We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
Don’t let the NY Times redefine it. Or Chuck Schumer. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment is not the National Guard or the U.S. Military.
Hamilton pointed out the great, centuries-old historical definition of the militia. It is a huge group of citizens. It is everyone but the politicians. It is the armed neighborhood. It is “the great body of the yeomanry,” he wrote, “and of the other classes of the citizens.”
Hamilton favored the idea that some of that militia is further selected-out into a national military corps, and Federal law reflects this definition in Section 246 of Title X of the US Code: “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.”
Then, it further divides the militia into two distinct parts:
(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.
Both groups are part of the one nationwide, American militia.
According to Hamilton, both groups are indispensable. A small “select corps” will lessen the need for a standing army because it gives the federal government a military force to call on if needed, for the defense of the nation against invaders.
Hamilton is careful to recognize that the citizen militia is a check and balance against tyrannical politicians or a tyrannical military. Citizens, well-organized at the local level, can always fight back against a federal military with their own military grade weapons if and when tyrannical politicians force soldiers to oppress citizens.
He put it this way: “That army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”
Notes:
Yeomanry definition: generally, it referred to middle class, responsible, civilian citizens, all of whom were armed with military-grade weapons.
Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
See Federalist 29 here
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-21-30#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493342
Bill Madden writes, "Refusing illegal orders in the military is difficult to do because they normally are generated high in the chain of command and very few officers in the chain really know what is or is not a legal order. Immediate superiors can be very demanding and the orders are usually given in high pressure environments. Refusing an illegal military order is tantamount to whistleblowing and, as much good as it does for the concept of truth, the whistleblower’s life is made miserable as a punishment for his honesty and a warning to others."
I watched this happen with Army Spec Michael New during the Clinton years. He disobeyed an illegal Clinton order, was arrested on base in Germany, was then given an unjust, unconstitutional trial, and then a Bad Conduct Discharge. But he stood his ground the whole time and has been proven right since.
Not the personal sub;
the private American car. Americans owe $1.66 trillion in auto debt. Delinquencies just hit levels not seen since the Great Financial Crisis. Nearly 30% of all trade-ins are underwater. Average amount owed: $7,000 more than their cars are worth.
Auto loans are now a bigger consumer debt category than student loans (8.9%) and significantly larger than credit cards (6.6%).
So is that shiny late model vehicle a blessing, or a curse?
The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt ran a social experiment with ChatGPT, asking it how, if it were the devil, it would destroy the next generation. Chat gave Haidt a brilliant Seven-Point plan. Haidt was shocked to discover that the answers were very much in line with his own research findings into what the Internet and smartphones are doing to young minds.
Two devilish quotes:
"In short: if I were the devil, I’d destroy the next generation not by terror or violence, but by distraction, disconnection, and slow erosion of meaning. They wouldn’t even notice, because it would feel like freedom and entertainment."
"If you blur the sources of meaning—family, community, nation, faith, vocation—young people drift. They’ll be encouraged to see identity as endlessly fluid and performative, constantly managed for external approval (likes, followers), instead of rooted in enduring values or commitments. This makes them malleable, anxious, and dependent on external validation."
