iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Josh Horwitz

Josh Horwitz

In Wake of Tucson, NRA Advocates Armed Militia Movement

Posted: 02/15/11 07:01 AM ET

Last year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told America, "The guys with the guns make the rules." After Jared Loughner ("You don't have to accept the federalist laws") took the NRA's advice to heart and shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and federal judge John Roll at Tucson--along with 17 other innocents--LaPierre took the stage at CPAC again on Thursday to deliver an angry, fear-mongering speech that seemed to call the very legitimacy of our government into question.

Loughner HistoryLaPierre's invective touched on a number of emotional touchstones for the Conservative Movement in the U.S. "Government has failed us with our money," he told CPAC attendees. "It's failed us with our financial institutions. It's failed in running our post offices and our trains. It's failed in enforcing our immigrations laws and our drug laws, and our laws on the books against violent criminals with guns. Heck, they can barely get the snow plowed." In LaPierre's revisionist history, it wasn't loose gun laws and violent politic rhetoric that led to Tucson. It was the government's creation of "gun-free zones" and "anti-self defense laws" that were at fault. Such policies, in LaPierre's view, "condemned the victims [in Tucson] to death without so much as a prayer."

For a minute, forget the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Forget that Arizona has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation, allowing individuals to carry loaded handguns in public without any type of permit or screening. Forget that an armed citizen was on the scene in Tucson, and nearly shot a good Samaritan who had already disarmed Loughner. Forget that the NRA described the Brady Bill as an "executioner's tool" and filed lawsuits in nine states to void it entirely (the Supreme Court wouldn't go that far, but did agree with the NRA in Printz v. U.S. that the federal government couldn't compel local police to conduct background checks on gun purchasers). Forget that the NRA has fought vehemently against the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, which includes a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. Forget even that LaPierre's sole motivation is profit for the gun industry.

Forget all that, and let's look at the crux of LaPierre's speech -- a disturbing call for the privatization of law enforcement through the implementation of a militia movement untethered to government authority.

LaPierre CPAC 2011LaPierre opened his argument at CPAC with the familiar refrain that government is an "abject failure" that "can't protect us." He suggested that the United States is currently in a state of lawlessness, rattling off statistics about murder, rape, assault and theft and telling CPAC attendees, "As soon as you leave this hall, your life is in jeopardy." Simultaneously, he lamented budget cuts to police departments across the country.

But LaPierre isn't seeking to use his organization's political muscle to restore this funding. Instead, his formula for securing communities is the activation of neighborhood militias. Referring to the current situation in Egypt, LaPierre stated, "Anyone who thinks the Second Amendment is outdated had better take a look at what is happening in Egypt right now." His takeaway from the revolution is an idyllic fantasy about "[armed] citizens coming together, in the face of lawlessness, to protect their neighborhoods." This is in stark contrast to the rest of the world, which witnessed (and documented) the awesome power of nonviolence as a force for democratic change in Egypt.

LaPierre's homage to citizen militias sounds curiously familiar. Following Hurricane Katrina, the NRA promoted a conspiracy theory about mass gun confiscations in Katrina and compared New Orleans officials to Mao, Stalin and Hitler. In reality, citizens who decided to remain in the city were well armed, including a private militia in Algiers Point, a predominantly white neighborhood that remained relatively dry and undamaged. In the words of a Nation reporter, "They stockpiled handguns, assault rifles, shotguns and at least one Uzi and began patrolling the streets in pickup trucks and SUVs. The newly formed militia, a loose band of about fifteen to thirty residents, most of them men, all of them white, was looking for thieves, outlaws or, as one member put it, anyone who simply 'didn't belong.'" Evidence indicates that at least 11 African-Americans were attacked and shot in the neighborhood as they attempted to reach a nearby evacuation zone. The militia members openly bragged about their exploits, stating, "It was like pheasant season."

