Author: John Brown

  • The Surprising Truth About Militias and the Second Amendment

    ByJohn Brown

    When the founding fathers spoke of “militias,” they were not referring to a bunch of yahoos running around in the woods with paint on their faces outside of state control.

    They were referring to a citizen army under state control.

    So is “militia” just the old-time word for what our army is today?

    No.

    A standing or “regular” army is one made up of professional, full-time soldiers like the US Army, the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force. And it’s permanent, meaning you don’t disband the army when the fighting is done.

    A militia back in those days was something completely different.

    The problem of a standing army

    The founding fathers knew they needed to provide for the common defense, but they saw standing armies controlled by a central government as an immediate threat to the liberty the new union sought to preserve.

    Why would they think that?

    Easy. History was littered with case after case where standing armies had become a law unto themselves and oppressed the populace. One glaring example is what happened to the Roman empire. It suffered centuries where this faction and then that faction of the army was in control, and it brought nothing but a continual procession of civil wars and bloodshed.

    History also showed that even if the military didn’t take over, kings and queens were happy to wield standing armies to impose their will and oppress the people. Remember: the world then was ruled by monarchies. The founders had never seen a standing army wielded by any other type of power.

    So the founders didn’t want to give a president or any other central authority that power. They feared doing so would only pave the way to the ruin of the new nation they sought to form.

    So if you don’t have a standing army, how do you defend your country?

    The fyrd

    The founding fathers thought they saw a solution in a tradition of duty that went back hundreds of years in England. In the days when the Saxons ruled England, the kings and dukes would muster and deploy the fyrd to help them fight their wars.

    The fyrd was made up of all able-bodied free males between certain ages, regardless of their vocation. It was their duty to provide their own arms and defend the land when called by their leaders. So this was an army made up of farmers, tanners, smiths, tailors, etc.

    But the fyrd wasn’t a standing army. Nor was it populated with full-time soldiers. This citizen army was to be called out when needed, and when the crisis was over, it was disbanded, and the men went back to their vocations.

    The militia scheme

    The founders took this idea and tweaked it. Back in the Saxon days, the king controlled the fyrd. In this new scheme, the United States would rely on a fyrd (which they called a militia), but the powers to control it would be split between the president, Congress, and the States.

    First, Congress, not the president, was the only authority that could declare war and summon the state militias. So the president would be the commander in chief when the militia was active. But the minute Congress decided to end a war and disband the militia, that army dissolved, leaving the president as commander in chief of only the tiny number of troops that had been authorized as the regular army (less than 1,000 at the time).

    Second, while the Federal government would provide the weapons the militia would use when it mustered them for war, the state governments would be the ones to appoint the officers and train the soldiers. You can’t run an army without officers. So this would prevent the Federal government from taking control by stacking the army leadership with those loyal to a despot president or Congress.

    So the militia was supposed to be the main force that fought our wars, and it was supposed to be temporary. It’s true that Congress did authorize a standing army, but it was tiny. And with this setup, the founders figured we’d have the army we’d need, but we’d avoid the problems standing armies had posed in the past.

    So militias, as thought of by the founders in the 1700s, were not groups outside the government’s control. They were temporary citizen armies. And power over them was broken up between the president, Congress, and the States so no one group or person could wield them tyrannically.

    1791 and The Bill of Rights

    Accordingly, the founders wrote the articles and sections of the Constitution in 1787 to set all of this up. However, many anti-federalists were concerned that the Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of the Federal government. In fact, many of the founders were so concerned about the issue that they refused to ratify the Constitution as it was.

    The only way they’d sign on is with the promise of the Bill of Rights. When they knew that bill was forthcoming, delegates from nine of the original thirteen states ratified the Constitution. The delegates of two other states waited until the document was produced. The final two (North Carolina and Rhode Island) waited until 1791 when the Bill of Rights, which includes the second amendment, was passed.

    So let’s look at the language of the Second Amendment in light of what we know about the fear the founders had of standing armies.

    “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    Why did they include this? It was not because they wanted the citizens to be able to hunt or protect themselves with guns. They figured that was a given. They included this amendment because they concluded that an armed citizenry would make it impossible for tyranny to arise.

    Noah Webster, a Federalist, stated the idea this way when trying to persuade Pennsylvania to ratify the Constitution:

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive”

    So the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because enough of the founders feared that the Constitution could be read in a way that would allow the Federal government to disarm the populace. Disarming the populace would open the way to a standing army under Federal control. And that would open the way to tyranny.

