What Does John Adams Mean by This Quote?

[McDaniel]

"It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

What does he mean by this?

 

[just jk]

well i'm no constitutional lawyer -but my gut reaction to that is that to him - a "well regulated militia" meant an "army of the people" - i.e. an actual army rather than groups of armed men out acting on their own agenda

 

[Bithabus]

Military must be controlled by central government

 

[Vaquero]

I think he said "be damn careful who you vote for".

 

[mikeofcontex]

The distinction between "we the people" executing a democracy and "we the people" executing a republic is the rule of law or the constitution. The constitution was to be obeyed by every man whether the chief or just a little ol' citizen.

 

[GPtwins]

The point was to being "well regulated". The militia is answerable to the executive, be that state or federal. A rag-tag group of unorganized men does us no good. He believed that weapons were necessary for protection both in times of war and peace. If the militia could not be called by a central command, this country would not continue to stand.


-Glen, Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rum Runner]

John Adams had his head up his ass. This particular quote I have seen used by the "ANTIs" and bastardized and used by the "Pro 2Aers". I think Madison makes a better counter point and it also opens the door to where we f'd up and gave too much power to the central government.:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

And then if you look at volume of info, There is much more on the side of us than them.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

 

[Rum Runner]

I actually think it is also easy to read intent into this argument by Madison about fears that a central army might oppress the people:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

I think people like Madison would be rolling in their graves if they knew that the army was allowed to posses superior weapons than the individuals.

 

[Mikewood]

Who gives a damn what he meant by it? They are just dead words spoken by a dead man almost 250 years ago!
He has no concept of a 21st century world. His words should only have a passing interest. It's the concept of LIBERTY and FREEDOM we should hold dear. Not his thoughts on the the direction of "the militia". I mean really. When was the last time any civilians under authority of law actually mustered on the village green for drill?

 

[Vaquero]

Who gives a damn what he meant by it? They are just dead words spoken by a dead man almost 250 years ago!
He has no concept of a 21st century world. His words should only have a passing interest. It's the concept of LIBERTY and FREEDOM we should hold dear. Not his thoughts on the the direction of "the militia". I mean really. When was the last time any civilians under authority of law actually mustered on the village green for drill?

 

[Texas1911]

"It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

What does he mean by this?

Militia should be formed to support the laws of the land, and be well regulated by government. Individuals roaming about on personal motivation with arms forming bands would lead to liberty for no one and a general state of chaos.

You have to think of the history of Europe when you read this quote. The concept of clan warfare and civil war amongst militias is what he is touching on. Essentially it's to avoid large uncontrolled masses of armed people, and not in the gun-control sense, but as a means of avoiding the power falling away from government and ultimately the will of the people.

It's a good quote.

 

[Texas1911]

Who gives a damn what he meant by it? They are just dead words spoken by a dead man almost 250 years ago!
He has no concept of a 21st century world. His words should only have a passing interest. It's the concept of LIBERTY and FREEDOM we should hold dear. Not his thoughts on the the direction of "the militia". I mean really. When was the last time any civilians under authority of law actually mustered on the village green for drill?

His words are about maintaining liberty and freedom for all people if you actually read them. Albeit the concept of a roaming militia is far fetched these days, that I'll give you.

 

[RetArmySgt]

When was the last time any civilians under authority of law actually mustered on the village green for drill?

Every weekend, its called the National Guard.

But you have to remember Adams was a Federalist he believed in a strong central government with little to no power at the state level. The quote in the OP was him talking out about the state militias that we now know as the National Guard. He wanted all authority to fall under the federal government only.

 

[M. Sage]

Who gives a damn what he meant by it? They are just dead words spoken by a dead man almost 250 years ago!
He has no concept of a 21st century world. His words should only have a passing interest. It's the concept of LIBERTY and FREEDOM we should hold dear. Not his thoughts on the the direction of "the militia". I mean really. When was the last time any civilians under authority of law actually mustered on the village green for drill?

Are you serious?

 

[M. Sage]

Every weekend, its called the National Guard.

But you have to remember Adams was a Federalist he believed in a strong central government with little to no power at the state level. The quote in the OP was him talking out about the state militias that we now know as the National Guard. He wanted all authority to fall under the federal government only.

There are unorganized militia groups that do it, too.

 

[Wolfwood]

There are unorganized militia groups that do it, too.

+1

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

He meant that you can't have a bunch of roving gangs or clans fighting without the will of the people.

John Adams was a typical statist, or what you would call a Democrat today.

 

[M. Sage]

He meant that you can't have a bunch of roving gangs or clans fighting without the will of the people.

John Adams was a typical statist, or what you would call a Democrat today.

He was a bit better than that. He usually held tightly to principles. He did defend the Brits that were involved in the Boston Massacre, even though he was not happy with what they'd done.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

He was a bit better than that. He usually held tightly to principles. He did defend the Brits that were involved in the Boston Massacre, even though he was not happy with what they'd done.

I'll give him that, he was better than Democrats. Also, his brother Sam makes good beer.

 

[M. Sage]

i'll give him that, he was better than democrats. Also, his cousin sam makes good beer.

ftfy.