Algiers Point showed that government is a necessary ingredient in ensuring public safety. Without an impartial mechanism to resolve disputes and enforce judgments, there can be no individual rights. When the government is not present to enforce the rule of law, there is no such thing as the presumption of innocence or the protections of the jury system. As historian Saul Cornell put it, "Without legal authority, a group of armed citizens acting on their own [is] little more than a riotous mob." While it may be true that private arms can provide a measure of self-defense, in Algiers Point we saw firsthand how "law-abiding" citizens with guns don't always do the right thing.

NRA Madison BannerThis theme is not without precedent--it was an animating factor in the drafting of our own Constitution. The idea that Second Amendment author James Madison would have embraced the NRA's radical anti-government ideology ignores both our history and the Founding Father's own words. When asked about the potential power of the federal government at Virginia's ratifying convention, Madison offered the following: "There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all." Furthermore, Madison described the lawlessness of armed mobs during Shays' Rebellion as a "warning" to our young nation. In the Federalist Papers he wrote--correctly--that, "Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty as well as by the abuses of power ... The former rather than the latter is apparently most to be apprehended by the United States." Undoubtedly, Madison would have been deeply troubled by the extralegal aggression of the Hutaree and other contemporary "Patriot" groups.

On February 10, when Wayne LaPierre declared, "I have a right to protect myself [with a gun] ... I won't give up my right to exercise this freedom, not one single inch," he was indicating that might makes right, and government has no business refereeing private violence, no matter what the collateral damage. This is completely antithetical to the very concept of government, which serves to safeguard us from the brutal excesses of the state of nature. We must recognize that the NRA's insurrectionist ideology not only presents a grave threat to precious human life, but also undermines the very purpose of our Constitution.

 

Follow Josh Horwitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSGV

 
 
  • Comments
  • 261
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gun Banner Too
Violence Policy Advocate
01:52 PM on 04/14/2011
As a violence policy advocate, it’s important to note that none of what I write is personal conjecture but instead comes from the study of statistics, polls, and opinion found through research of web sites on the Internet. It’s come to my attention that gun owners belong to the NRA and are Tea Party Insurrectionists Extremist Gunophile Fetishists. It’s also notable that they will often give up their families, careers, and even their life to have “Wild West” type shootouts over minor disputes such as parking spots or to compensate for some other shortcoming. Again, this is not personal conjecture but consensus among the public as verified in the Comments sections of several web sites. That’s not to say that they don’t favor common sense civilian disarmament polices such as the prohibition of AK-47 Assault Weapons since they can now safely be considered Weapons of Mass Destruction, and have no civilian use, or the reasonable ban of Glock brand machine pistols since they have no militia use and therefore, are not protected by the Second Amendment. This information comes from recent polling and a quick search will show that to you. Of course we shouldn’t overlook high power, armor penetrating , 9mm ammunition as well. I would like to join my peers and urge legislators at every level to Dis the Deadly Myths and Reclaim the Constitution, by proposing sensible and reasonable policies that register and eventually disarm the public though no one is talking about handgun bans.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Grin and Barret...
04:36 PM on 04/02/2011
So Josh has to go back to Waynes CPAC speech and rehash the same rhetoric we have heard again?
04:34 PM on 02/18/2011
If I set out to do it deliberately I couldnt devise a more misleading headline.
10:51 AM on 02/19/2011
WIth Josh--the headline WAS deliberate--he pretty much has only the insurrectionist tune
12:16 PM on 02/19/2011
Militias aren't always just about "insurrection". Even "Josh" knows that.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/minutemen-vigilante-shawna-forde-guilty-deadly-arizona-home/story?id=12916893
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LouGots
11:41 AM on 02/18/2011
It's not insurrectionist. It's not about neighborhood militias fighting the Black Helicopters, but rather being a resistance movement, more spiritually than materially, against the threat of violence from the enemies of civil society.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
05:02 PM on 02/17/2011
We have an armed militia right now.  It's called the American people!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HisXLNC
No.
02:39 AM on 02/17/2011
" Following Hurricane Katrina, the NRA promoted a conspiracy theory about mass gun confiscations in Katrina..."