    When all was said and done, the founders separated the power of the military in this way:

    • Only Congress could declare war and muster the militia
    • Only Congress could finance it
    • There would be no standing army to speak of
    • Only the states could appoint officers to the militia
    • The government was forbidden to infringe on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms

    So what happened?

    Militias didn’t work

    The problem is the militia didn’t work well enough to actually provide for the common defense.

    It didn’t work during the Revolutionary War. The republic had to create the Continental Army. That army was supported by the militias, but the colonists found they couldn’t rely on the militias alone. They had to have the regular army to fight the British.

    After the war, the Continental Army was disbanded, but the militias simply weren’t good enough to face the threats the new nation faced, and George Washington himself openly lamented it. The troops took a licking in 1791 at the battle of St. Claire’s and then time and again during the War of 1812.

    Heck, militias didn’t even work in the days of the fyrd. In those days, the Saxon and Norman kings relied on their house warriors (their standing army) and mercenaries for most of the work. They only supplemented with the fyrd.

    1792

    After the defeat in 1791, the early leaders concluded they needed a regular army with the training and skill it possessed. So in 1792 Congress authorized the creation of the First Legion of the United States, a standing army of 5,190 men. The legion was renamed “The United States Army” in 1796.

    In 1792 Congress also passed the Militia Acts. The acts were written to expire in two years. But Congress wrote another in 1795 to replace them. These laws authorized the president to called out the militia “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion” and “whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act.”

    So a mere five years after the Constitution was first ratified, and a year after the Bill of Rights, Congress dramatically increased the size of the nation’s standing army and gave the President the authority to call out the militia! It’s clear that right from the beginning the militia scheme started showing some cracks.

    Today

    The First Legion was small. But it grew again in 1808, and then again during the war of 1812. And it continued to grow slowly, then ballooned in the 1900s until we now have more than a million troops in the armed forces of the US.

    The National Guard is what the militias of the 1800s transformed into in the early 1900s, but, wouldn’t you know it, the National Guard is now mostly under the control of the Federal government too.

    What does this mean?

    It means we now have the most powerful standing army the world has ever known and almost no militia. It means our military is a complete 180 of what the founders envisioned.

    I’m not saying it’s bad. I love our military.

    I’m merely pointing out that militias back then meant a certain thing and the founders wanted them for a certain reason. And that we have completely replaced that arrangement with the exact opposite.

    As for tyranny, we still have armed citizens. Maybe this is enough to deter tyranny as Webster claimed. Although the disparity between what the citizens can arm themselves with now and what the regular army has is nothing like it was in the 1700s. So maybe there are other laws and aspects of our culture that have prevented it. Maybe it’s both.

    Either way, it’s important to understand what the original militias were, why the founders wanted them, and what the second amendment was all about.

    More

    Helpful articles

    US Constitution – Provisions for the military

    Here are all of the parts of the original seven articles of the Constitution that deal with the military.

    Article 1 – The Congress
    Section 8

    This section gives Congress seventeen powers. Six of these have to with the common defense. Those military powers granted are:

    • To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    • To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    • To provide and maintain a Navy;
    • To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    • To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [notice there are only three cases that warrant the calling forth of the militia]
    • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Section 10

    This section prevents the States from doing thirteen things. Three of these have to do with the military.

    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    Article 2 – The President
    Section 2

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

    Article 4 – The States
    Section 4

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”

  • What’s driving the rise in school shootings?

    ByJohn Brown

    Homicide rates are down in America, but school shootings are up. What’s going on? What’s driving this?

    Some say it’s guns.

    I have an hunch that I think deserves some study.

    Back in the 1970s we had 30 school shootings with a population of about 216 million.

    Today we have a population of 320 million. If we had the same ratio of shootings to population today, we’d have 44 shootings total in the decade between 2010 and 2020. But from 2000 – 2010, we had 60. And since 2010 (if my data is correct, and it appears that’s a big if–see Edit 2 at bottom) we’ve had 146. That’s a 300% increase!

    If we want to solve the school shooting problem in the long term, we need to figure out what’s fueling it. One way to get at this is to ask what’s changed since the 1970s and 80s when the rates were lower.

    Are we killing at a higher rate in general? Is that what’s changed?

    No. FiveThirtyEight reports homicide rates have dropped. Here’s their chart.

    We’re down.

    But school shootings are up. Way up!

    Clearly, what’s driving school shootings doesn’t seem to be the same thing that’s driving general homicide rates. Otherwise, the rates would be moving in the same direction, but they’re not.

