Thread: What is wrong with this?

the Militia Act of 1792


Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

It was signed into law by George Washington. I think it should be updated to include any person of color or gender, but given the times, there was little or no discussion about this particular requirement, by the government, of its citizens.

I would think that the NRA would have to issue extra doses of saltpetre to every member over the thought of this becoming law. Alas, repealed in 1795.

Well you already pointed out two things I was going to say, however, I would also like to point out, that if you are going to be conscripted, that the government should provide your weapons, knapsack, ammunition etc for you.


Mick

In some ways it sounds like what the Swiss do today, only the required gear is supplied.

Bob

If everyone was issued the weapon he described and that was all that was available today this country would be a very safe place for it's citizens. No?

A little softball lobbed in for a timely discussion, methinks. Well played!
One day more!

This law specifically requires the people to obtain and provide their own weapons and gear.

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with...

is an individual mandate for a citizen to provide at their own expense things required of them by the government for a specific purpose.

In the case of Switzerland, and our own US military, the people's weapons could be seen as being owned by the state and provided by a state mandate. Indirectly in all cases, tax money provides the purchase of the weapons. That's more of a socialist system. In our early republic, the government could not afford the cost to arm the militia and so placed the burden directly on the citizen to do so.

In many ways this system, if for no other reason than the citizen's participation in the process, creates a different sense of respect for and value in, the purchased items. It's a direct relationship between the citizen's money and the items bought and they are more likely to have a greater investment in them whether that be a simple musket and powder (keeping it oiled and free of rust, ready to fire with dry powder), or education (exercising the skills learned with one's own hard earned money) or health care (perhaps taking better care of the biological machine you ride around in and costing less to maintain).

Any other system, the citizen will have a lesser respect for the government purchased item. Despite the buying power of the government, the logistics suppliers inflate the cost, or making things that rapidly gain a reputation for problems, cost over-runs, quality and there is a lot of waste fraud and abuse. If the citizen buys a piece that does not work right, they take it back and demand a refund or replacement. The manufacturers have to confront the customer and change is generally fairly direct and rapid. With a giant buying consortium/government, the suppliers are insulated from the feedback of the customers and can continue the ineffective and inefficient processes that make them the most money.

The point was: Individual mandates are nothing new in the USA.

I was hoping that your OP would illicit more of a response (thus my post last night). Too bad.


An individual mandate may not be a new concept, but how can its lack of novelty bear all that positively on its propriety?

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

Alas, repealed in 1795.

Fingers crossed on this side!

Mandate or not there is no mechanism to enforce it so I suspect it will be flaunted by Millions.

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

I was hoping that your OP would illicit more of a response (thus my post last night). Too bad.


An individual mandate may not be a new concept, but how can its lack of novelty bear all that positively on its propriety?




Fingers crossed on this side!

As of this morning individual mandates are back in fashion

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

With a giant buying consortium/government, the suppliers are insulated from the feedback of the customers and can continue the ineffective and inefficient processes that make them the most money.

I think the theory goes along the lines that if the suppliers provide subpar equipment the government is way bigger than individual consumers, so they would face real consequences. But the practice it doesn't seem to work that way at all.

It's a good question though how to enforce compliance and especially standardization. Has something like this been done in other places and times? I believe medieval armies supplied their own weapons, how about the ancient rome/greece/assyria? It could be that issuing weapons works better when waging a war, while mandating people to buy their own is good enough for peaceful times.