Time to fire up the militia. What's it going to look like today?


PDA






maestro pistolero
August 12, 2008, 09:00 PM
And not some half-baked, fringe element for the liberals to throw eggs at, either. I'm talking the real deal here. Well regulated, well trained, well armed, and legitimate.

Once organized, trained, and equipped, this militia could place itself voluntarily, at it's own discretion, in the temporary service of the organized militia in times of real national emergency, or when the National Guard's resources and goodwill are being over taxed and overburdened like in the middle east right now.

Perhaps the training and discipline could be undertaken with the help of recently retired or even active duty military volunteers or LE trainers.

Should there be standardized training?

There should be a spirit of cooperation with government authority, but a clearly delineated and stated autonomy as to the manner and means of operation.

There could be a charter, a mission statement, and high standards of excellence that are self-imposed. There should be a transparent and fair system of purging bad eggs, or those who can be proven to have bad intentions or improper behaviour that would threaten the credibility and efficacy of the Militia.

What standards should we hold ourselves to?

How do we balance independence and autonomy, with a spirit of cooperation and common training so that we could be as effective as possible in working together to support our police and military in the event of a cataclysmic world event?

What other attributes should our new militia have?

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to fire up the militia. What's it going to look like today?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jdude
August 12, 2008, 09:45 PM
If the militia were called up, it would be on an as needed basis with likely no more than a few hours or day's training. I figure squad level elements will be under the control of retired soldiers / local LE, with the sheriff being the head honcho. More than likely they will be used for local security and harassment actions while the standing Army does all of the real work.

I also suspect that the majority of arms will be privately owned, and thus mostly scoped deer rifles from the hunters and ARs from the paper punchers. (Note - I know there is crossover. Generalizing here.) There will probably be ammo shortages and general equipment mismatch.

That is all that comes to mind in this short post.

yokel
August 12, 2008, 10:17 PM
Who's going to bother showing up for militia duty?

I reckon that the folks would be mostly concerned with ensuring their own self-preservation and protection of their loved ones and businesses.

In order to meet contemporary war fighting capability and readiness requirements, we're going to need a significant armament upgrade package.

whosyrdaddy
August 12, 2008, 11:14 PM
It'll look just like you imagine 'cause the only place it's ever going to happen is in your imagination.

Drgong
August 12, 2008, 11:16 PM
maestro pistolero, check out how the swiss do there militia, cool stuff ;)

Nolo
August 12, 2008, 11:38 PM
Want to start a militia?
It's been done. In this country, no less.
And recently.
In fact, I think it's a rising tide.
Honestly, if I were to organize a militia, I'd organize it around the principles of the Boy Scouts, without all the fluff needed for pre-teens and modified for a military force.
For instance, here (for those unfamiliar) is the Boy Scout Oath and Law, if I remember correctly:
Oath:
On my honor, I will do my best: to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law:
A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
And Reverent.
Honestly, I think these would be an excellent for to follow for a credo of an militia.
Update it and make the wording and style more mature, along with some of the points (I see "obedient" as being kinda inappropriate, for instance), and you'd have something.

DFW1911
August 12, 2008, 11:43 PM
I reckon that the folks would be mostly concerned with ensuring their own self-preservation and protection of their loved ones and businesses.

Using the Revolution as context.

I agree: see the history of the Minute Men for a point of discussion. Once the reality of a protracted military campaign became evident many "opted out" to do precisely what Yokel suggests.

Like it or not, during the Revolution our "professional army" was mainly comprised of the dregs of society - those who saw "soldiering" as an opportunity for advancement.

I don't recall the specifics, but I believe those who signed "for the duration" received 100 acres, or some such amount, upon conclusion of hostilities.

Those more informed will add their $.02.

Good topic for conversation.

Thanks,
DFW1911

SFvet
August 12, 2008, 11:50 PM
Anyone with a firearm is considerd the unorganized milita. Local people get together and train all the time - many are prior service. Standardization (well organized) can be simple formations under prior service leadership headed by the local authorities.

Want to get some extra training? The National Guard sometimes use volunteers to be a part of training events.

Firearms can be any hunting rifle, battle rifle etc. Now to keep this discussion within regs lets make sure we are discussing firearms along the way ;). I would use my AR-10 A2 Carbine hehe.:cool:

neviander
August 13, 2008, 12:09 AM
As far as entry goes, I would wholly base that on the persons spirit. I realize that's hard to judge, but in the right persons view, it's hard to fake as well. Halfheartedness need not apply.

telecaster1981
August 13, 2008, 12:23 AM
It'll look a lot like the folks in my cell phonebook!

"Hey ____, the S is hitting the F. My place...15 minutes...be there or be square..."

bobbarker
August 13, 2008, 12:42 AM
Obedient should DEFINATELY be kept in, if you're using the boy scout method. Obedience is one of the most important aspects of Military action.

And, I would report to Militia duty. Best way to keep your family and loved ones safe is to get together with other people who want to keep THEIR families and loved ones safe. 20 guys can kill a few hundred if those few hundred are killed individually. Put them all together, and it takes a lot more than 20.

Nolo
August 13, 2008, 12:49 AM
Obedient should DEFINATELY be kept in, if you're using the boy scout method. Obedience is one of the most important aspects of Military action.

And, I would report to Militia duty. Best way to keep your family and loved ones safe is to get together with other people who want to keep THEIR families and loved ones safe. 20 guys can kill a few hundred if those few hundred are killed individually. Put them all together, and it takes a lot more than 20.
Maybe it's just because I'm Irish (;)) but I envision the purpose of the militia as a little less obedient and more independent than military forces.
But maybe that would only be important if we were another country like maybe Germany, because from what records I've looked over, American soldiers are MUCH more independent than other nations'.
I dunno, I just like doing things my way. :D

Nolo
August 13, 2008, 12:57 AM
On my honor, I will do my best: to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Here's my militia version:
Upon my sacred honor, I will do my utmost:
To protect the Constitution and the people of the United States;
To defend them from all threats, foreign and domestic;
To be an ally to my neighbors and countrymen;
To keep myself physically, mentally and emotionally able at all times.
Comments? Suggestions?

chris in va
August 13, 2008, 12:58 AM
but I envision the purpose of the militia as a little less obedient and more independent than military forces.

That's how I see it as well. The National Guard is not the same as the 'militia' and shouldn't fall under military/LE control. Our country has checks and balances, and the militia's purpose IMO is to make darn sure our .gov doesn't turn into a dictatorship.

Nolo
August 13, 2008, 01:04 AM
That's how I see it as well. The National Guard is not the same as the 'militia' and shouldn't fall under military/LE control. Our country has checks and balances, and the militia's purpose IMO is to make darn sure our .gov doesn't turn into a dictatorship.
At least I'm not alone... :D

Nolo
August 13, 2008, 01:05 AM
I don't think you quite understand what Hamilton and Jefferson had in mind . . .
Who doesn't?

bogie
August 13, 2008, 01:16 AM
The "militia movement" started back in the mid 90s when more and more gun control was showing up. Seems a few old boys read that there constitution thing, and figured that if they declared themselves to be a militia, then Unca Sugah would have to let them have their guns...

Sad thing is, a whole buncha those boys was backwoods cracker rednecks who were either kluckers, or who had been rejected by the kluckers...

Which is kinda sad, when you consider it...

Anywho, they made a lot of noise.

akodo
August 13, 2008, 01:45 AM
everyone gets to decide that by themselves, which is what freedom is about.

once you have a set of rules and regulations, guidelines, weapon restrictions, it becomes another one of the "organized militias"

MT GUNNY
August 13, 2008, 01:48 AM
I think the longest running Militia and still running today is the Minutemen. You know the ones on the southern border.

danweasel
August 13, 2008, 02:05 AM
The Black Panthers were a militia right? They patrolled their streets when the goverment wouldn't or couldn't. Worked out pretty well for 'em I hear.

I am just saying the government does not like armed societies organizing and training. Maybe they get nervous? I guess they feel if you wanna do that you should join the army and waste your good deeds in some foreign country for "questionable" reasons.

Aguila Blanca
August 13, 2008, 02:46 AM
Anyone with a firearm is considerd the unorganized milita. Local people get together and train all the time - many are prior service. Standardization (well organized) can be simple formations under prior service leadership headed by the local authorities.