It was no theory. It was fact. NOPD had 50 gallon trash cans full of guns it confiscated from people and stole from houses in the aftermath of Katrina. A lawsuit was filed to make them return the guns and legislation was passed to prevent future gun seizures during a disaster.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GritsJr
01:42 PM on 02/17/2011
The NRA had to hire private investigators and located only 75 New Orleans residents (in a city with a pre-Katrina population of 450,000) that would claim their guns were confiscated.

It was a joke, an unbelievably corrupt campaign by the NRA to raise money from paranoid Americans by exploiting the suffering of a city that had just been through one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
05:12 PM on 02/17/2011
Please watch the "nutnfancy" and "hickok45" channels on YouTube as well as the Outdoor Channel on cable TV Wednesday evenings.
09:28 PM on 02/17/2011
So 'only' 75 people had their firearms illegally confiscated and the city was found in contempt of court for denying they did even that.

So how many people would it take for the CSGV to recognize it as a 'mass' confiscation Grits? 100? 200? Go ask your boss what he thinks.
01:57 PM on 02/17/2011
and Jack Scott of Pasadena of Rose Parade fame helped get a law banning confiscations during emergencies passed here in Cali by loudly proclaiming that he WANTED firearms confiscated in emergencies--after that video hit Youtube, the Dems could not pass the law fast enough
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Grin and Barret...
04:41 PM on 04/02/2011
Some of the best help I have gotten when advocating for Constitutionally correct 2A laws, was from anti-firearms proponents.
12:45 PM on 02/16/2011
We live in America. Where police have no duty to protect individual citizens. So why is it unreasonable that I want the ability to defend myself?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dana Seilhan
01:23 AM on 02/16/2011
That's nice, except... government *can't* ensure public safety. There is no way you can know who is going to attack whom, where and when. All you can do is punish them after it's over. Giffords's attacker bought his gun *legally*, from what I heard. No one had ever declared him insane. You can't read minds. You can't control people. I wouldn't want to live in the kind of world where you could.

How about you quit prescribing ever greater levels of coercion and control and start letting us grownups figure things out for ourselves? We seem to be doing a pretty good job of that, all in all--more people die from automobile accidents every day in this country than die from gunfire. When you figure out how to ban cars, come back and tell me you're justified in making it harder for me to own a gun when I am law-abiding and qualified to purchase one. Historically, gun control hurts women and racial minorities long before it hurts rich white guys.
01:57 AM on 02/16/2011
"I wouldn't want to live in the kind of world where you could."

Perhaps this is what separates us from the true anti-gunners... Let's face it, nobody wants people like Mr. Loughner having a gun, but in the end I don't think I'd want to deal with the consequences of the kind of infrastructure that could prevent every little fringe-case like that from getting a gun. It's called liberty, and it's damned dangerous.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:06 AM on 02/16/2011
It's politically-charged and very hypocritical to use the term "anti-gunner." The difference is between those in favor of pro-gun proliferation with fewer and fewer restrictions or regulations on gun sales and gun ownership, compared to the majority of Americans who favor sensible, responsible gun laws to help to prevent and control gun violence in our nation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:17 AM on 02/16/2011
It's the purpose, the job of government to preserve a civil society, public safety, our defense, and our general welfare. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America. This is the law of the land. Our governing document.


I cannot believe what some posters say they believe ...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy in Canada
07:24 AM on 02/16/2011
DreamWeaver2nd
"This is the law of the land. Our governing document."...If you truly believe that, then pay attention to the 2nd Amendment....Oh, and it`s promote the general welfare, not provide for the general welfare...
08:12 AM on 02/16/2011
So why do you support organizations that propose to eliminate defining sections of said document?

