What’s the difference between U.S. Military and the Militia?

Question

What’s the difference between U.S. Military and the Militia? I am not talking about extremist militias… I am talking about the militias who talk about the Second Amendment.

Answer 1

The militia is known today as the national guard.

I believe the key diffrence is their chain of command which ends with the governor rather than the CIC.

Don't quote me though.

Answer 2

Militia and "the people" are interchangeable in the Constitution. The militia is usually defined as every able-bodied citizen. In general terms, the difference between a militia and a military are that a military organization is a standing or ready reserve army. In the USA, that includes active duty, reserve, and national guard troops. Militias are local defense troops that provide their own arms and are regulated (trained) and paid when called up by the states (the old national guard fit this but the current one is entirely funded by the federal government). Currently, there are no militia units being trained so any that would be raised in an emergency would be swept aside by military forces in open battle but could possibly be used as gorilla units. The 2nd Amendment intent was to have the populace armed as well as the military but, since hunting rifles then were often BETTER then military weapons, there was no foreseeable need to include this in explicit terms.

Answer 3

The military is the federal military services Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and the reserve components of those services. The National Guard is not the mlitia as identified in the Constitution as many think; the militia is defined as all able bodied males from 16 to 50 (Not sure on the upper age?) in the dectionaries of the time. The National Guard is a relatively new thing that traces it lineage back to the state militia's existing since before the Declaration of Indenpendence when all males were required to drill in many areas and support each other. The state militia's initially could not be federalized without the approval of the governor and wee purely state controlled unless that was voluntarily waived. As that system did not work well the National Guard was established by Congress to give a joint control to the state and federal government, this is an offshoot of the states rights issues settled by the American Civil War, where in certain instances the federal government would provide funding for the new National Guard and in exchange could ccall them up under certain circumstances without the state's approval, in 1947 this power to call up was explanded and the last expansion in the mid 19990's gave very broad powers to the federal governemnt on calling them up so the National Guard really no longer could be considered a militia under the originall concept. Thirty four, at last count, states have re-instituted the state mlitia under various names and this state controlled Defense Forces or State Guard units are not able to be federalized under any circumstance except for an invasion of the United States by a foreign power in a declared war (this was one of the original stipulations when the "militia's were first organized after the Declaration of Independence. Most of the State Defense Forces/State Guard units are used to fill a vacuum when the National Guard is deployed and in case of additional manpower is needed during an emergency. Different states have different restrictions on the units-the Tennessee State Guard cannot be deployed by the governor outside of the state, Georgia Defense Force I think is restricted to can be sent to bordering states only, Maryland DF can be sent out of the state and so on. Most require a high percentage of prior service unless activated, Tennessee is 75%. No state Defense Force or Guard unit can be deployed outside of the United States. USC47 covers the powers of the State miitia's and the difference between them and the National Guard.

Answer 4

in the beginning... we had a loose central government with strong states right, this is federalism. The federal government basically tied the states together judicially and settled disputes in commerce. The states had their own militias and powers to govern the militias. The US military is a federal version of what the states were intended to have. Before WW1 the military did not operate as it does today, America had a policy of isolationism and the militia system was strictly for defensive and humanitatian purposes. After the Two great wars in the beginning of the 20th century it became apparent that the need for a standing, capable, federally controlled military was necessary for peace. Remember, america did not want to join in either world war, if the German U-boats in ww1 had not been sinking us merchant ships and the zimmerman telegraph had not correlated with the russian revolution of 1917 we probably would not have the military that we do today simply because we would not have joined in the war. But because the world forced americas hand twice, we see fit to keep a strong military and hold countries to democratic process rather than allow expansion of dictatorships as we allowed in the past. If it was not for Germanys two power grabs I think it would still be a militia system.

Answer 5

Original Militia was every able bodied man 17 to 65 that was a member of the community (citizen of the United States).
I believe the National Guard 'stopped' being a militia when it took federal funding. It is now a quasi-reserve force of the Federal Government.


Fore-fathers were against a standing federal army and pro-every able bodied man standing up should the Federal Government ever over step itself.. The fact that the citizens were armed was to avoid tyranny.

Answer 6

The community police and sheriff departments additionally fall into the class f a paramilitary organisation, they are no longer under the administration of the federal or state government, they have a protection rigidity rank and command shape, prepared, nicely armed and nicely experienced in approaches that a standard citizen in a volunteer protection rigidity would not generally posses except they had themselves been a member of the protection rigidity or regulation enforcement organisation, which todays international maximum protection rigidity participants are protection rigidity veterans. As for this is powerful or undesirable,, its like something in this international, its all on the topic of the intentions of those people who fall into between the three, the label has no concerning who's the white hat, who's the black hat and who the different makes a decision to run with.

Answer 7

Early American Militias

Answer 8

In the times of the Constitution we relied heavily on militias - civilian armies - to help protect our country, before The Army as we know it today was in full strength.