Talk:Militia Acts of 1792

REASONS TO NOT DELETE
This article is a sub-article of the one on the US National Guard, and - along with its siblings - is the underpinnnings of that article. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Looks like there are 2 articles on the same topic, this one and Militia Law of 1792; they appear to need merging. Studerby 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete this nonsense
"Enrolled companies consisted of men who wanted no part of the system, and training days often were drunken parties, with few members possessing working firearms and the required equipment.[citation needed]"

Somebody is going around vandalizing every gun related article to push the discredited Michael Bellesiles theory. No citation, nuff said. Chudogg (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been three months, at least, with no valid citation. I'm pulling it.  Gattsuru (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I don't know much about how this is done, but I thought I should notify you people that this entry has probably been vandalized by someone against health care reform...

It reads:

"Saying the Militia Act of 1792 sets precedent for the requirement of the population to purchase health insurance, or any thing else, is incorrect."

That it very specifically mentions the current hot topic of required health insurance and that a controversial legal interpretation is given -- without any alternative viewpoint and without any citation -- makes it suspicious to me.

Also suspect is the contention that congress was not actually requiring people to buy these things. I mean, what else is supposed to happen? Is everybody supposed to just become a metalsmith and forge rifles with their own hands?

And the contention that "Nowhere is the term '..at there own expense' used" directly contradicts the paragraph directly above it. "Their" is also misspelled here, as is "anything" in the previous passage...which is another two things that make this suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.103.77 (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Second Militia Act has been noted in the health care reform debate. Proponents of the "individual mandate" have brought it up as proving that the Founding Fathers felt it was within the government's power to compel citizens to purchase a product. It's probably worth mentioning in the article. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

But was it ever challenged on constitutional grounds??? If so was it upheld by any court? (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.237.11 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Militia Acts of 1792. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514035058/http://www.qmfound.com/Samuel_Hodgdon.htm to http://www.qmfound.com/Samuel_Hodgdon.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The United States National Guard is not a militia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)

The NG is made up of auxiliary units mobilized in time of war to attach to the Regular Army. It does not supplant state militias, nor is it considered the main "militia" of anything. Deleted that sentence. Not supported by reference listed either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.163.78 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)