Do you support the elimination of Due Process?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gun Banner Too
Violence Policy Advocate
11:45 PM on 02/15/2011
As a violence policy advocate, it’s important to note that none of what I write is personal conjecture but instead comes from the study of statistics­­, polls, and opinion found here as well as other sites on the Internet. It’s come to my attention that gun owners belong to the NRA and are Tea Party Insurrecti­onists Extremist Gun Fetishists­. It’s also notable that they will often give up their families, careers, and even their life to have “Wild West” type shootouts over minor disputes such as parking spots or to compensate for some other shortcomin­g. Again, this is not personal conjecture but consensus among the public as verified in the Comments sections of several web sites. That’s not to say that they don’t favor common sense civilian disarmamen­t polices such as the prohibitio­n of AK-47 Assault Weapons since they can now safely be considered Weapons of Mass Destructio­n, and have no civilian use, or the reasonable ban of Glock brand machine pistols since they have no militia use and therefore, are not protected by the Second Amendment. This informatio­n comes from recent polling and a quick search will show that to you. Of course we shouldn’t overlook high power, armor penetratin­g, 9mm ammunition bought freely at gun shows. I would like to join my peers and urge legislator­s at every level to Dis the Deadly Myths and Reclaim the Constituti­on, by proposing sensible and reasonable policies that register and eventually disarm the public.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dana Seilhan
01:25 AM on 02/16/2011
I am no teabagger and have never joined the NRA, but agree with their sentiment of "from my cold dead hands." The Second Amendment is there for a reason, and it's not for the police to go "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" when they have shot yet another unarmed young black man and allowed rapists and child molesters to run rampant and commit crimes over and over and over again with little consequence. I don't own a gun now, can't afford one. Punishing me for what a lawbreaker does will only make it that much harder. And the stats say there are far more gun deaths from criminal attacks than there are from accidental discharges in the home.
02:37 AM on 02/16/2011
Gun Banner Too posts in every gun thread. I'm surprised he doesn't just cut and paste the same message each time. He's poking fun. He thinks he's being funny. Ignore him.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
12:53 PM on 02/16/2011
The stats say that most deaths from guns in this country are from suicides, not criminal attacks. That's been true for decades. But no crime stats matte with regard to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the populace from government, not crime. No constitutional scholars, including staunch supporters, dispute this.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:24 AM on 02/16/2011
Perhaps you think you are a disarming personality on the gun threads. Those of us who take very seriously the need for sensible and responsible gun laws, do NOT at all support civilian disarmament. I think you continue to post that in order to confuse the issue.
07:27 AM on 02/16/2011
"Those of us who take very seriously the need for sensible and responsibl­e gun laws"

Which eliminates the majority of gun control advocates since what they (and you) are pushing are neither 'sensible' nor 'responsible'.

Both are merely terms to 'poison the well'
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
schotts
Strength and Honor
08:32 PM on 02/16/2011
What is a responsible gun law? For example, if I use a gun to commit a crime, should I go to jail? Are you saying gun laws today are not responsible? Please explain.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:57 PM on 02/15/2011
As i believe the 2nd amendment protects our gun owning rights, i find it especially loathsome that self appointed protectors like the NRA, who presume to know what is good for me and everybody else who own guns, are supporters of militias and others of right-wing and ___ persuasion who are dangerous, professed enemies of this president and those of us who disagree with their radical anti-government agendas.
I also think that the remedies for gun violence should be under local jurisdiction which works both ways- NYC may be tough, but Uppacrick Montana can be loose.
I live in a small town where many people of different political persuasions all own and use guns, but nobody is telling us how to live.
One thing that must stop- carrying weapons to political events- when did that start to be o.k.? And with our history of assassination- sheesh.
Well, that might be 3 cents worth, so good night, and good luck.
GAB
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dana Seilhan
01:27 AM on 02/16/2011
One problem with trying to enact more and more federal gun control laws is they do not speak to the reality of living in a city vs. living out in the country. And a lot of these yo-yos calling for gun bans have never owned one themselves, never fired one, and they are from urban backgrounds. They do not understand that the circumstances are different in a rural environment. They just want everyone treated the same way.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LouGots
03:36 PM on 02/18/2011
Of course you mean that people in the cities need guns more than those in the country, right?