Actually, your statement isn't accurate. The unorganized militia is a subset of the militia, which is defined in statute as

" (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"

So, first there is nothing in the law requiring ownership of a firearm or defining everyone who owns one as a member of the militia, and second, any of us over the age of 45 (even veterans like myself) are not part of the militia due to age. In a crisis I doubt we'd be sent home if we turned out , but we are not legally included.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/SOURCES.HTM#TOC34

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
August 13, 2008, 02:49 AM
If we were called to arms, I'd probably be the first one there.

sailortoo
August 13, 2008, 03:19 AM
An excellent subject to discuss. I personally feel that the whole concept of a Citizens' Militia has been neglected nation wide, and vastly besmerched by some past attempts to circumvent the true idea of a Militia. The very term "Militia" turns off large segments of the public, both from past miss adventures by some unoffical groups, and plain old ignorance of the reason for a Citizens Militia. I would like to see each (reasonable - some are not!) state return to the maintaining of an unorganized Militia - at least an officer corps and some kind of written, executable plan, in case of real need. As it stands now, we are collectively scratching our heads, wondering what to do, and where and when to do it. As mentioned in a prior post, the Swiss seem to have had some kind of long term, workable system (I am not familiar with how it is set up) that maybe could be a starting point to set up a system for some states to consider. As far as the arming of such volunteers, I'm sure the variety of weapons would be a headache of great proportions, but we do not have "A Well Regulated Militia" at present! I know neighbors that are both willing and capable to dive into a bad situation, but we need direction, information and some kind of preparation. Looking forward to further discussion and ideas - probably too scary for the elected types to pursue, but worthy of looking into. :)
sailortoo

Steve Raacke
August 13, 2008, 03:49 AM
The states already have a militia, seperate from the National Guard, if they choose to use it. Called State Defense Forces, State Guards or State Military Reserves these are uniformed forces, organized under the command of the AG of the respective states and attached to it's military department.
Some State Guard units augment National Guard units for disaster services. Some assist with funerals and other ceremonies. In Louisiana the soldiers in the State Guard work as paid employees of the state in jobs such as Drill Instructors and Cadre at Youth Challange and Job Challange programs or as MPs at military and state facilities. They work alongside National Guard members and wear nearly identical uniforms.
Most State Guard units are composed of volunteers who buy their own uniforms and gear.
State Defense Forces are a little known instrument available to every govenor but is rarely used to it's fullest potential.
More about SDFs- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Force .

sailortoo
August 13, 2008, 04:13 AM
Welcome aboard, yale. Good info - but the problem seems to be inactivity, or lack of spreading the word. Also, as mentioned by another poster, a lot of us "Ol' Farts" can't legally be members, even though we could still be useful in a true emergency situation. A more open and publicly known/understood approach would be helpful - I have prowled around the internet a bunch, mostly with no useful effect - trying to get general militia information. As I mentioned before, the public perception of the term "Militia" seems distorted, and the various other terms used are more a deflection from using Militia to describe the original intent. Some of your discriptions sound almost outside of the Militia idea, and more a subset of the military - just what the militia was not supposed to be. Just my personal observation - much more discussion seems warranted, and useful. Thanks for your participation, it is appreciated.
sailortoo

Steve Raacke
August 13, 2008, 04:30 AM
Thanks for the welcome. I agree, there is a lack of information regarding State Guard units. Some say it's one of the best kept secrets in state government. Even SDF members have trouble getting more respect and missions from their States. The feds constantly try to come up with a way to get people to volunteer. They put out things like Citizen Corps, CERT teams and such. Yet they refuse to advertise or promote State Guard service. I was prior military. Ex- Army. I watched the rise of what some call "rump militias" in the early 90s. I wanted something ...else. I found the State Guard almost by accident and enlisted only to find that very little drilling was going on. I was assigned to State Office Of Emergency Management and taught some computer tracking of equiptment and other skills which may be useful during hurricanes. Sadly, That was about all I did. The State really didn't have anything for us to do. Drills were not being held. The state didn't even put up information about the State Guard and how to volunteer on any webpage belonging to the military department as other states have done.
Since this is THR and we concentrate on firearms here let's not forget that the majority of SDFs are unarmed. As mentioned in the wikipedia article I provided, the states don't want to take on the responsibility of arming it's citizen soldiers.
The State Guard Association of the United States has been trying to get States to increase funding and/or manpower in SDFs for years with little progress.
Take a look at the SGAUS website at http://www.sgaus.org/ . I was a SGAUS member for about 7 years but recently let my membership expire since I've been inactive in the State Guard for some time.
I hope this has been informative.

Powderman
August 13, 2008, 04:37 AM
As far as taking an oath goes, how about this one:

I, -----, do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Officers appointed over me, so help me God."

Sounds a little familiar, I think.....

maestro pistolero
August 13, 2008, 05:05 AM
Mostly very thoughtful responses so far.

Regarding comments that predict that every man would for be for himself, I would hate to be that man in a pinch. A very lonely and frightening thought indeed.

In a real emergency we had better help each other, for our own good, if not for altruistic reasons. We see that truly catastrophic events reveal people's character in a hurry. We get to see the best and worst of what we are capable of as human beings. I choose to fall on the side of hope and mutual self interest.

As far as obedience is concerned, I think the principle of governing with the consent of the governed could apply here. In other words, as long as the government is constitutionally sound, we consent to obey it. And that consent can be withdrawn.

Who gets to decide if the government is lawful and constitutional? Well, I suppose that's a more slippery question. I am interested in what objective parameters folks think could be applied here.

One more thing. If a discussion about what the militia means today isn't firearms related, I don't know what is. Just because our rights don't depend on militia service for their existence, it doesn't mean that our gun rights and militia service are no longer related issues.

Scalia:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.

Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

Cosmoline
August 13, 2008, 05:37 AM
You can't just organize your own militia. Militias are controlled and organized by some sovereign government, whether state or federal. If you get together to train and form a unit you will need to get a governor or the President to sign off on the operation.

maestro pistolero
August 13, 2008, 05:46 AM
You can't just organize your own militia. Militias are controlled and organized by some sovereign government, whether state or federal. If you get together to train and form a unit you will need to get a governor or the President to sign off on the operation.

1st: I have NO interest in having my own militia, as you so delicately put it.

and B: Ever heard of the organized and unorganized Militias?

Tertiarily, Did you read this thread or just skip down to the bottom and post? Check out post #23, the subclasses of militias are well known and long established.

goon
August 13, 2008, 05:49 AM
Powderman - that oath looks familiar. ;)

I've also often thought that a real militia that's under the direction of state or county officials could be a valuable thing to have around.
There are a lot of jobs that a volunteer force could be used for, even on a small scale.
Suppose you have a high profile court case and you want some extra security - call out a few militia members to help secure the area.
Got an escaped convict on the loose? Call your militia guys and increase your eyes and firepower.
Terrible winter storms/hurricane/heat wave/whatever? Send your militia units out to help assess the damage and get aid to anyone who needs it.
Lost girl scouts? Call some militia guys to come and help you look.
Rough neighborhood/crime wave/stuff like that? Rotate a few militia guys in on patrols from dusk til dawn to help take some strain off of your police force AND to save the municipality from having to pay OT.

Some obstacles I see that would need to be overcome:
- How are you going to convince TPTB in your state that a militia is needed? For this one, I'd find a way to save the state/municipality a bunch of money. Shouldn't be too hard because you could probably use volunteers to do a lot of the work that they are paying someone OT to do now. Still, in some areas this is going to be an uphill fight.
- How are you going to fund it? Who pays for what? Probably the easiest way to go about it would be to have minimum requirements that every member would need to meet within six months of joining. Nothing big because you're not really looking to fully equip a real army (because we already have one of those). All you'd really need is some of the basic stuff that soldiers usually have and that isn't hard for most of us to obtain on our own. And if you really need to go cheap, about the only thing you really need to standardize on would be uniforms (and maybe communications? Feel free to correct me commo guys). For that, it could be as simple as an OD green field jacket with your unit patch on it and a pair of decent boots. Low tech is the way to go here.
- Training. Not just who pays for it, but who are the warm bodies that are actually going to be doing the training? It could be accomplished with volunteers. One other idea might be to use some active duty military. Officers and NCO's could be rotated in to help train/manage militia units the way recruiters are assigned during active duty service. Maybe people who are nearing their retirement in active duty service or National Guard units could be used in this capacity. I'd think that a lot of career military people wouldn't mind the chance to keep making a little money and still be "in uniform", even if it were in such an unofficial capacity.
- Image. The word "Militia" still makes people think of a group of nuts who are holed up in a mobile home with their shotguns and a hundred pounds of beans praying for armageddon. You're going to have to call it something else and you're going to have to make its primary function something other than shooting stuff. I'd think it would make sense to use the militia largely as a supplement to local emergency forces of all kinds - basically a large pool of skilled (and armed) manpower. This also makes sense from the standpoint that the odds of needing your "militia" members to go help look for a lost cub scout is way more likely than needing to use them to go fight an invading army. Still, if need be, your guys do have guns and they do follow directions.
- Requirements. I say open it up. Probably anyone between the ages of 17 and 60 could be useful in some way. Remember, your primary function is not fighting people simply because more often that not there isn't going to be anyone to fight. Most 55 year olds can still manage to walk through the woods looking for a missing person or direct traffic around a fallen power line. Many of them also have experience in handling a crisis that people my age (mid 20's) don't. Old guys would be extremely useful to have around IMO. I'd also say that you'd need some very minimal physical qualifications. They'd need to be low enough qualifications that your average guy could easily meet them. Even if he is 20 pounds overweight, again, that still doesn't make a huge difference because in all likelyhood, your militia will never be used for any type of real military operation. If the guy can carry a five gallon can of water from the back of the truck up to the old lady's porch, he'll probably be fine for most scenarios.

Just my random thoughts on the subject.
With that, I'm going to bed.

goon
August 13, 2008, 05:51 AM
Ever heard of the organized and unorganized Militias? Did you read this thread or just skip down to the bottom and post?

IIRC, he's right.
Even unorganized militias answer to the state.
If it doesn't answer to the governor, president, or some other elected official, you no longer have a militia.
What you have in that case is a private army.

