Is the Militia Appropriate for Our Time?

[antarti]

Then there is the fun factor, the Democrats and republicans don't have secret meetings where they show off their new Ram Line 30 round magazines for their Ruger 10-22s and discuss the best way to modify a Yugo SKS to accept an AK magazine. The Democrats and republicans don't talk about taking over by force when things get too bad.

The heck they don't...

The local Republican 2A group is where I got introduced to the book "Unintended Consequences" (although it was in hushed tones by many members) where it was applauded as "great reading". Many love to shoot on each others private land, and love to share banter about precisely what you say they don't. They had plenty of "NOLA fallout" discussions that weren't for the timid too.

They may not talk about "armed takeover", but the talk about "armed resistance to a takeover" is there.

 

[RangerHAAF]

No standing army, but no one dares to invade them. Gun-related crimes are exceedingly rare. And it's hard to find any country that really hates them the way the USA is hated by so many.[/QUOTE]

They don't have the problems that we do because they are a homogenous society, everyone is on the same sheet of music when it comes to personal and national defense. There is a continuing need for the militia and the inherent constitutional authority that gives our citizenry the right to keep and bear arms. When I start to question the need I only have to remember Liberty City Miami, South Central LA and New Orleans. Those civic disasters should be graphic lessons to all of us.

 

[antarti]

No standing army, but no one dares to invade them. Gun-related crimes are exceedingly rare. And it's hard to find any country that really hates them the way the USA is hated by so many.

They don't have the problems that we do because they are a homogenous society, everyone is on the same sheet of music when it comes to personal and national defense. There is a continuing need for the militia and the inherent constitutional authority that gives our citizenry the right to keep and bear arms. When I start to question the need I only have to remember Liberty City Miami, South Central LA and New Orleans. Those civic disasters should be graphic lessons to all of us.

Wasn't this the case (except the homogeneous part) with the USA prior to WWI (rare gun crime, nobody hated us, firearms available everywhere)?

 

[Molon Labe]

Of course militia are needed; always have been, and always will be.

FYI, I started a militia unit three years ago. We train once a month. It's been very successful. Here's our web page in case you're curious.

I think one of the surest ways to get the government to spy on you, and perhaps eventually kill you, is to join a militia.

Hmmm. Well I've been involved with the militia for quite a while, and I have yet to see any evidence to suggest the government is "spying" on me. And last I checked, I'm still alive.

 

[CentralTexas]

This thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=171865 about the Mississippi Militia got me to wondering:

Are unorganized militias or non-state supported organized militias appropriate to our time?

There was a definite need for the militia 225 years ago but as time passed it seems history has shown the need for them in the USA to pretty much have gone away.

What purpose could a militia organization serve today? Of what use could the unorganized militia ever be?

I see no use for either.

What say you?

You watch too much Bill O'Ridiculous. There will always be a need, sadly I think we are too far behind the power curve. Not enough Americans willing to die to set things right or believe in the Constitution etc.
Folks ask yourself to even give the basics of the Bill of Rights in order, I dare ya!
CT

 

[CentralTexas]

This thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=171865 about the Mississippi Militia got me to wondering:

Are unorganized militias or non-state supported organized militias appropriate to our time?

There was a definite need for the militia 225 years ago but as time passed it seems history has shown the need for them in the USA to pretty much have gone away.

What purpose could a militia organization serve today? Of what use could the unorganized militia ever be?

I see no use for either.

What say you?

You watch too much Bill O'Ridiculous. There will always be a need, sadly I think we are too far behind the power curve. Not enough Americans willing to die to set things right or believe in the Constitution etc.
Folks ask yourself to even give the basics of the Bill of Rights in order, I dare ya!
CT

 

[Lupinus]

I think it has a place. Not to overthrow the goverment or anything, but there is definatly a place for a non-goverment run organization to protect people and their rights. Case in point the recent emminent domain abuses. Knowing that there is a group that will mobilize to protect private property being illegaly seized that can put up a fight will make judges and the people who would enforce it think twice. Also look at Katrina or other natural disasters. The people that live there can mobilze ten times faster then the national guard, they also know the area better. If NOLA had a milita you wouldn't have had gun confiscation, mobs roaming the streets, mass looting, etc. Also they can be useful for setting up non-armer/non-forceful things. Handing out ice and food after a disaster etc.

I don't agree with some of these para-military groups and certianly not with anarcists or anything. Our goverment is being run by idiots, doesn't mean it should be overthrown that isn't democracy. But a non-goverment org with the power to defend your rights, and if needed by a show of force (such as mobilizing to someplace like Rivera Beach, FL), is a very good thing and I think needed. If there was maybe some of this out of control stripping of rights and shredding of the constitution would cease.

