Glocker
Member
Indiana ???
Is there a miltia here in Indiana ? How would a person jion if there is ?
Is there a miltia here in Indiana ? How would a person jion if there is ?
Militias
- Thread starter DontBurnMyFlag
- Start date
- Status
rock jock
Member
First, its a stereotype, meaning it doesn't always fit, but usually does.
Second, its also a mindset. I have yet to read about or meet a so-called militia member that didn't fall into the lunatic fringe element.
Just to clarify, all responsible gunowners think about, and even discuss SHTF situations, and maybe some form loose associations of friends "just in case", but we don't form some kind of official "Secret Tree-House Club" with apocalyptic visions. Its pretty funny, though. If a takeover by the dreaded STATE ever did take place, you have as much as put a big neon sign on yourselves for all the attention you'll attract. Like I said, for that reason alone militias do indeed serve a purpose.
Molon Labe
Member
So I fall into the "lunatic fringe element"? How so? Go ahead, ask me anything you like...
richyoung
Member
So Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, (who were a privately formed militia before they were federalized) were a bad and illegal idea?
Ditto the Tillamahook Irregulars?
How about the Flying Tigers?
Abraham Lincoln Brigade?
Guardian Angels?
Neighborhood Watch?
Ditto the Tillamahook Irregulars?
How about the Flying Tigers?
Abraham Lincoln Brigade?
Guardian Angels?
Neighborhood Watch?
rock jock
Member
I though this thread was dead, but since someone resurrected it, I'll ask: "why did you form/join a militia in the first place?"
cidirkona
Member
I don't know if you've been to Arizona, but my local neighborhood watch could be seen as a militia... you stop locking your car doors so the BGs don't break your windows when they take stuff...
What catagory does Arizona Ranch Rescue fall into? I had thought about joining to help build fences, dig ditches and build hills... but I don't want to be shot at by alien drug runners...
-Colin
atk
Member
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen this thread (which is why I haven't responded to anyone). Also, I'll post separately for each person I'm responding to, to try and make the comments easier to read 
I apologize for bringing this discussion back to the earlier comments. I've read through, and tried to comment only on issues that don't appear resolved.
Taipei Personality,
Well, it's been a while, but I think my idea was that I'm in Massachusetts, which isn't necessarially regarded as free as other states (such as Vermont).
I apologize for bringing this discussion back to the earlier comments. I've read through, and tried to comment only on issues that don't appear resolved.
Taipei Personality,
Well, it's been a while, but I think my idea was that I'm in Massachusetts, which isn't necessarially regarded as free as other states (such as Vermont).
atk
Member
Tory,
That's a surprising comment. Not every mission requires arms. For example, does the S-1 (personnel) generally carry a firearm? Are troops generally issued arms when not actually on a mission where they're required? Are staff armed when performing an activation/deactivation?
Authorization to carry arms is dependant upon the particular mission being performed. Since its reorganization in 2003 from the Massachusetts Military Reserve, the MVM has not been authorized to carry arms. Since we usually operate on federal property, we have to wait until the National Guard decides to allow us to be armed.
In fact, the MVM (in whatever form it was at the time) has operated in every war that the US has been in, all the way back to the revolution. For example, in WWII, where it was 40,000 strong (IIRC), and operated in every theatre, including securing important locations in the state, and providing watches over various harbors when the regular Army was sent overseas.
Also, could you enlighten me to the 'primary purpose of a real militia'? Our purpose is to support the National Guard...
That's a surprising comment. Not every mission requires arms. For example, does the S-1 (personnel) generally carry a firearm? Are troops generally issued arms when not actually on a mission where they're required? Are staff armed when performing an activation/deactivation?
Authorization to carry arms is dependant upon the particular mission being performed. Since its reorganization in 2003 from the Massachusetts Military Reserve, the MVM has not been authorized to carry arms. Since we usually operate on federal property, we have to wait until the National Guard decides to allow us to be armed.
In fact, the MVM (in whatever form it was at the time) has operated in every war that the US has been in, all the way back to the revolution. For example, in WWII, where it was 40,000 strong (IIRC), and operated in every theatre, including securing important locations in the state, and providing watches over various harbors when the regular Army was sent overseas.
Also, could you enlighten me to the 'primary purpose of a real militia'? Our purpose is to support the National Guard...
atk
Member
rock jock,
Now, that would depend upon the individuals in the particular militia, wouldn't it? Kinda like if you were to change the word 'Militias' with the word 'Southerners' (apologies to all southerners - I'm just trying to point out the issue, not insult you).
Being a stereotype doesn't make it true. If you're going to paint with such a broad brush, would you mind finding some evidence to support your coments?
Now, that would depend upon the individuals in the particular militia, wouldn't it? Kinda like if you were to change the word 'Militias' with the word 'Southerners' (apologies to all southerners - I'm just trying to point out the issue, not insult you).
Being a stereotype doesn't make it true. If you're going to paint with such a broad brush, would you mind finding some evidence to support your coments?
OK. So how does one prove to you that they are not in the lunatic fringe?