SFvet
August 13, 2008, 05:56 AM
Actually, your statement isn't accurate. The unorganized militia is a subset of the militia, which is defined in statute as

" (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"

So, first there is nothing in the law requiring ownership of a firearm or defining everyone who owns one as a member of the militia, and second, any of us over the age of 45 (even veterans like myself) are not part of the militia due to age. In a crisis I doubt we'd be sent home if we turned out , but we are not legally included.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amte...RCES.HTM#TOC34

According to the U.S.C unorganized militia under title 10 you are correct. I was refering to the constitutional patriot minuetmen however, not the USC statute - all to arms.

Gentleman Ranker
August 13, 2008, 06:29 AM
A question for the OP: who would be commander-in-chief of this militia you propose?

regards,

GR

Picher
August 13, 2008, 07:34 AM
There's already a local force that usually needs some help by trained forces. It's called the police and many have reserve officers who are called in to supplement the regulars at special events or during holidays. In our small city, I did it.

Several of us pooled our talents, volunteering to train regular officers in firearm use and became reserve officers as well. It gave them a great sense of pride to be able to shoot well...but it also helped them to "know their limitations", as Dirty Harry put it. Unrealistic expectations in ability can not only get a cop killed, but innocent bystanders as well. We slept better knowing the officers knew how to shoot well, when necessary...and as importantly...when not to shoot.

Personally, I'm glad I became a reserve officer. I met some great guys, learned a lot, and supplemented the family income. It's a different world today...a lot more dangerous, but if more folks got involved, maybe things would improve.

Picher

yokel
August 13, 2008, 08:43 AM
As our Founding Fathers that wrote the Second Amendment understood so well, the primary threat to our freedom lies with our own government.

I trust that today's militia isn't really about serving as the government's lackeys.

Apple a Day
August 13, 2008, 09:29 AM
What would it look like? Like this:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=303572&highlight=Hurricane+Flu
:D
Separate but related question:
WHat are the rules and reg's regarding a sheriff deputizing people in emergencies?

jackstinson
August 13, 2008, 10:16 AM
Unfortunately when I see thread titles like this, I immediately think of folks like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Michael Fortier, and the various paramilitary organizations which abound.
"The militia" in that context will look like a bunch of skinhead yahoos in mil-surp camo chewing Skoal. :)

OOOXOOO
August 13, 2008, 12:38 PM
50% Mall ninja
50% Country Thunder Concert

lazyeye
August 13, 2008, 01:26 PM
This really depends on what you envision as the purpose.
Protecting from domestic tyranny? I doubt by the time it organizes you'd be able to do anything uniform or trained we'd be in such a world of s...

Even when it does happen, how many of us couch commandos are going to grab our rifles and start shooting when "they" come to deprive our friend Jim of his rights?

How about protecting the border?
Theres NO way that any state or government agency would ever sign off on letting armed citizens interdict illegal traffic.

How about natural/manmade disaster?
Theres NO way any .gov agency would ever consider letting armed citizens enforce any kind of law in the event of a disaster.

What are we left with?
Unarmed civil service. Even the Minutemen are mainly unarmed because they can't afford the PR/legal nightmare of a shooting confrontation.

Go ahead and throw the word "militia" out the window here.

If you want to protect against domestic tyranny, seal the borders, enforce law after Hurricane Betty, whatever, put together a squad sized element, have a mission and a plan, and don't trust anyone that you haven't known your whole life. If/when you ever decide to mobilize, trust in your heart that after you've completed your "mission" you will most likely be considered an outlaw by any .gov.

On a side note, want to know what one of my hobbies is? OPFOR for the National Guard.
When I can afford the time from work I dress up like a middle eastern bad guy and or civillian (along with other guys and gals) and help train a Guard unit that is deploying to Iraq next year.

Water-Man
August 13, 2008, 01:32 PM
I wouldn't be interested if there was LE, Nat'l. Guard or military involvment. That would be self-defeating.

maestro pistolero
August 13, 2008, 02:14 PM
A question for the OP: who would be commander-in-chief of this militia you propose?

Good question. The organizational structure would need to acknowledge leadership. I guess that would be the State Governor. No one else would have the built in credibility to lead.

It may well be that no Governor would want to give credibility to the Militia by utilizing it. But honestly, I think conditions would have to be pretty deteriorated before a Militia would be needed at all. It would serve a temporary purpose, to support LE and National Guard, when completely overwhelmed in the days and weeks following a natural or unnatural disaster, as in Katrina. Or if, God forbid, there were a foreign invasion.

So, instead of the government wasting precious few resources in gun confiscation efforts as we saw in New Orleans, they would embrace our contribution to stability and security and spend their time rescuing folks.

Wouldn't it be stupid, in a country of millions of law abiding gun owners, for the government to have no plan whatsoever of how to utilize us in a real SHTF situation? Why not talk about it now, before it happens again. Let's avoid chaos and confusion, and work with law enforcement to determine the scope and degree of help they may need. Where are we not needed? How can we help, but stay out of the way and not make their job more difficult. Now is the time for dialog, not after an event.

I think a lot of us are in denial that we could face devastation in this country from a foreign source. If we think we can keep anybody or anything from reaching our shores, we need only examine our track record in preventing narcotics and aliens from flowing across our borders. It's practically a parade sans brass band.

Look, we all know that an armed citizenry is a last recourse to reign in a truly tyrannical government. IMHO, we are so far from that as to make any emphasis on that fact premature and self-defeating. As long as we have arms, we've got that one covered. The purpose of a Militia is the security of a free state. That's all I'm talking about here.

crebralfix
August 13, 2008, 02:21 PM
deleted

Cosmoline
August 13, 2008, 02:22 PM
1st: I have NO interest in having my own militia, as you so delicately put it.
and B: Ever heard of the organized and unorganized Militias?


My point is simply that only a sovereign power has any authority to classify the militia or organize it so any "firing up" has to be done through legislation. If you or I personally start training and drilling a bunch of people we are organizing a rebellion, not a lawful militia. I think the key is to first and foremost de-federalize the guard units and return them to exclusive state control. There have already been extensive complaints about the fed's reliance on guard units in overseas operations. Pushing to have the units split from the federal armies by law would go a long way towards solving this problem and reviving the true organized militia.

Alternatively, a state government so inclined could create its own defense force or revive an existing defense force to act in the role left vacant by the absent NG units. I think everyone would love to have more local hands and backs available when it hits the fan. The big issue here is $$, as always.

FourNineFoxtrot
August 13, 2008, 02:38 PM
I think it's important to clarify why this hypothetical militia would be called up.

The only way the U.S. Government is going to endorse a militia is either if we've been invaded and the regular forces are being pressed so hard that the militia is basically an afterthought, anyway... or if the government's control declines to the point where only local militias can be on the scene to keep order.

Neither is a pretty picture, and either way, the militia is likely to be a very ad hoc sort of deal. Whoever shows up, with whatever they can bring, wherever they can meet. If the scenario is an invasion, then we'll be starting out as guerillas, and hopefully survive long enough to become real partisans. Those who aren't behind enemy lines are more likely to be enrolled in the army or nat'l guard, as needed, and trained if possible. Could be, if things are desperate enough, that they'll just take down your name, and put you on the line with a regular who's expected to show you the ropes.

If it's a breakdown of government control we're looking at, then things are bit different. A home-grown garrison, not a partisan movement. That probably means deputization under local LE, with part-time duties and an assumed "on call" role.

Hate to say it, but unless the government is fighting for its life, it's going to regard "militias" not under their direct control as threats, not allies. Any sort of "militia" being raised is going to be headed by a government official (albeit probably a local one) if it wants government approval.

maestro pistolero
August 13, 2008, 02:39 PM
FourNine, I agree with your post completely. Reluctantly, even the part about being regarded as threats by the government. Perhaps all we can really do is just be as ready as possible, and keep our powder dry.

If I were in LE leadership, especially in a small community with limited resources, I would take a little comfort from having roster of upstanding folks in the community, volunteers who were screened and who trained with LE maybe once or twice a year, just for contingency. Make it a community event, then have a BBQ and all go home. Probably never get called, if fact let's hope not.

If you or I personally start training and drilling a bunch of people we are organizing a rebellion, not a lawful militia.

HOW? Isn't rebellion a matter of intent? A group could train all year long for readiness to support our community, and lacking any intent to rebel against anything, it is merely training. Training for an event which may never occur, granted, but nothing more than training.

crebralfix
August 13, 2008, 02:55 PM
In thinking about this, the right is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure we need permission to form militias; I think that it's been changed through a mere law.

Any lawyers care to comment?

***

As for showing up: why not? We didn't have police forces for a LONG time. Perhaps it's time to start sending militias to the border...the feds won't do it and that experiment with The Minutemen reduced activity in that sector by almost 100%.

Additionally, why not make use of the militia through the sheriff? They have volunteer police training in many counties. If cops are overwhelmed, then bring the militia in to cover certain areas with strict operating orders under a police sargeant or experienced deputy. They don't even really have to be armed; some counties around here have armed volunteers (basically, unpaid FULL police officer positions) and others are just unarmed traffic controllers.

Establish the requirement that participants provide their own gear and have ammo in certain flavors: 223, 5.56x45, 762x39, or 308 Win for rifle. Since it's totally voluntary, those willing and able to pay for it will do so. Everyone else will skip participating.

The gear requirements will also act as a first line screen. Not everyone is willing to shell out $1500-2000 for guns and add another $1k for other stuff.

I really don't see a problem with such a system. The militia wouldn't be going to war; they'd be responsible for the homefront.

