquaintance with the use of firearms, experience which could be refined to a skill of safety and competence, with adequate training.

Now, Prof. McGrath, I am a person with military experience Worse case scenario is that you end up being shot by being mistaken for the gunman. Best case is that you only add to the confusion and panic.

A situation with a gunman requires more than being able to shoot a gun, it requires being able to deal with the panic and confusion which accompanies that situation.

A civilian with a firearm in a situation like a school shooting is only going to add to the confusion when the professionals arrive. The last thing that is needed is armed civilians bungling around trying to be heroes.

Now, I posted this in another forum and someone mentioned the Colorado Church where a "concealed carry permit holder" saved the day. Now, if I remember correctly, that permit holder was a security guard, not Joe Blow professor who has a passing knowledge of guns. Anyway, I can come up with many more circumstances where trained officers were unable to stop the shooters, such as Columbine and the Kirkwood City Council shootings.

Quite frankly, an armed civilian is far more likely to add to the confusion than help it. Not to mention put themselves and others at risk.

Of course, maybe we should allow armed civilians. This is called the Darwin Awards. Armed civilian is seen by the SWAT team and is picked off. I am waiting for that to happen. Or that the armed civilian does cause more harm than good by shooting innocent bystanders adding to the carnage.

Additionally, the armed civilian is not insulated from lawsuits the way that the police or military are. So, if the armed civilian does shoot the wrong person, they can be sued into penury.

On the other hand, the RKBA crowd loves the myth that an armed person can save the day. They seem to have had a steady diet of dime novels, movies, and fairy tales that portray this myth. I am not sure if reality can be brought in to these people's minds.

On the other hand, maybe we would see a drastic change of opinion if the RKBA heroes had to go through military training and exercises of situations where people are shooting back at them. It is one thing to shoot at a target, or to hunt something which can't shoot back as opposed to hunting the most dangerous game.

A foe who has no regard for human life and is willing to kill as many people as possible before being killed himself.