    Is it gun ownership rates?

    According to the Washington Post, ownership rates are at their lowest in quite some time. Here’s their chart.

    This means that if general gun ownership rates were a major factor, then we’d be seeing school shooting rates fall. We’re not.

    Furthermore, some of the US states with the highest gun ownership rates have the lowest murder and school shooting rates. (For those wanting to know more about guns, magazines, the definition of an assault rifle, gun control, etc. see Larry Correia’s informational post below.)

    Now, it could be that while overall gun ownership rates have fallen, ownership in certain population segments has risen. That’s something to look at. But when looking at the overall ownership rate, we don’t find an answer.

    Is there anything else to study? Anything else that might be different now?

    Here’s my hunch–it’s the internet. My hunch is that an unintended consequence of social media and the ease of finding certain types of content have facilitated the development of the mindset and ability of certain youth to commit these crimes.

    We do things when we are prompted to take a specific action and we have both the ability and desire necessary to take that action. So action requires three things:

    1. A prompt
    2. The ability
    3. The desire

    If the rates are going up, then one or more of those things have changed. Either more kids are being prompted to take this specific action, we’ve made it easier for them to do it, or we’ve increased their desire to do it. Or some combination of those three.

    Let’s see if the internet might be a factor.

    First, from what I’ve read, it seems a lot of these kids feel like outcasts and seem to be seeking some kind of revenge. Does social media foster and facilitate more bullying and isolation and, therefore, more resentment? Has it increased the desire to conduct such attacks?

    Second, it is dramatically easier for kids to learn how to do all sorts of stuff now. Back in the 70s and 80s, it was hard to learn about the methods and tactics of crime, firearms, etc. Now, if you want to learn how to shoot, scope a place out, plan an attack, do all sorts of things, you can watch YouTube videos on it. Has the easy accessibility of how-to instruction facilitated the ability to plan and carry out these attacks?

    Third, back in the 70s and 80s you had limited programming. Gilligan’s Island, Brady Bunch, The Love Boat, The Donny and Marie Show, Lawrence Welk, etc. They all fostered good-citizen values. Today, kids have easy access to all sorts of crap. Violent rape porn. Evil games like Blue Whale that give challenges to the player, and the last is to kill yourself. Are there certain types of programming on the internet that foster a violent mindset? That prompt these very actions and makes them seem like a good alternative?

    Fourth, look at how well political conversations go on Facebook. Chat rooms, blogs, etc.–we all know they foster more incivility than when you talk in person. Does our social media, by its very structure, anonymity, etc. foster a more anger-filled approach to disagreements? Has it prompted, even trained, more kids to behave this way?

    Is one of the unintended consequences of the internet and social media a rise in school shootings?

    I’m not saying it’s the only part of the puzzle. But I do think it’s worth studying. We need a long-term solution.

    At the same time, we need something now while that long-term solution is being researched and implemented. One of the best ideas I’ve seen so far to stop the killings is the one mentioned here.

    Such people are screened, trained, and on-site. They can respond immediately. Plus it’s voluntary. If you’re a teacher that doesn’t want to do this, you don’t have to. Plus this doesn’t add security guards to schools. Nothing changes at the school until the shooter shows up, and suddenly there are half a dozen, dozen, two dozen deputies immediately there.

    I think at our tiny 1A middle school, there are probably 6-8 people who would do this, including my wife. The teachers know the kids, know where other teachers are likely to be, know the place like the back of their hands. We know security deters threats. I can’t see anything but positives.

    I don’t like the fact that we have to contemplate this. I want to go back to my youth in Bountiful, Utah where this never happened. Maybe we can get back to that type of a society. Until then we need an immediate, practical, and effective solution. This seems like a good part of a multi-approach solution.

    But what’s the long-term solution?

    I wonder if has to do with the internet.

    Is any organization seriously studying this?

    Do you see anything else that might have increased the prompts for this specific action, the ability to plan and conduct attacks, or the motivation to do so?

    Edit 1 – gun retention

    On Facebook today, a former deputy sheriff I know and respect was asked “Should teachers carry guns?” His answer: “No. Weapon retention is never even considered when politicians and others come up with that. Imagine some big, unfriendly student disarming a teacher during some classroom issue. Instant problem.”

    This is a good point to raise.

    I didn’t think of it. It’s clear none of the teacher defense plans are complete without it.

    But is it a show stopper?