Cosmoline
August 13, 2008, 03:05 PM
A group could train all year long for readiness to support our community, and lacking any intent to rebel against anything, it is merely training. Training for an event which may never occur, granted, but nothing more than training.

That begs the question, what's the even you'd be training for? Just foreign invasion or attacking the government itself?

In thinking about this, the right is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure we need permission to form militias; I think that it's been changed through a mere law.

Heller put the final nail in that idea. The Second creates an individual right to keep and bear arms, not a GROUP right to form militias. The miltia prong is all but dead letter now.

It think having layers of organized militia responsible for real homeland security and border enforcement is a great idea, but it's got to be done through legislation.

Aguila Blanca
August 13, 2008, 03:18 PM
You can't just organize your own militia. Militias are controlled and organized by some sovereign government, whether state or federal. If you get together to train and form a unit you will need to get a governor or the President to sign off on the operation.
My point is simply that only a sovereign power has any authority to classify the militia or organize it so any "firing up" has to be done through legislation. If you or I personally start training and drilling a bunch of people we are organizing a rebellion, not a lawful militia.
I'm not certain you are entirely correct. First, "the Militia" already exists, under Federal law. It is us (except that I'm too old, under the law). I assume the laws of each state are different, but in my state it is NOT unlawful for citizens to engage in paramilitary training unless such training is for the purpose of civil unrest (or some term similar to that). So, in other words, if a bunch of us want to play soldier on the weekend with the idea that we are preparing ourselves to defend the State or the country in time of emergency -- that's legal.

And I don't believe the law even in Colonial times made the existence of the militia dependent on the government organizing it and arming it. The Militia Act of 1792 clearly called for each man to provide his own firearms and a basic ration of ammunition. Why should it be different today? This is where I have some reservations about the state guard type units. Precisely because they are organized under the military department of their respective states, and in those states with which I am familiar they seem to be attached to the National Guard in a sort of "junior varsity" relationship -- I don't think they really qualify as citizen militias.

In a nutshell, it's one thing for the militia to exist and to say that the Governor may call on it/them in time of emergency. It's a different animal to say that the militia can exist only if the State decides to organize, train, and equip it. That's not a "militia." That's a standing army. Any equipment the government (state or Federal) issues can be UNissued tomorrow. The 2nd Amendment wasn't written around the idea that we would use government-issued weapons to defend the Constitution.

Rachen
August 13, 2008, 03:18 PM
A militia that is needed in times of dire crisis must adopt the organization strategies of the 8th Route Army. The 8th Route Army is one of the most influential militias in the world, having fought both the Japanese and the Guomingdang, and finally consolidated into what will become the People's Liberation Army.

Such strategies call for "People first" ideology. That is, ensuring equal benefits for everyone in the area the militia is covering. That means settling local disputes and public works as well. That way, the enemy will experience a much harder time trying to re-infiltrate liberated areas, especially since the local citizenry is also mobilized and united.

Such a militia not only require good military leaders, but political leaders as well.

maestro pistolero
August 13, 2008, 03:20 PM
That begs the question, what's the even [sic] you'd be training for? Just foreign invasion or attacking the government itself?

***, did you even read the thread? NO, it's to support local LE and National Guard when, and if overwhelmed by a real national or regional emergency. When did anyone say a militia's purpose was to overthrow anything?

The Second creates an individual right to keep and bear arms, not a GROUP right to form militias. The miltia prong is all but dead letter now.

It exists already. It is only dormant until needed and called.

Kentak
August 13, 2008, 03:24 PM
I love these threads. They're always good for a laugh.

K

Tommygunn
August 13, 2008, 03:36 PM
Some posts here indicate that a militia would answer to the state governor ... or to the president.
Now, I'm not going to debate that, but I do have a question.
If the government devolved into a tyranny and tried to confiscate guns, among other clearly tyrannical measures, how would the militia respond if it answered to the president, who theoretically would be directing this?
Now, another step. Yes if the governor was oppossed to the tyranny and called upon the militia, or for one, that's fine; I get it.

But, what if the governor is in full agreement with the federal tyrants, and the last thing on God's Green Earth he's going to to is call up a militia to stand in his own way.
What then?
What if there's a substantial group of citizens who want to, and are willing and prepared to opposse this?
Do tey form a militia? Or do they form a private army...
I mean ... does anyone here have any ideas what gives then?

SFvet
August 13, 2008, 03:46 PM
When I was in the Sheriffs Dept. we still had the old Civil Defense protocols and basically if SHTF - the COUNTY government heads up "volunteers" (Militia).
Any group that trains together is under the authority of the Sheriff if needed. Most major Militia groups are registerd with the county Sheriffs Departments Civil Defense Force.

Rachen
August 13, 2008, 03:52 PM
***, did you even read the thread? NO, it's to support local LE and National Guard when, and if overwhelmed by a real national or regional emergency.

I doubt the PEOPLE'S MILITIA would go along with the National Guard and start beating old ladies and taking away people's guns in a national emergency and resort to other assorted jackbooted nastiness.

I love these threads. They're always good for a laugh.

So do I!:D

feedthehogs
August 13, 2008, 03:57 PM
If the soldier want a be's are anything like the average Joe at the range, please stay home and protect your own stuff.

I neither want or need a group of doomsday dreamers looking after me.

Under normal natural disasters, the NG has done just fine. In most cases they are much better mannered and friendlier to the local citizens than the local cops.

In the far fetched event of nuclear war or invasion from a foreign source and the chain of command has broken down, who is going to keep in check a bunch of Halo video game players?

Been thru numerous hurricanes without power and food for weeks and the unorganized neighbors did just fine.

Rachen
August 13, 2008, 04:01 PM
Under normal natural disasters, the NG has done just fine. In most cases they are much better mannered and friendlier to the local citizens than the local cops.


I doubt many New Orleans citizens, especially one 86 year old grandmother in particular, would say the same thing about the NG.

maestro pistolero
August 13, 2008, 04:11 PM
But, what if the governor is in full agreement with the federal tyrants, and the last thing on God's Green Earth he's going to to is call up a militia to stand in his own way.
What then?
What if there's a substantial group of citizens who want to, and are willing and prepared to opposse this?
Do tey form a militia? Or do they form a private army...
I mean ... does anyone here have any ideas what gives then?

We do anything and everything to avoid that scenario. We work within the system no matter how difficult, until it is impossible. That's my take.

All we should do meanwhile is make sure we have the means to escalate, should it be necessary. I really don't see that happening anytime soon. I also don't predict a fire in my kitchen, but I do have a big 'ole fire extinguisher.

KBintheSLC
August 13, 2008, 04:37 PM
It would be hard to organize an effective civilian militia since the right to keep and bear arms has been so dreadfully infringed. We cannot even own weapons that compare to modern military weapons... AKA - missiles, grenades, selective fire small arms, mortars, artillery, etc...

I guess I could join the militia with my semi auto AK and my 1000 round "stockpile", but if we are invaded by an advanced, government backed enemy... guys like me will have a hard time making a dent in their repertoire.

I guess if that happens, I could always resort to homemade explosives like they use in Iraq... but then I risk killing myself on accident... or getting locked up by the crooked Department of Homeland Security and their ridiculous "Patriot Act".

Cosmoline
August 13, 2008, 04:40 PM
The Militia Act of 1792 clearly called for each man to provide his own firearms and a basic ration of ammunition. Why should it be different today?

Because the Militia Act of 1792 has been amended and modified heavily, and then replaced by the Militia Act of 1903 which established the National Guard and ended the reliance on locally raised militias to man the military. The Rough Riders of the Spanish war were probably the old-style militia raised, approved and sent to war.

If the government devolved into a tyranny and tried to confiscate guns, among other clearly tyrannical measures, how would the militia respond if it answered to the president, who theoretically would be directing this?

If you're talking about federal tyranny, then the states would control the response. Many would argue they did exactly that back in 1861. During the CW the various governors and state legislatures set up their Confederate units by calling up militias which then came together under a more-or-less unified command. This is why so many of the CSA forces, esp. during the early battles, had radical variation in uniforms and flags. Some were even dressed in blues like union troops.

taprackbang
August 13, 2008, 04:46 PM
I doubt the PEOPLE'S MILITIA would go along with the National Guard and start beating old ladies and taking away people's guns in a national emergency and resort to other assorted jackbooted nastiness.

Ain't that the truth! Too bad too many people, and dare I say, even some on this forum, would not be willing to lay down their lives and their sacred honor to fight tyranny. I would not die for the 'freedom of some other foreign nation,' but I would die for my fellow countrymen and for my country.

Gentlemen, the battle is HERE!!

And if I wrote the 2nd Amendment I would have a added 'a well ORGANIZED militia.'

SSN Vet
August 13, 2008, 04:56 PM
malitia?

don't we pay people to do that?

aren't they right up there with the lawn mower and the hair dresser and the caddy?

is there a manpower shortage?

maybe we can give a few million illegals amnesty and pay them minimum wage to do it?

FFMedic
August 13, 2008, 05:41 PM
A month or so ago I started a thread asking about people with milita experiance. There is a pretty well organized militia of private citizens in Ohio with several regional divisions. They have websites with awsome looking training schedules and own land to conduct live fire training. They even compete against others each year.

After looking at some of the groups videos on youtube.com and then browsing the members "favorites" videos I was turned off.