So, you assume that the only mission of a militia is to prepare for a SHTF scenario, huh? That explains the security missions that Massachusetts had the MVM doing during the DNC. It also explains the Search and Rescue training we recieved this month, from the Central Massachusetts Search and Rescue Team, the MA State Police, and the MA Wildlife department. I guess learning to search for lost children/alzheimers patients/etc is part of SHTF training...
I know that wasn't directed at me, but my answer is that I wanted to do something to support my State and Country, but I didn't want to be sent to Iraq, and I'm not sure I want to get into politics. The MVM provides me with the opportunity to serve, even if in a small way.
atk
Member
Glocker,
Try checking out www.sgaus.org - State Guard Association of the US. They indicate an Indiana militia. For joining, you'd have to ask the IA Militia how
Try checking out www.sgaus.org - State Guard Association of the US. They indicate an Indiana militia. For joining, you'd have to ask the IA Militia how
mainmech48
Member
Lazarus, come forth!
While the basic question remains semantic, no: the outfits that you mentioned could not be strictly defined as 'militia' in the constitutional sense of the term.
More correctly, Teddy and the boys were a privately recruited and equipped voluteer outfit, formed ad hoc and enlisted by the regular Army as a unit for the pupose of serving in the Spanish/American War. They were not conceived nor organized to be ready to serve in any conflict or emergency; just the one, in response to the Maine incident.
The Flying Tigers were mercenaries, plain and simple. They were hired by Claire Chennault persuant to a contract he had with the Nationalist Chinese.
The Abraham Lincoln Brigade was recruited to fight for the Socialist/Communist faction in the Spanish Civil War. While one might argue over their motivations, they were in fact in the service of a foreign country. Where does that fit into our Founding Fathers' expressed concept of 'militia'?
The Gaurdian Angels might be more correctly characterized as being a 'vigilante' group, in the original sense of the term. Ditto Neighborhood Watch, as they both were conceived and formed to 'watch' in adjunct to civil police, not to punish nor to fight in any military sense of the terms.
I'll have to do some research on the Tillamook Irregulars. It's been some time since American History back in HS.
My take is that none of the above can be equated with 'militia' as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary, 10th edition:
"militia: n. Those who are not members of the regular armed forces, but who are called to service in an emergency. "
Doesn't seem like a license to put together your own little private army to me.
Of course, if you really want to, you're free to dress-up in BDUs, play Boot Camp or AIT, and call yourself Supreme Generalissimo or Sgt. Rock all you please. Not the same thing as hiring and training armed muscle for your own purposes, is it?
While the basic question remains semantic, no: the outfits that you mentioned could not be strictly defined as 'militia' in the constitutional sense of the term.
More correctly, Teddy and the boys were a privately recruited and equipped voluteer outfit, formed ad hoc and enlisted by the regular Army as a unit for the pupose of serving in the Spanish/American War. They were not conceived nor organized to be ready to serve in any conflict or emergency; just the one, in response to the Maine incident.
The Flying Tigers were mercenaries, plain and simple. They were hired by Claire Chennault persuant to a contract he had with the Nationalist Chinese.
The Abraham Lincoln Brigade was recruited to fight for the Socialist/Communist faction in the Spanish Civil War. While one might argue over their motivations, they were in fact in the service of a foreign country. Where does that fit into our Founding Fathers' expressed concept of 'militia'?
The Gaurdian Angels might be more correctly characterized as being a 'vigilante' group, in the original sense of the term. Ditto Neighborhood Watch, as they both were conceived and formed to 'watch' in adjunct to civil police, not to punish nor to fight in any military sense of the terms.
I'll have to do some research on the Tillamook Irregulars. It's been some time since American History back in HS.
My take is that none of the above can be equated with 'militia' as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary, 10th edition:
"militia: n. Those who are not members of the regular armed forces, but who are called to service in an emergency. "
Doesn't seem like a license to put together your own little private army to me.
Of course, if you really want to, you're free to dress-up in BDUs, play Boot Camp or AIT, and call yourself Supreme Generalissimo or Sgt. Rock all you please. Not the same thing as hiring and training armed muscle for your own purposes, is it?
Pilgrim
Member
Why not form a military history study club instead? You and like minded individuals can study all aspects of small unit tactics and practice what you learn sans guns in the woods. Then in 'onesies' and 'twosies', or in 'foursies', can practice with your weapons at the range.
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Taipei Personality
Member
atk,
Then you are in a far better position than I to judge the relative freedom of Massachusetts. I have no first hand knowledge of the state and would not presume to make such a judgement. I apologize if my comment was interpreted otherwise.
Then you are in a far better position than I to judge the relative freedom of Massachusetts. I have no first hand knowledge of the state and would not presume to make such a judgement. I apologize if my comment was interpreted otherwise.
richyoung
Member
"Privately recruited and equipped volunteer outfit" - sounds like a militia to me - especially BEFORE they were enlisted.
I'm confident you will find that the Tillamook Irregulars were indeed just that.
- Status