 

[yonderway]

They don't have the problems that we do because they are a homogenous society, everyone is on the same sheet of music when it comes to personal and national defense.

Untrue; Switzerland is quite a diverse country, being made up of cultures from all over the world (much as our own). It's only relatively recently that they made it relatively difficult to get in. Switzerland is arguably in some ways more diverse than the U.S. (four official languages?)

 

[yonderway]

Wasn't this the case (except the homogeneous part) with the USA prior to WWI (rare gun crime, nobody hated us, firearms available everywhere)?

My great grandmother was raised in Cripple Creek, Colorado around the turn of the 20th century. She vividly remembers seeing her first automobile, as it was a bit of a novelty in her time.

Back then, she told me, all the men carried a pistol. If they were taking the wagon into town, her father might also have a simple shotgun or a rifle of some description. She wasn't really a firearms enthusiast, so I never knew what model guns her father had around.

Anyway, to hear her tell it, it was the living embodiment of "an armed society is a polite society". Everyone was armed, and to pull one's pistols could very well mean having 10 more pulled on you. She said she wasn't really aware of gun ownership being a problem until the really violent sorts got their hands on Thompsons, the ownership of Thompsons became heavily regulated, and while most folk could only afford a wheel gun, single or double shot shotgun, or a lever gun the gangsters had machine guns and nobody could legally hold their ground against them. To hear her tell it, kneejerk gun control passed in the 1930's had a direct effect on giving the mafioso fertile ground to operate without fear of retaliation.

 

[iGSR96]

Anyone for a military history study group?

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." -Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

 

[CentralTexas]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." -Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

No longer the case sadly. California has more "grass" than rifles now. New York, New Jersey, Mass. etc. I remember when they were part of the United States....
You would also have to have people with the will to fight and the knowledge and skill we no longer possess in the majority.
CT

 

[neoncowboy]

Werewolf, I'm in total agreement with you here. Fact is, the National Guard and the various armed forces' reserve components constitute the de facto militia.

The big problem with this is that one of the purposes of the militia is to safeguard threats to liberty, threats both foreign and domestic. If the threat to liberty is a tyrranical government...and the militia belongs to (receives it's orders from, is equipped by, swears allegiance to) that same government...who is there to stand up against the government?

I think a distinction needs to be made between the "militia" (which in my mind means the whole of the armed populace, the "people" mentioned in the 2A if you will), and para-military groups that call themselves "militias". The armed populace? Definately. Para-military groups? Not sure.

What use is an armed populace if they don't train together and form cohesive units? That's all a paramilitary group is.

From my readings of the founders, it sounded like their whole model for a free republic depended on an armed populace (known as the militia) to serve as the republic's military force and to stand watch over the government, always ready to reel them in with the threat of force if/when the need should arise. They spoke of government as a force that would always try to demand more power (how right they were!) and of the militia as the last check in the system of limiting the power of the government.

Where have we gone wrong that a huge standing army and a very well armed federal police force are acceptable...but armed citizens organized into well trained fighting units are suspect? ***? We let the ATF have all the guns in the world and then accept it when they (the feds) tell us how limited our access to arms must be.

This is not the balance of power envisioned by the founders of our nation, I can promise you that!

I sort of expected more out of this crowd.

 

[longeyes]

What's appropriate now and forever is bubble-up rather than trickle-down government. In other words, responsible self-government free from tyranny.

 

[Old Dog]

Neoncowboy, I understand what you're saying, and you're supporting other's views (I also agree with you for the most part).

Where have we gone wrong that a huge standing army and a very well armed federal police force are acceptable...but armed citizens organized into well trained fighting units are suspect?

Where we have gone wrong is that we have developed an entitlement society, in which all citizens are now taught that they are entitled to reap benefits resulting from the efforts of a relative few ... The majority is too self-centered and focused on being good consumers rather than living a lifestyle accomodating even to a fractional degree the concept of service to one's country ...

From my readings of the founders, it sounded like their whole model for a free republic depended on an armed populace (known as the militia) to serve as the republic's military force and to stand watch over the government

That was entirely appropriate for the time.

I sort of expected more out of this crowd.

Hmm. The thing is, I don't believe we can judge anyone here (on this board, today) for the way things developed in this country. In days gone by, only a country interested in building an empire had a standing army. Our forefathers didn't envision our country developing as it did ... they did not want us to develop in the way we have ... In the past, the militia was the practical model for defending a small country (or Switzerland today) as most citizens could not, or would not, be willing nor able to earn a living and support their family as part of a regular army -- everyone had an occupation or trade to earn their living; if there was no reason to take up arms, no one did so. Now, we have come to a pass where few even want to be part of a militia even in a situation requiring minimal effort or time ...