My friends and I have our own plans however. With only a few exceptions we are all fire/ems/leo and armed forces so I'd hope we could at least take care of ourselves.

FFMedic

physics
August 13, 2008, 05:44 PM
Don't a lot of states have laws against paramilitary training? I think Oregon does.

maestro pistolero
August 13, 2008, 06:31 PM
Don't a lot of states have laws against paramilitary training? I think Oregon does.

Really? I've never heard that. What about Blackwater and other groups? I guess they just wouldn't train in Oregon. How would they define paramilitary training? How is a day at IPSC, or live fire on a 500 meter range any different?

Tommygunn
August 13, 2008, 06:47 PM
If the government devolved into a tyranny and tried to confiscate guns, among other clearly tyrannical measures, how would the militia respond if it answered to the president, who theoretically would be directing this?

If you're talking about federal tyranny, then the states would control the response. Many would argue they did exactly that back in 1861. During the CW the various governors and state legislatures set up their Confederate units by calling up militias which then came together under a more-or-less unified command. This is why so many of the CSA forces, esp. during the early battles, had radical variation in uniforms and flags. Some were even dressed in blues like union troops.

I know that, but what do the people do if the governor of the state is part of the tyranny and will not call up a militia? Do they just sit it out and allow the tyranny, or do they form "private armies" and do what they can to opposse the tyrant(s)?

Catherine
August 13, 2008, 06:50 PM
QUOTE:

Quote:
***, did you even read the thread? NO, it's to support local LE and National Guard when, and if overwhelmed by a real national or regional emergency.