    First of all, how big a risk is this? How many student-teacher scuffles do we have in grades 1-6 where the teacher is overpowered by a third-grader? How about in middle school? I’m sure the risk is higher in high school.

    But just because there’s a risk doesn’t always mean you shouldn’t do something. Male and female agents and officers are trained in retention. My question is whether such retention training is ineffective? Should officers not carry guns because of this?

    If it is effective, then it seems to me that if you’re trained, you’re trained. A big senior boy has just as much chance to disarm a trained cop as a trained non-cop of the same size and strength.

    This is another reason I like the suggestion of the sheriff above. It’s not just any teacher that would do this. They need to be screened and trained. They’re deputized. I could see them doing training on a frequent basis. Something goes down at at school, and you immediately have 6-8 trained deputies on site. Maybe a dozen or more. Is that not a game changer?

    It’s good to identify risks. But what would reduce the risks identified? Could we reduce them to acceptable levels? It’s a question that needs answering.

    Edit 2 – is the “rise” due to bad data?

    Just saw this. Is the “rise in school shootings” even real? Or is it bad data? Here’s an opinion on USA Today, suggesting it might not be as bad as we think. One of the things that’s maddening about all of this is what seems to be a lack of good data!

    Sources

  • Good Stuff! Tiny Habits

    ByJohn Brown

    We’re told we can change.

    We’re told that a key is to write “SMART” goals. Make them specific, measurable, realistic, and focused on results. Give them a deadline. And, for heaven’s sake, put them to paper because “a goal that is not written down is just a wish.”

    We’re told a key is to dream, that “whatever the mind can believe, it can achieve.”

    We’re told that the key to changing our life is changing our habits, and that they way to change our habits is to stick with something for twenty-one days.

    Except, well, how many habits have you been successful in establishing?

    How many of those lofty goals have you achieved?

    How many New Year’s resolutions have you really followed through with?

    The problem is that all of the good advice on goals and habits seems to only work for other people. And I grant that there might be some AAA+++ personalities out there with megawatts of motivation who seem to be able to do whatever they set their mind to.

    But that triple A plus personality passed me by. It passed a lot of us by.

    So are we doomed?

    B.J. Fogg, a Stanford researcher, says no. There’s hope for all of us. Because the key is not in having megawatts of motivation.

    It’s not that we disregard the power of motivation. It’s just that motivation, Fogg has found, is never constant. It comes in waves. And while we certainly want to take advantage of it when it comes and do things that increase it, a much more effective way to grow habits and meet goals and change our lives is to focus on the other things that drive behavior.

    Fogg has spent his career studying persuasion and habit. He works with companies to help them create products that are habit-forming. Think about Facebook, Twitter, or Candy Crush, and the habits those products form. These and similar companies have implemented the principles of habit so well that their products have become, for some, something of an addiction.

    So what’s the secret?

    Fogg has identified three things that must be present if we’re going to do something:

    1. The motivation to do it
    2. The ability to do it
    3. A trigger to remind us to do it

    When those three things are present, we act. And we often do so without thinking. If one of those three elements is missing, we don’t act. So if we want to start a new habit, we need to focus on these three things.

    But if motivation goes up and down, then we don’t want to rely on that part of the equation. Fogg’s insight is that it’s much easier and more effective to focus on the ability and the trigger parts.

    When we focus on the ability, we make the habit we want to form so tiny and small that it’s super easy to do. Such tiny behaviors require only the smallest levels of motivation. And if we’ve planted them in good ground (at a time of day where they can expand and linked to a good trigger), those tiny habits eventually grow into the full blown big habit we wanted all along.

    Does this work?

    Well, I started Fogg’s Tiny Habits back at the beginning of December. And I’m happy to report that starting new habits using this approach has been easy.

    Like falling off a log easy.

    For example, because I work on the computer, I know that to increase my health, I need to get at least forty minutes of good, heart-pumping activity each day. But did I start there? No.

    Did I start at twenty minutes?

    No.

    Ten minutes?

    No.

    Five? Surely, I started at five minutes.

    No.

    The Tiny Habits approach suggests starting much smaller. I started with doing one push up after I used the restroom. And it was an incline pushup on the stairs, which my daughter found hilarious.

    Yes, that’s how tiny you start them. Something that takes less than 30 seconds.

    That tiny habit grew. And I am now doing 60 regular floor pushups each day, plus 75 curls, 75 flies, 75 squats, and 75 bicycle crunches. It’s about 25 minutes of good activity. And it’s only going to grow. Come April, I’m pretty sure I’ll be around 100 pushups every day.