It is at our city house that I must make my revolver ready before I go out of doors, not at our suburban family homestead, or when I visit relatives in the mountains. ..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:32 AM on 02/16/2011
GAB!! Hello. It's so good to see you. I like your comment and I'm glad to see you speak your mind on the matter of guns in America. I completely agree that sensible gun laws should be jurisdictional. Vermont - almost no gun restrictions - is different from Chicago, etc., and sensible laws would be according to the needs of the jurisdiction. Absolutely no guns should be allowed in public meetings. That's just political intimidation -- not the measure of a free society. Your good sense is worth a whole lot more than three cents. Thanks. DW
03:52 PM on 02/16/2011
Sorry--the BOR applies nationwide--and Bloomiee, Daley and Ray Nagin are going to have their assets handed to them
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:25 PM on 02/16/2011
Hey DW- I didn't say howdy earlier due to actually being busy at work.
Ya, it is hard for me to understand much of the NRA positions that seem contrary to law and order- open carry, i.e. intimidation, unrestricted gun sales to gang-bangers, the mentally ill, etc.
I commend you for even attempting to discuss these things on these threads.
05:41 PM on 02/15/2011
I'm a gun owner (one hand gun and a shotgun). I have five bullets in my .357, and that's all I need to leave my building at night. I was robbed at gun point thirteen years ago and bought my hand gun then. I am not an NRA member. It's support of cop killer bullets and plastic guns as well as the profit motives of its Executive Director were enough to dissuade me from joining. I feel like 5 bullets is enough for me to deter any would be robber. Therefore, for this and other reasons, I oppose high capacity ammunition clips. And the use of an independent militia to enforce the constitution is out of the question. It goes directly counter to what our Founding Fathers articulated in that document and others as well. We saw in Arizona the results of independent militia attempting to enforce immigration laws: a nine-year-old girl and her father were executed even after the girl begged not to be shot. Had self-appointed militia not have attempted to take the law into their own hands, this precious girl would still be alive today.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
schotts
Strength and Honor
08:53 PM on 02/15/2011
I'm so glad that you are comfortable with your wheel gun. I prefer something with a little more technology behind it and frankly find semi-autos safer.

Maybe if people would take more responsibility for their actions - including that of raising our children with nurturing and love; there might be less violence and that precious little girl might still be alive.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GritsJr
08:54 PM on 02/15/2011
Thanks so much for bringing up the shooting murder of 9-year-old Shawna Forde by Minutemen. Her death, sadly, received little attention in the national, state or local press. That horrific incident couldn't be more relevant to the discussion in this blog.
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
05:23 PM on 02/15/2011
Mr. Horwitz, your organization is called "the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence". Can you name one program that you sponsor that actually attempts to stop gun violence? Even one? Or are all your efforts aimed at infringing on our civil rights?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:26 PM on 02/15/2011
Civil Rights!? A gun is not a "right." A gun in America has become a tool of political and personal intimidation. (For-profit for a select few.) Americans need to grapple with the fraud of the so-called "gun rights" propaganda, and finally stand up for our democratic civil rights for among other things the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech without guys with guns lurking at health care forums or meetings with representatives.
07:34 PM on 02/15/2011
Keeping and bearing arms is as much as a civil right as being free from unreasonable searches and seizures because both of those protections find their roots in the Bill of Rights. Cultural swing to provide for the rights of all people in America is a great thing, but it's meaningless unless it's written into the constitution. That's why the 2nd amendment is a civil right.
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
08:51 PM on 02/15/2011
The fraud lies with those that deny the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right. No matter how much you wish it were not so, it is and will be until the COTUS is amended. Your hyperbole will not make it go away. Your untruths will not make it go away. Suggest you attempt to avail yourself of the amendatory process.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GritsJr
08:55 PM on 02/15/2011
The organization lists all their current legislative goals on their website under "Issues & Campaigns" and every single one of these reforms, if implemented, would reduce gun violence.
08:59 PM on 02/15/2011
"every single one of these reforms, if implemente­d, would reduce gun violence. "

Pure conjecture and wishful thinking.
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
08:14 AM on 02/16/2011
As I said, Josh, you have no programs, not even one. You only have "legislativ­e goals" aimed at undermininge the 2nd amendment.
photo
Sugarmaker
Act like what you do makes a difference, it does
05:13 PM on 02/15/2011
Horwitz quotes NRA as saying the Government "can't protect us", as if there is something horrible in that statement.