I doubt the PEOPLE'S MILITIA would go along with the National Guard and start beating old ladies and taking away people's guns in a national emergency and resort to other assorted jackbooted nastiness.

~~~~~

Rachen,

Thank you.

Catherine

Knucklehead2
August 13, 2008, 07:18 PM
Dr Vieira is an expert on the subject of militia and the constitutional provisions. Link, then scroll down and read the "Militia of the several states", eight parts I think, a long read that will answer most questions.
I post this link every time this comes up, sorry.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm

Cosmoline
August 13, 2008, 07:25 PM
Do they just sit it out and allow the tyranny, or do they form "private armies" and do what they can to opposse the tyrant(s)?


Everyone would have to make a choice whether to go along with the tyranny or rebel. At that point the "militia" forces raised against the government would be in open rebellion.

Drgong
August 13, 2008, 07:29 PM
What to do if you want to be a militia.

Get a group of buddies together.

Spend a weekend a month playing army on the weekend.

if something rear up, say the river about to flood the town, go help make sandbags, perhaps with a Tshirt that says "John Doe County Militia"

Congrats, your a militia :)

Nobody's_Hero
August 13, 2008, 07:34 PM
I think the first day of training with any militia should center around teaching and understanding the Constitution of the United States.

You must know what you're defending if you want to be a legitimate fighting force. ;)

yokel
August 13, 2008, 07:51 PM
When just-obeying-orders government toadies come to take away the citizens' guns, it is they who are in rebellion, not the citizens who so courageously resist.

Compliance with the illegitimate and tyrannical usurpation of power is as contemptible an action as the confiscation of the guns.

jonmerritt
August 13, 2008, 09:30 PM
As I remember it, I was released from my duties after serving my country, But I was never relieved from my oath.

Tennessee Gentleman
August 19, 2008, 12:28 AM
In August/September 2005 about 25 men from my church went down to Biloxi MS and worked with another church there to help rebuild their lives. We distributed food and water (it was hot as h*ll) and medical supplies and set up temporary housing for the Katrina Victims.

We didn't carry any guns and never needed them. We were there for about eight weeks with various shifts rotating in and out.

Is that the type of "militia" you are talking about? If so, I would just call it being a good citizen.

No camo, no AK-47s but we did eat some raunchy food. Would that fill the bill?

Aaryq
August 19, 2008, 02:40 PM
Unfortunately, I doubt a militia would work in today's America unless it was a hastily assembled rag-tag group of individuals IN RESPONSE TO a foreign invasion. I say this because of our society.
The first reason I say it won't work is numbers: The term militia will turn a bunch of people off and instantly limit its numbers. It will also inspire crazies, anti-government, and/or racist types to join up. Once these people are cleared out, we have left-over, military/former military, LEO/Former LEOs, survivialists, and then a few common citizenry (if such a term exists in America). You also toss in there one nut-job that may have illegal weapons, and then Big Brother will come down with a righteous fury and lable the entire militia as a terrorist organization...and possibly other militias associated with it.

The second reason is logistics. Unless you issue weapons to the militia, you will run the gambut (spelling) of guns and calibers. You'll have AK's, AR's, Bolt Action Scoped rifles, Milsurps, "Thuddy Thuddy's," pistol carbines, super magnum rifles, and just as many different handguns. When the metal hits the meat, once "Bob" runs out of ammo, he's out of the fight until he either liberates a weapon from an opponent or when "Frank" dies and he takes his weapon. You also have the issue of transportation, and other costs associated with any organization.

The third is training and organization. A lot of people will screw around during the training or just gaff it off entirely. This has the potential to be very dangerous. You have a guy who's got a list of tacticool gizmos mounted on his rifle, and believes he's in an elite paramilitary unit but has no training...he's going to either get himself or someone else killed or injured because he'll either recklessly charge into a dangerous situation thinking that his gizmos and his video game training will turn him into Rambo, or else when the 1st shot wizzes over his head, he will tuck tail and run and stay hiding for the duration fo the conflict.

If you could find a way to get the right people the right gear and the right training where they can learn to work as one diciplined unit, it could work. I just don't think it could happen in today's America.

ilbob
August 19, 2008, 02:43 PM
I am generally in favor of restarting the militia concept but it is pretty clear to me that it would require a jump start from congress, and it probably won't happen for that reason.

You can run around in the woods wearing soldier boy clothes, and call your self a militia, but unless congress says so, you aren't.

novaDAK
August 19, 2008, 06:12 PM
Time to fire up the militia. What's it going to look like today?

This.

http://static.flickr.com/27/49982026_71db1e3275_o.jpg

:D:D just kidding ;)

deaconkharma
August 20, 2008, 10:42 PM
honestly? more local like a neighborhood watch or a few friends. nothing large enough to draw attention since people wont want a government sanctioned bonfire at their home. multiple calibers as said and few with many real survival skills and one guy (like me) who has watched and memorized every survivorman episode. :)

hankdatank1362
August 20, 2008, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Nolo:
Law:

Quote:
A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
And Reverent.


You forgot helpful and friendly. ;)

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, brave, clean, and reverent.

oldfatslob
August 20, 2008, 11:45 PM
deaconkharma,

I agree.

How long would it take for the sheriff to respond to the ruskies coming down like red dawn? And then how long would it take for the volunteers to take off from work, go home, get geared up, fill their truck with all the gear, go to the sheriffs office, wait for a large enough number to show up, then head out to respond?

Me, I believe in the concept like a volunteer fire department. Closer to home, have a "territory" like a dog and his home. And faster response times. Perhaps the local police or mayor could be the head of a Neighborhood Armed Watch, or Volunteer Armed Response Department.

I believe that if you took the oath in service, and then after service, you should rephrase it to Country And People, instead of .gov and officers.

I would give my life for my family and friends regardless of who's in office, or what's going on overseas.

RPCVYemen
August 21, 2008, 12:14 AM
Get a group of buddies together.

Spend a weekend a month playing army on the weekend.


And hope and pray that none of them take any illegal actions - like shooting the wrong person while claiming to be "serving and protecting and as a member of the militia." If any of your buddies takes any illegal action in any way related to the militia, you'll almost certainly be facing conspiracy charges.

Given the makeup of most folks who want to be in a militia - almost exclusively conservative older white males, many of whom judging from the tenor of THR posts have a chip on their shoulder against various racial/ethnic minorities - I would think that membership in a militia would be a legal nightmare. If any of your buddies have ever belonged to right wing organization of any kind, that could be real trouble.

Imagine one of you buddies spouts off about "gangsta's" and "sagging" and makes fun of non-standard English has few beers and decides to go serve and protect and shoots a black man. If you have trained with him, helped him repair his weapon, etc., you will almost certainly be charged with some kind of conspiracy charge.

If a member of the regular army goes wacko, generally other people in his unit are not charged. As a member of a militia, I don't think you'd have that protection.

Mike

Stevie-Ray
August 21, 2008, 02:02 AM
The National Guard sometimes use volunteers to be a part of training events. Quite true. An old buddy of mine took part in war games with the guard. He was given a ton of blanks and a blank adaptor for his M1A and got to keep it all when the battle was over.

Steve Raacke
August 21, 2008, 02:26 AM
A month or so ago I started a thread asking about people with milita experiance. There is a pretty well organized militia of private citizens in Ohio with several regional divisions. They have websites with awsome looking training schedules and own land to conduct live fire training. They even compete against others each year.

After looking at some of the groups videos on youtube.com and then browsing the members "favorites" videos I was turned off.

My friends and I have our own plans however. With only a few exceptions we are all fire/ems/leo and armed forces so I'd hope we could at least take care of ourselves.

FFMedic FFMedic, I was in a similar situation as you. Military and fire/EMS/LEO experiance along with my friends. That is what lead me to the State Defence Force/State Guard. My friends and I had real training and experiance. We didn't feel like wasting our time with a bunch of rednecks who listened to christian-patriot propaganda on shortwave about black helicopters and NWO UN troops turning old railroad depots into concentration camps in anticipation of the Antichrist taking control.
What turned you off after watching the videos? I've seen many of their videos and liked their enthusiasm but would like to direct it better.

protolith
August 21, 2008, 04:21 AM
Have to throw in my $.02

DFW1911 wrote:
Like it or not, during the Revolution our "professional army" was mainly comprised of the dregs of society - those who saw "soldiering" as an opportunity for advancement.

Actually our "professional army" is mainly comprised of the dregs of society - those who see "soldiering" as an opportunity for advancement. A good portion of the enlisted masses would otherwise be seen as rednecks, hillbillies, simple laborers, or members of every minority.
By volunteering these individuals receive training, and then perform duties that earn them deserved respect as citizens.

Thats what makes this country so great, by simply standing up, the unwashed masses become respectable citizens.
For many, soldiering is an opportunity for advancement.



Cosmoline wrote:
If you or I personally start training and drilling a bunch of people we are organizing a rebellion, not a lawful militia.

Unless the drilling and training is organizing a rebellion, it could easily be argued as activity protected by the 2nd amendment.

If you registered with selective service before you turned 18, then you are already a member of the militia.

While declaring a group is a militia could be argued to be an act of sedition. Gathering to learn skills that would make a person a better soldier, and prepare individuals should they be called by the government is simply an act of citizenship, socially it should be seen as no more profound than voting.

And I agree, modeling a group after the Boy Scouts is a very good start.



Upon rereading my post I can see that it is in fact quite offensive, please see my apology and retraction of comments, I meant no one any disrespect in the point I was trying to make.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4839737#post4839737
I will leave this post intact unless removal is requested my one of the mods.

bogie
August 21, 2008, 04:31 AM
Dude, go tell your cube farm's manager that you've been outted...

Soldiering is a duty. Unless, of course, you're a city boy from a blue state...

Personally, I've never met a "militia" person that I really wanted to spend any time with.

Jeff White
August 21, 2008, 11:53 AM
protolith said;
Actually our "professional army" is mainly comprised of the dregs of society - those who see "soldiering" as an opportunity for advancement. A good portion of the enlisted masses would otherwise be seen as rednecks, hillbillies, simple laborers, or members of every minority.

Glad to know that I was a dreg of society before I enlisted, and that my son is too. You ever spent one day in uniform? I don't think you've got a clue about what kind of people make up our military. Let's see your DD214, put up or shut up.

Jeff

Rugerlvr
August 21, 2008, 12:10 PM
Actually our "professional army" is mainly comprised of the dregs of society - those who see "soldiering" as an opportunity for advancement. A good portion of the enlisted masses would otherwise be seen as rednecks, hillbillies, simple laborers, or members of every minority.
By volunteering these individuals receive training, and then perform duties that earn them deserved respect as citizens.

Wow, you've really put your foot in it here. I didn't serve, but my wife did. She was enlisted, and at no time in her life would I ever have considered her a "dreg."

I'd really consider retracting that statement PDQ.

DC300a
August 21, 2008, 12:24 PM
This is Florida Statute-

870.06 Unauthorized military organizations.--No body of persons, other than the regularly organized land and naval militia of this state, the troops of the United States, and the students of regularly chartered educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction, shall associate themselves together as a military organization for drill or parade in public with firearms, in this state, without special license from the Governor for each occasion, and application for such license must be approved by the mayor and aldermen of the cities and towns where such organizations may propose to parade. Each person unlawfully engaging in the formation of such military organization, or participating in such drill or parade, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


Just wanted to point that out.

DC300a
August 21, 2008, 12:26 PM
Florida Law also dictates--

250.02 Militia.--

(1) The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.

(2) The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.

(3) The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.

(4) Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.

Aaryq
August 21, 2008, 04:05 PM
Actually our "professional army" is mainly comprised of the dregs of society - those who see "soldiering" as an opportunity for advancement. A good portion of the enlisted masses would otherwise be seen as rednecks, hillbillies, simple laborers, or members of every minority.
By volunteering these individuals receive training, and then perform duties that earn them deserved respect as citizens.