    And there was no twenty-one day business. Fogg has found that’s not the secret. Habits can form in just a few days.

    I started the delicious habit of kissing my wife for at least five seconds each day. Along with a five-second hug. And then a little more kissing, and little more hugging, and a little more kissing (when I can steal it). Did I mention it was delicious? This is a highly-recommend habit.

    I started the habit of daily morning scripture reading. I have tried to be consistent for years and couldn’t do it. But with this new approach, I think I’ve missed three times in the last two months.

    I started the habit of beginning the day with a positive thought, the habit of turning off my wireless mouse when I’m done at my desk, and I’ve also made great headway against the mother of all habits for me—going to bed by 10 PM.

    I can easily stay up until one a.m. reading, “researching” on the internet, wasting time watching political videos, or Facebooking. Or a million other things. This bad habit is so ingrained it is almost like someone else is controlling me. All day long I say I’ll go to bed only to find myself, yet again well past dark, screwing up my life plans. It’s like some evil villain has me on remote. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to “motivate” myself to change this. All to no avail.

    But with the tiny habits approach, I finally figured out the triggers that were driving it. Then I engineered other triggers and tiny habits to replace them. And now my computer is off and behind a closed door most of the time in the evenings. I’m actually getting to bed. It’s huge progress. There are still some kinks to work out, but it’s only going to grow.

    I found the Tiny Habits program through my insurance provider. They had an annual wellness check in November, and on their website they had a link to Tiny Habits. I clicked, signed up for their tiny program, and I’m so happy I did.

    I’m hooked on tiny habits.

    And the cool thing is that you can begin learning and developing your ability to plant and grow tiny habits too. For free.

    If you want to change your life, I think you will love their free five-day, three-habit program. It’s there to teach you how to create tiny habits, triggers, and celebrate.

    Let me also recommend a few videos. Here’s the best video I’ve found that explains Fogg’s model of behavior and why tiny habits work.

    And here’s the best video that explains the pitfalls of relying mostly on motivation instead of bringing in the other two Musketeers.

    Researchers say that between 40-70% of all we do each day is driven by habit and external triggers. We think we’re exercising our agency all day long, but it’s an illusion. We’re not. Most of the day we’re running on auto pilot and responding to triggers. But we can change those routines. That’s the promise of tiny habits. And so far, the results for me have been promising. Give it a try. I think you’ll be happy you did.

    Notes

    SMART stands for specific, measurable, achievable, results-focused, and time-bound. SMART goals are helpful. But the key, Fogg has found, is in not trying to eat the whole SMART whale in one bite. Instead, you start with the tiniest part of the very first step. And then watch as the habit grows.

    I reviewed The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg back in 2012. It provided great insight about habits, but not a tested program to actually change them. In fact, the author states himself that his book doesn’t provide a program, just a way of thinking about habits. Duhigg isn’t a behavioral scientist; he’s a reporter, trying to share what he’s found. The book was great. However, I tried to apply his insights, and, as expected, wasn’t very successful in changing things. But Fogg and his Tiny Habits fills that gap in a spectacular way. Fogg is a behavioral scientist and has taught thousands how to form habits. So read Duhigg for great stories and insights about habits in general. But go to Fogg for a tested program that will guide you step by step.

  • Drovers Update: Draft 2 finished

    ByJohn Brown

    Huzzah!

    I just typed the final words of draft 2 of the first book of The Drovers. It now goes to my beta readers (I’m the alpha reader, the one who sees draft 1). And while they’re reading, I will begin draft 2 of the second book.

    This is the shortest novel I’ve ever written, clocking in at 61,000 words. My target was 50,000 words, the average size of a Louis L’Amour western. But this will do. Depending on the beta reader feedback, I may add or cut a few thousand words. But not much.

    I still don’t have a series name, dang it!

    The Queen’s Drovers?

  • Drovers Update: second draft finished up to climax!

    ByJohn Brown

    I  have been making progress on my next novel. Today, I revised the second draft up to the climax. Tomorrow, I get into it. It’s going to be an awesome battle with lots of heroics. Can’t wait. You’ll notice the progress meter. I thought the book would be 35k. A quickie. But it’s probably going to end up at 60k. Almost twice as long, but still the shortest novel I’ve ever written.

    You can see some of the images I’ve been gathering for this on Pinterest.

    The thing that’s eluding me at this point is the name of the series itself.