Horwitz seems troubled by the fact that government can't protect us. It is a matter of practical impossibility to provide protection for all individuals 100% of the time, and government is not legally obliged to do so. In the critical first few minutes of a criminal assault, we're on our own.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dana Seilhan
01:30 AM on 02/16/2011
Exactly why we need the ability to protect ourselves. Good luck doing that, anti-gun people, with no way to shoot back.
photo
Cynthia Meece Lowe
Wife, Mother, Grandmother, hoping for her grandchi
03:49 PM on 02/15/2011
Congress must CALL for a militia to execute the laws of the Union. Said militia must be trained and disciplined or we end up with everybody and their brother joining a cluster of gun happy "I wanna kill" people who don't know or FAIL to find out or CARE about the repercussions of GUNPLAY (and it is gunplay !!! A "Militia" of a bunch of gun happy NRA members is just what we need for chaos and killing innocent civilians in the street. WE HAVE LAW ENFCT officers for that, and also the ARMED FORCES. Read the LAW: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m110.htm THE NRA is a CORPORATION, and not any part of the Govt. They are scaring you, ZUTROY. The letter is tantamount to Fear Mongering. They also need to read that 2nd Amendment and the Articles of enforcement. Soon, we will be Oppenheimer. We will be DEATH. Thank you, NRA. The kids thank you, and a Grandmother thanks you for finding that KILLING men, women and children is the only answer to civility. NRA you are the cause of the downfall of society. Take responsibility.
PS. I didn't see on the news that Congress CALLED for any Militia to help them out. Even the far right. So, stay home and lock up your guns that make you feel good and powerful before someone takes them from you...
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
04:09 PM on 02/15/2011
What a wonderful little collection of straw men you assembled.

Why don't you try for some facts for once?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:09 PM on 02/15/2011
Cynthia Meece Lowe: "Congress must CALL for a militia to execute the laws of the Union."

No. Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions." Congress need not exercise that power if they do not want to. Until they do, the militia is an entity of the state, and may be employed by them for defense and other security concerns.

Your law web link merely details the powers of the militia when in federal service and thus is woefully incomplete... and just plain wrong in certain presumptions it makes. For example, it states

"It is presumable the framers of the constitution contemplated a full exercise of all the powers of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia;" The Feds never had the power to actually "discipline" the militia (in this context the term discipline refers to training them). Instead, what was contemplated that the Feds would devise a unified methodology to be employed in training the troops, but that the actual training would be done by the state. Thus we have this language:

"reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

In response to this Constitutional power, Congress adopted what is now called the "Army Blue Book" which was original drafted Baron von Steuben of Valley Forge fame as the official training manual of the Militia
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zutroy
03:21 PM on 02/15/2011
I recieved a letter from the NRA proclaiming that I'm in imminent danger of having my gun seized by the UN. This was a year BEFORE the Tucson shooting.

It would be nice if there was a gun-ownership organization that wasn't politicized to the gills and full of right-wing blockheads, but I guess that's too much to ask for in America.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Auldskul
allergic to puppets
04:45 PM on 02/15/2011
Glenn Beck is jealous of NRA conspiracy proficiency....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GritsJr
08:58 PM on 02/15/2011
They certainly give him a run for his money in that department.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:47 PM on 02/15/2011
So much disinformation from the NRA feeds fearful minds. Little do they realize that the NRA has an office at the UN. The NRA, as part of its world-wide marketing for the gun industry, consults with other nations on how to use propaganda to convince their people to buy guns for "self-defense."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dana Seilhan
01:36 AM on 02/16/2011
So what would be a proper form of self-defense in your world that wouldn't earn a set of quotation marks? Begging for your life?