Thats what makes this country so great, by simply standing up, the unwashed masses become respectable citizens.
For many, soldiering is an opportunity for advancement.


Proto, there are a bunch of non High Road things I want to say to you. What do you know about being enlisted? Better yet, what do you know about being in the military at all (and no, the newest version of Halo or Command and Conquer don't count)? There's lots of people on this board who have served or are still serving with pride. Put in 4 years and then come back and say something, until then, shut your face.

george29
August 21, 2008, 04:08 PM
Has anyone ever seen a current State Militia? Good Grief! Another Good idea that needs to stay on the drawing board.


Actually our "professional army" is mainly comprised of the dregs of society - those who see "soldiering" as an opportunity for advancement. A good portion of the enlisted masses would otherwise be seen as rednecks, hillbillies, simple laborers, or members of every minority.
By volunteering these individuals receive training, and then perform duties that earn them deserved respect as citizens.

Thats what makes this country so great, by simply standing up, the unwashed masses become respectable citizens.
For many, soldiering is an opportunity for advancement

So? I'm all for people bettering themselves anyway they can.

physics
August 21, 2008, 05:35 PM
States with Anti-Militia Laws Only (17)

* Alabama. ALA. CODE s 31-2-125.
* Arizona. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. s 26-123.
* Iowa. IOWA CODE s 29A.31.
* Kansas. KAN. STAT. ANN. s 48-203.
* Kentucky. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. s 38.440.
* Maine. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 37-B, s 342.2.
* Maryland. MD. CODE ANN. art. 65, s 35.
* Massachusetts. MASS. GEN. L. ch. 33, s 129-132.
* Minnesota. MINN. STAT. s 624.61.
* Mississippi. MISS. CODE ANN. $ 33-1-31.
* Nevada. NEV. REV. STAT. s 203-080.
* New Hampshire. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. s 111:15.
* North Dakota. N.D. CENT. CODE s 37-01-21.
* Texas. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. s 431.010.
* Washington. WASH. REV. CODE s 38.40.120.
* West Virginia. W. VA. CODE s 15-1F-7.
* Wyoming. WYO. STAT. s 19-1-106.

States with Anti-Paramilitary Training Laws Only (17)

* Arkansas. ARK. CODE s 5-71-301 to -303.
* California. CAL. PENAL CODE s 11460.
* Colorado. COLO. REV. STAT. s 18-9-120.
* Connecticut. CONN. GEN. STAT. s 53-206b.
* Louisiana. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. s 117.1.
* Michigan. MICH. COMP. LAWS s 750.528a.
* Missouri. MO. REV. STAT. s 574.070.
* Montana. MONT. CODE ANN. s 45-8-109.
* Nebraska. NEB. REV. STAT. s 28-1480 to -1482.
* New Jersey. N.J. REV. STAT. s 2C:39-14.
* New Mexico. N.M. STAT. ANN. s 30-20A-1 to -4.
* Oklahoma. OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, s 1321.10.
* Oregon. OR. REV. STAT. s 166.660.
* Pennsylvania. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. s 5515.
* South Carolina. S.C. CODE ANN. s 16-8-10 to -30.
* Tennessee. TENN. CODE ANN. s 39-17-314.
* Virginia. VA. CODE ANN. s 18.2-433.1 to -433.3.

States with Both Anti-Militia and Anti-Paramilitary Training Laws (7)

* Florida. FLA. STAT. ANN. ch. 870.06, 790.29.
* Georgia. GA. CODE ANN. ss 38-2-277, 16-11-150 to -152.
* Idaho. IDAHO CODE ss 46-802, 18-8101 to -8105.
* Illinois. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 1805, para. 94-95.
* New York. N.Y. MIL. LAW s 240.
* North Carolina. N.C. GEN. STAT. ss 127A-151, 14-288.20.
* Rhode Island. R.I. GEN. LAWS ss 30-12-7, 11-55-1 to -3.


from: http://www.thefiringline.com/library/milpara.html

ORS 166.660 says, (from http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html)
166.660 Unlawful paramilitary activity. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful paramilitary activity if the person:

(a) Exhibits, displays or demonstrates to another person the use, application or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or any technique capable of causing injury or death to persons and intends or knows that such firearm, explosive or incendiary device or technique will be unlawfully employed for use in a civil disorder; or

(b) Assembles with one or more other persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons with the intent to unlawfully employ such firearm, explosive or incendiary device or technique in a civil disorder.

(2)(a) Nothing in this section makes unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer performed in the otherwise lawful performance of the officer’s official duties.

(b) Nothing in this section makes unlawful any activity of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or any activity intended to teach or practice self-defense or self-defense techniques, such as karate clubs or self-defense clinics, and similar lawful activity, or any facility, program or lawful activity related to firearms instruction and training intended to teach the safe handling and use of firearms, or any other lawful sports or activities related to the individual recreational use or possession of firearms, including but not limited to hunting activities, target shooting, self-defense, firearms collection or any organized activity including, but not limited to any hunting club, rifle club, rifle range or shooting range which does not include a conspiracy as defined in ORS 161.450 or the knowledge of or the intent to cause or further a civil disorder.

(3) Unlawful paramilitary activity is a Class C felony.

(4) As used in this section:

(a) “Civil disorder” means acts of physical violence by assemblages of three or more persons which cause damage or injury, or immediate danger thereof, to the person or property of any other individual.

(b) “Firearm” means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of black powder or smokeless black powder and which is readily capable of use as a weapon.

(c) “Explosive” means a chemical compound, mixture or device that is commonly used or intended for the purpose of producing a chemical reaction resulting in a substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat, including but not limited to dynamite, blasting powder, nitroglycerin, blasting caps and nitrojelly, but excluding fireworks as defined in ORS 480.110 (1), black powder, smokeless powder, small arms ammunition and small arms ammunition primers.

(d) “Law enforcement officer” means any duly constituted police officer of the United States, any state, any political subdivision of a state or the District of Columbia, and also includes members of the military reserve forces or National Guard as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101 (9), members of the organized militia of any state or territory of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia not included within the definition of National Guard as defined by 10 U.S.C. 101 (9), members of the Armed Forces of the United States and such persons as are defined in ORS 161.015 (4) when in the performance of official duties. [1983 c.792 §2; 1987 c.858 §3; 2001 c.666 §§26,38; 2005 c.830 §27]

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
August 21, 2008, 06:25 PM
Actually our "professional army" is mainly comprised of the dregs of society - those who see "soldiering" as an opportunity for advancement. A good portion of the enlisted masses would otherwise be seen as rednecks, hillbillies, simple laborers, or members of every minority. By volunteering these individuals receive training, and then perform duties that earn them deserved respect as citizens.

Thats what makes this country so great, by simply standing up, the unwashed masses become respectable citizens. For many, soldiering is an opportunity for advancement.

I had to read this twice to make sure I read it right. I am still stunned. :banghead: Not only is the attitude disrepectful of soldier by calling them "dregs of society" it seems to imply that some people (rednecks, laborers, minorities) need to earn their place as citizens.

What about a farmer (or your definition of redneck) who doesn't serve. Is he/she less of a citizens?

"by simply standing up, the unwashed masses become respectable citizens"
Now is it your contention that everyone needs to serve to become a respectable citizens? Or is it just the "unwahed masses" that need to EARN there citizenship while the "elites" are born with it?

I think our founding fathers have a different idea:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Have you ever served a cause greater than your own self interest?

Have to throw in my $.02
Wish you hadn't. How about I give you your $.02 back and next time you keep "dregs of society" or "unwashed masses" comments to yourself.

Cosmoline
August 21, 2008, 06:42 PM
You need to read that quote in context. He's not dumping on the volunteer army, quite the contrary. It *IS* comprised of the lower income brackets for the most part. I think the term "dregs of society" was poorly chosen, but it was DFW1911 who chose it.

Unless the drilling and training is organizing a rebellion, it could easily be argued as activity protected by the 2nd amendment.

Did you read Heller carefully? The militia prong is all but dead letter now. There is no constitutional right to form a "militia."

Zip7
August 21, 2008, 07:23 PM
In August/September 2005 about 25 men from my church went down to Biloxi MS and worked with another church there to help rebuild their lives. We distributed food and water (it was hot as h*ll) and medical supplies and set up temporary housing for the Katrina Victims.

We didn't carry any guns and never needed them. We were there for about eight weeks with various shifts rotating in and out.

Is that the type of "militia" you are talking about? If so, I would just call it being a good citizen.


You and many others who did the same thing deserve a medal. You did far more good than anyone from any gov. entitity.

People from all over the south started showing up at the church down the street from my house about 12 hours after the storm passed with trailerloads of supplies.

My hats off to you.

OLD DOMENION
August 21, 2008, 07:36 PM
There is no telling what todays mailia, when called up would look like.
The .223 and 9mm have been declared under powered fo their job in Iraq, etc. An AR-15 cost over $1,000.
There will be a large group of bolt action gunners.
A large goup of "I don't want to be here" individuals who don't have guns.
A large group of beer bellies who are obease.
That's America....

Aaryq
August 21, 2008, 08:03 PM
Wow...I didn't realize it was against the law to form a militia in the state of ND. Wow...I guess I'd better scrap my plans to form a militia after I retire.

Elm Creek Smith
August 22, 2008, 12:42 AM
I'm too old to be a member of the Federal unorganized militia, but the State of Oklahoma unorganized militia goes to age 70. The Oklahoma State Guard is currently moribund, but the Highway Patrol becomes the cadre for it if it is ever formed.

More to the point, in the event of a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, especially if the bulk of the US military, including the National Guard and Reserves are deployed (think WW2), neighbors may need to arm and organize themselves to protect themselves, their families, and their supplies. In situations where the police are just overwhelmed or unavailable, we will need to protect ourselves, something that is easier to do when there is more than one person. If you want to call that a militia (the Geneva Conventions/Law of Land Warfare term is levee en masse), then you'll have folks armed with what they have: handguns, a mix of rifles and shotguns, in all sorts of calibers.

ECS

protolith
August 22, 2008, 01:54 AM
I would like to formally apologize if my statements offended anyone. I was posting late at night, and upon rereading my post I can see that the point I was trying to make didn't come through quite as intended, and was in fact quite offensive to our servicemen and women.

I would especially like to retract the comment:
our "professional army" is mainly comprised of the dregs of society

That was not very High Road, I did not intend to imply that our service men and women are the dregs of society. I do hold every enlisted man and officer in the highest respect for the difficult sacrifices they make in serving our country.

Perhaps I should have used the term "somewhat" instead of "mainly" in trying to make the point that the "dregs of society" are in fact often welcomed to the service. I applaud this, I champion this, as a great benefit to society.

I was trying to demonstrate that the term "dregs of society" was pointless when referring to the revolutionary militia. By using labels that we should all find offensive yet society might use to refer to those who are enlisting today.

From the lowliest individuals to the noblest that every one should look up to. The point I was intending to make is that they are all deserving of our respect for the act of volunteering to serve our country. And that military service makes fine upstanding citizens of all who serve.


I want to reiterate that I did not intend any disrespect toward our fine servicemen and women, and I again offer my apologies.

protolith

maestro pistolero
August 22, 2008, 05:47 AM
Whatever the social background of our military before they enlist, our military seems to be unrivaled in turning out honorable impressive young individuals.

george29
August 22, 2008, 01:28 PM
formally apologize

Cool !

Aaryq
August 22, 2008, 01:41 PM
It's amazing how 3 months (or whatever the boot camp duration is for the other services) of some guy or gal in a funny hat telling you that you're too ugly, too fat, too skinny, too stupid, too slow, too fast (etc. etc. etc.) turns some punk kid into a model citizen.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but it's mostly true.

As to you, Proto, I accept your apology.

sprithitler
August 22, 2008, 01:44 PM
Does the militia have to be nationwide or even statewide? Perhaps it needs only be a group of friends training together and practicing dynamic shooting together. The point is for the most part the same as with your daily carrying of a weapon, situational awareness and training. If you make sure to keep yourself and yourself reasonably well trained and reasonably well equipped it is possible to form the militia when it is needed.
The other and more likely to succeed way to form a militia is the same way as with a spy or terror organisation, compartmentalisation. The soldiers in each group should be unaware that there are more to the militia than them, the leader and founder of that group should be aware of the platoon in which his group i supposed to function should the need for the militia arise, in fact he should train and plan with the other group leaders as well as with the platoonleader who in turn should be aware of the company in which his platoon is a part and who should train and plan with the other platoonleaders and so on and so forth. This way you can with a reasonable amount of luck keep your corps of officers loyal and out of trouble as well as minimize the damage should a soldier in the militia do something stupid. OH, and remember the first and second rule of fightclub.

