19 April 1775 vs. The D.C. Gun Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
If these few individuals stood up with their “individual rights” against the trained and ruthless enforcers deployed against them by a police state, they would be branded outlaws or “terrorists”, demonized by the big media, deserted by their fellow citizens, and quickly picked off and packed off to morgues or detention centers.
just like they have in iraq?

Have you actually gone out to your neighbors and asked them about that? Not just the guys you go shoot with on weekends but the family next door or the one across the street. Considering the way neighborhoods are these days, I’d be surprised if you even know all of them so why should I believe you’ll all watch each others’ backs?
i don't think it was easy to "rally the troops" at any time in history. most people aren't soldiers and have no desire to be... just because we see unfriendly neighbors today doesn't mean there weren't any before, just because it's more frequent today doesn't say much either, there are more people today, frequently living in closer proximity.

Besides which, the MILITIA was and has always been an arm of government. I have no idea where some of you folks got the idea that the militia is something you can just create on your own authority. In the case of the Revolution, the militias were formed by rebel GOVERNMENTS, in each of the colonies and by the Continental Congress. Votes were taken, representatives chosen, and sovereign authority was reclaimed, all under the rule of law--albeit a new law not recognized by the Brits. In the case of the War of 1812, the militias were again raised by the GOVERNMENTS of the invaded states to repel the British. And in the case of the CW, the militias again were organized by the GOVERNMENTS of the states involved. Nobody just grabbed a rifle and marched off under his own orders.
which governemnt is the question... remember the militia were formed to fight the british, technically until we won the war there was no official or sanctioned united states. if the brits pwned us, would we not be singing a different tune? that's why it's all carefully worded, "well regulated."
 
Last edited:
"In the case of the Revolution, the militias were formed by rebel GOVERNMENTS, in each of the colonies and by the Continental Congress."

According to the lawful government in place at the time though, they were nothing but a bunch of treasonous rebels, fodder for a hanging tree unless they could be shot first. The majority of the Continental Congress had prices on their heads.

"But if it's just some neighobors getting together to kill FBI agents, they're nothing but criminals."

See above.

'When they came for the Branch Davidians I said nothing.....'

So which Church is next? Mine? Yours? I know who would stand with me... almost no one. That isn't a commentary on me or my values so much as on the American way of life. No one wants to take a risk if they can help it and certainly not for someone else. A proper militia would have to be made up of some very special people - people who think more of an idea than of themselves. We don't have many like that any more and the numbers are dropping daily. After the hue and cry following the O.C. bombing, the few militias that were viable died with barely a whimper. Even now there are people (even on this board) who are willing to denigrate the militia as a band of "criminals."

So, just what are the people supposed to do to correct the wrongs their elected representatives have perpetrated? Petition the government for redress? Bill Gates might have pockets deep enough for that sort of thing but the rest of us can go suck a lemon. Of course we can always vote the bums out but the bums we then vote in aren't any better. Perhaps we can speak up when our "leaders" come to town. It's kinda hard to be heard from the "Free Speech Zone" when it's half a mile from the rest of the crowd.

People will continue to try all those tactics - and well they should, just as the colonists did with the British Parliment, but they shouldn't expect any more success than that enjoyed by the colonists either. Nor should they expect to change anything until they organize and pose a serious physical threat to the status quo.

We peck away at our keyboards as an electronic form of chest-beating but when all is said and done, more will be said than done. There will be a second Revolution... someday. None of us will be alive to see it and our great-grandchildren will curse us for what we left for them to do.
 
We don't have many like that any more and the numbers are dropping daily. After the hue and cry following the O.C. bombing, the few militias that were viable died with barely a whimper. Even now there are people (even on this board) who are willing to denigrate the militia as a band of "criminals."
c'mon... the times hardly demand it. when the times come the people will muster.

if you've ever read the unabomber manifesto you'll see that the times will not come until some major collapse of technology. technology holds the system together becuase the system is required for technology to propogate.

the system by nature is self preserving.

people like stability. the day that stability hurts them more than it benefits them, then things will change. right now, it only hurts them some and the benefits of preoccupation and lust or covetting far outweigh.
 
It is good for the stability of government that it takes a great fraction of the population working together to overthrow a government.

It's a check on the ability of even a powerful group of malcontents to overthrow or upset a lawfully elected republic. The right recognized by the 2nd amendment is mighty powerful. What is the check on that power? It is that it takes a great number of citizens, acting in concert, to wield that power.

The saying is something like, "If you take your long gun out on your front lawn, and your neighbors do too, then it is time. Otherwise, go back inside."

You might say that the Branch Davidians took their long gun outside, in effect, and their neighbors did not.

Be happy that it's still time for politics. If it came to war, you would look back on these times with nostalgia, and wonder how many more letters you might have written, and how many more of your friends you might have been able to convince to write, or vote, or learn to shoot, or read an interesting book.
 
Last edited:
which governemnt is the question... remember the militia were formed to fight the british, technically until we won the war there was no official or sanctioned united states.

There was a sanctioned and official Continental Congress, as well as sanctioned and official local and state governments. They just weren't sanctioned by the British.

According to the lawful government in place at the time though, they were nothing but a bunch of treasonous rebels, fodder for a hanging tree unless they could be shot first. The majority of the Continental Congress had prices on their heads.

I can't believe you're actually comparing the Davidians to the Continental Congress. The Revolution was a clash between organized governments over who had the right to govern the colonies. The Davidians weren't duly nominated and elected by the people of Texas to be their new rulers.

'When they came for the Branch Davidians I said nothing.....'

Give me a break. When they came for the Davidians I said they did a rotten job of it and that feds should stay out of that kind of law enforcement and leave it to the locals to sort out. I did not and do not view a bunch of religious nutcases holed up on a compound as a lawful authority with power to defy the laws of the true government.

Nor should they expect to change anything until they organize and pose a serious physical threat to the status quo.

Organizing some buds together to play soldier is at best a joke and at worst a recipe for disaster. More to the point, that's not what a militia is. What you're describing is more akin to an armed protest. Not that all armed protest is bad. But armed protest does not a militia make. The militia would have to be created and controlled by a genuine rival government, duly elected and organized. So when someone says they're a Col in the Texas Militia, I ask who gave them their commission.

Some 20th century examples of true militias could be seen during WWII up here in Alaska when local governments had to organize armed patrols in the absence of any meaningful military protection. Or in the organization of a network of armed native scouts during WWII and the early years of the Cold War. The Texas Rangers started as a species of Militia, and again were sactioned and controlled by some organized authority above them (Austin himself and the early Texican government). Those are far closer to a true militia that some guys buying their own uniforms and pretending to be part of some revolutionary movement.

The closest thing I can think of today that might be a real militia would be if a local government called people to arms against the feds over some dispute. That's a true call to arms from a duly elected authority. It's also a very, very tricky situation and nothing you'd want to go into lightly.
 
There was a sanctioned and official Continental Congress, as well as sanctioned and official local and state governments. They just weren't sanctioned by the British.

you didn't grab the rest of my paragraph...
 
I would say that at the very least there has to be a general concurrence amongst us with respect to our bedrock values, objectives and issues, e.g., taking back the power the government has stolen from us, re-establishing our responsibility for ourselves, turning our backs on dependency, and rejecting the absurd notion of a benevolent tyranny.
 
Those tactics worked well for the Vietnamese, I'm sure it would work for us with our massive amount of square mileage.

A closer look at the VC/NLF is instructive: Not just for their stamina and fighting spirit, but for discipline, control and cohesion, and the aggressive, at times ruthless, some say, pursuit of their objectives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top