RPCVYemen
August 22, 2008, 04:45 PM
I had to read this twice to make sure I read it right. I am still stunned. Not only is the attitude disrespectful of soldier by calling them "dregs of society" ...


The poster's choice of vocabulary was poor, but the US has a long history of "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." The reality is that the disenfranchised have always been overly represented among the (enlisted) troops in America's war. That seems to be very true today - when I look at the high schools in my city where the Army recruit intensively, it's not not in the affluent suburbs. :)

This does not imply any intellectual/moral judgment about folks who serve - military service has been a route out of poverty/unemployment for more than one member of my family - my own father included.

What is germane about this is that minorities are very well represented in our armed forces - but not at all in our prospective militia's. If an individual soldier in one of our armed forces is involved in a racial altercation or violence against the government of some kind, most people don't believe that particular branch of the armed forces is racist in intent (or anti-government).

However, given the demographics of the prospective militia, and the general tolerance of racist language within that demographic, if any member of your militia is involved in a racial altercation or violence against the government, most people will assume that the militia itself is racist or anti-government. Most folks I have run into who entertain the idea of a militia at all seriously have a much higher tolerance for racial slurs, racist symbols, etc. than the armed forces or the general public.

All of that leads me to be believe that if a member of your militia does something boneheaded related in any way to his perception of his militia duty, everyone in the militia will be facing a conspiracy charge. Given that Tim McVeigh/Randy Weaver is the face of average militia member to most Americans, you will face an uphill battle.

The truth is that such a caricature might not be at all unfair. I have yet to see a militia that seriously distances itself from any contact with Aryan Nation types - Confederate flags are common, and I don't see much in the way of black officer in any pictures of any of the rag-tag groups that want to claim to be a militia today.

A racially balanced militia might have a better time of it - but I have never seen one of those.

Mike

Tommygunn
August 22, 2008, 06:38 PM
All of that leads me to be believe that if a member of your militia does something boneheaded related in any way to his perception of his militia duty, everyone in the militia will be facing a conspiracy charge.

Why? If someone who belonged to the same church did something illegal would that implicate any other church member?
Conspiracy must be proven.
IIRC from my early civics classes, for conspiracy to exist, two or more people must not only discuss performing some illegal activity, but take atleast one actual action toward its completion or performance before a conspiracy legally exists.
I can well imagine if a militiaman did something bad, the BATF & FBI might bend over backwards to find any such activity, but if they could find no evidence, in theory, atleast, no such charges could be made.

Now, on the other hand, it sure would further blacken the public perception of militias ......:(:uhoh:

RPCVYemen
August 22, 2008, 11:54 PM
IRC from my early civics classes, for conspiracy to exist, two or more people must not only discuss performing some illegal activity, but take atleast one actual action toward its completion or performance before a conspiracy legally exists.

For example, if the knucklehead shoots a black or hispanic man, and there is any history of racist comments attitude in the militia, I think you'd likely be facing conspiracy charges.

I think that a "general intent" to break a law is sufficient. Talking derisively about a particular minority - suggesting that that they are ruining country, aren't real "real" Americans, talking about how "something needs to be done" about that minority, all of that might be construed as the intent to commit a racially motivated crime. I have seen stuff on THR that I would not want to hear in testimony against me in such a case.

If there is evidence that the organization had a general intent to break a law, then I don't think that the burden of proof is very high - I am pretty sure that if the government can show that a conspiracy has been formed, they are not required to show that you took any over action to further the conspiracy. Here's what the font of all knowledge - Wikipedia :) - says is a typical conspiracy law:

A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

I have heard that the underlying crime does not need to be a felony. In other words, it is a felony to conspire to commit a misdemeanor.

I am not saying that you'd be convicted, but I bet you'd stand a good chance of being charged.

Or more specifically, you don't have any protection from such charges.

I am not a lawyer, so all this may be bogus. :)

Mike

Eric F
August 22, 2008, 11:57 PM
A act of congress.......enough said

Tommygunn
August 23, 2008, 12:35 AM
If there is evidence that the organization had a general intent to break a law, then I don't think that the burden of proof is very high - I am pretty sure that if the government can show that a conspiracy has been formed, they are not required to show that you took any over action to further the conspiracy.


From what I rcall, some further action beyond discussion is required. If someone is saying "something needs to be done to solve this race problem," and one of the fruitcakes goes out and commits a racially motivated murder, then he would be convicted of said murder, and those particular individuals who participated in the discussion might be charged with conspiracy (not the entire theoretical militia -- unless the entire theoretical militia was involved in the discussion) and it would become a matter for the jury to debate over whether or not they truly intended to have the one guy go out and commit the murder.
You could not convict the entire militia of an act they were not party to any more than you could convict the entire membership of a church for the actions of one or a few of its members.
Now, I am assuming the true facts are ascertainable and true justice is obtained. I'm not talking O.J. Simpson or Richard Kimble situations here. We all know in real life screwball things might happen in a courtroom.

By "general intent" I think you have something entirely different in mind than I. Whoever is actually in the process of commiting the crime must have some specific intent toward a crime.
How can I have a "general intent to break a law??" What does that mean? That I want to rob a bank but I might be happy if I wound up stealing a car and running down a pedestrian?
How do you show a group of people had a "general intent to break the law?" You can either demonstrate they broke the law, and the specific laws in question, or not.

RPCVYemen
August 23, 2008, 05:37 PM
From what I rcall, some further action beyond discussion is required.

Correct, but if Wikipedia is correct - heck they might be :) - only one member of the conspiracy needed to make an overt act to further the conspiracy.

From what I rcall, some further action beyond discussion is required. If someone is saying "something needs to be done to solve this race problem," ... and those particular individuals who participated in the discussion might be charged with conspiracy (not the entire theoretical militia ...)

If there are a series of discussions that reflect a desire to intimidate or harass a minority group, then I would suspect that the whole group would be charged. You are right that much of the decision as to whether those discussions reflect a "general intent" to break the law would be determined by a jury.

BTW, as I read the Wikipedia page, I think that the "general intent" does not mean a hazy intent - it means that the conspiracy need not target a specific victim. In other words, you don't have to show a conspiracy to harm a specific individual - you can form a conspiracy to rob a bank with only a vague notion about which specific bank. So I think that if the evidence was - or could be construed - that the militia had the general intent to harass intimidate Hispanic men, you could be charged with conspiracy if a particular Hispanic man was harmed - even if you had no knowledge of or agreement to attack/harass that specific man.

Let me make it clear that I personally am very skeptical of the constitutionality of conspiracy laws - I first learned of them in the civil rights movement, when Southern states tried to use them against organizers of demonstration in the South - I vaguely recall a law that made it a felony to conspire to commit a misdemeanor (like a black man eating at a while only lunch counter) was called an "H. Rab Brown Law" after a SNCC organizer. The Chicago 8 were charged with "H. Rap Brown Law" violations. Conspiracy laws look very close to violating 1st Amendment to me. But not only am I not a lawyer, I am not a Supreme Court judge - though I do know one. :)

But nonetheless, if a fruitcake in a militia does hurt/shoot/kill the wrong guy, the whole militia may be in trouble. You can count on the instigator being willing to plea bargain murder (in our hypothetical case) down to conspiracy, and then then it's a real SHTF situation. Then the prosecutor plays musucal chairs.

Maybe I am overly paranoid - but it looks to me like participation in any militia is a way to be (legally) responsible not only for your actions, but for any actions of any member of the group.

If that's the case, then take a close look at the folks who want to organize a militia. I think any of the militia groups in the country would have welcomed Timothy McVeigh with open arms in 1993 or 1994. Many of the folks who see to want to join a militia could be make to look very similar in court to Tom McVeigh - rants about Rudy Ridge and Waco are pretty common. People are entitled to have and express their views about those events. But I don't think you'd want to be in the docket after a crime of violence against a minority with someone ranting about David Koresh by your side. :)

Mike

Mike

Tommygunn
August 23, 2008, 07:15 PM
I think we're closing in on each other.
Of course no specific target of a racial assault is necessary. I think most racial assaults happen because the victim is unfortunate enough to be of the wrong race and present himself as an easy target to his attackers at the wrong time/place.

One thing that bugs me in a way is the assumption that a militia is necessarily racist in nature. I believe there are a number of militias that are not at all racist, but devoted to protecting Constitutionally protected rights.

Now, obviously there are racist organizations. Neo Nazis & skinheads for example come to mind; people like this I would never care to associate with on any level. Maybe some militias are and they call themselves militias to avoid the easy perception of racist groups.
Even overtly racist groups can present themselves as much lower key than are reported in tv programs and documentaries.
During my youth, every summer my family drove down from Connecticut to Alabama to visit family, in the late 1960s at a point when some interstates weren't complete my father would have to go on some backroads through towns. At one point a bunch of men were stopping cars and passing out literature. These guys were dressed in normal everyday cloths ... blue jeans, short sleeve shirts, nothing glaring just dressed like you'd see people walking around town.
Turns out they were Klu Klux Klan recruiting new members:eek: Well, my father just said "thank you" took the brochure and drove on. Now he was as far from a racist as you can get; he just didn't want any possibility of a nasty confrontation with his family right there. But the recruiting brochure certainly made the KKK look like a bunch of boy scouts; you'd never guess from what was written they (the KKK that is) had been responsible for burning crosses and all sorts of raceial violence ... even murder.
So yeah, any time you get some group together ... a lot of care is going to be necessary to vet people, and what might be regarded as a "Constitutional" militia could cover up thugs.
The reality is most of America has seen the word militia be associated with bad people so often that their opinions are tainted.

Now as for McViegh, he actually tried to join the Militia of Montana (IIRC) and after attending a couple of meetings, they told him to get lost, as he was promoting too much violence. Now, maybe they thought he was an ATF spy but maybe ... they weren't the violent insurgents the Klintonistas painted them as, either.

If there are a series of discussions that reflect a desire to intimidate or harass a minority group, then I would suspect that the whole group would be charged.

In today's environment ... heck even under the klinton regime, possibly. yes.
But those "discussions" would have to be actual planning toward the event.
If an undercover agent was involved likely a covert recording of those discussions would be made and that would show intent and motive in the trial.
But I still believe only those directly involved would likely be accused.

I share your skepticism about conspiracy laws. If properly applied, I really have no problem, but as we seem to be evolving into a greater security state and our freedoms erode, IMHO there's a greater and greater chance of abuse of these laws, as many others as well.

Steve Raacke
August 24, 2008, 08:26 AM
If, as so many here often point out, the militia includes nearly all adult males of a particular age range (say 17-65yo) then why are so many worried about racism? Example- In a community where blacks make up (just picking a number at random) 60% of the population then a citizens militia should have that percentage of blacks as members by default. Just because you are white doesn't mean you are any more or less a member of the unorganized militia than the hindu down the road or the asian guy next door. If you are in a militia and you look around and see faces which don't reflect your local population and someone is talking "superiority" then you are not in a militia. You are in a hate group. Get up and walk away.

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to fire up the militia. What's it going to look like today?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!