 

[Jeff White]

The big problem with this is that one of the purposes of the militia is to safeguard threats to liberty, threats both foreign and domestic. If the threat to liberty is a tyrranical government...and the militia belongs to (receives it's orders from, is equipped by, swears allegiance to) that same government...who is there to stand up against the government?

Where is it written in the constitution that the militia is charged with keeping checks on a tyrranical government? Can you qoute me the passage that authorizes the commander of the militia to seize power from the elected government? It seems to be missing from my copy of the constitution. There is nothing in the checks and balances of power in the constitution that makes the commander of the local militia the final arbiter of what government action is and is not constitutional.

The well regulated militia mentioned in the second amendment and codified into the US Code as the unorganized militia, is the armed populace. There is nothing in the law providing for the organization of the militia into units. What part of unorganized is so hard to understand? An example of the unorganized militia being used in modern society would be the sheriff or mayor using armed volunteers to secure an area that was devastated by a natural or manmade disaster until proper forces could be brought in to do the job. People banding together and acting on their own, is not an example of the militia in action.

There was a thread here on THR not long ago started by a member from Florida who was almost kept out of his home by an armed roadblock set up by his neighbors after a hurricane. The general consensus was that the neighbors had no legal authority to stop traffic and were more of a hinderance then a help in that situation. Would it have been any different if their checkpoint had been flying the Don't Tread on Me flag and the people in the roadblock claimed to be members of Company B, Florida Militia Dragoons?

If you want to join a militia to be a check on the government then as far as I'm concerned you have removed yourself from the political process and you might as well start attacking the symbols of the government you hate. Why wait, why not just become an outlaw now? Have the courage of your convictions.

If and when things get to the point where it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, the insurgency will form on it's own and it will be led by men who know what they are about. Until then, jump back into the political process. It's slow, it's frustrating, but it's a heck of a lot better then living in a nation torn apart by civil war.

Jeff

 

[neoncowboy]

Where is it written in the constitution that the militia is charged with keeping checks on a tyrranical government?

Nowhere. I didn't cite the constitution.

If you read what some of the founding fathers and leaders of the American revolution had to say about the people being armed, miltias and liberty; I believe it'll be pretty obvious that their vision of the republic included the ever present threat and possibility of the uprising of an armed people to keep the government in check.

Patrick Henry is one of my favorites, he even mentions judicial tyranny!

If you want to join a militia to be a check on the government then as far as I'm concerned you have removed yourself from the political process and you might as well start attacking the symbols of the government you hate.

I tried to set my post above up where we're seeing the militia as all arms bearing Americans. I joined the militia officially when I bought my first gun, right? And I don't think it's quite as dramatic as you're making it sound. If one of the preconditions of the government seizing absolute power is a disarming of the people, then the first natural step toward preventing that ultimate power grab is to stock up and encourage your friends to do the same.

If the 'militia' is the armed populace, then encouraging people into shooting/owning guns is the equivalent of militia recruiting.

There is nothing in the law providing for the organization of the militia into units.

But when the people deem it necessary to present a display of force as a reminder that our liberties are dear and precious, unit exercises are the traditionally accepted way of doing so. Much as the colonial militias began exercises and drills around 1774. They were still participating in the political process, but after so many years of government encroachment upon their liberties, they saw it as prudent to begin preparing to fight.

Why wait, why not just become an outlaw now? Have the courage of your convictions.

Where did you get from anything I said that I think that is appropriate? As far as my orientation toward the govt. goes, I am presently in condition orange. Alert and observant, watching, waiting to see if the suspected threat will actually make a move or back down. I don't see a need for violence, but can easily envision events proceeding in such a way from this point (especially given the recent past and the trend toward totalitarianism) where insurrection is justified.

Time will tell.

If and when things get to the point where it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, the insurgency will form on it's own and it will be led by men who know what they are about. Until then, jump back into the political process. It's slow, it's frustrating, but it's a heck of a lot better then living in a nation torn apart by civil war.

+1

I haven't left the political process. I'm not hiding out in a bunker waiting for the end or anything...just looking ahead and recognizing trends.

I dunno about you, but I don't exactly see things getting any better.

 

[Eskimo Jim]

Here are four examples of how some sort of irregular defense force operated in the past

1) New Orleans -the police are gone and people have turned to looting.
2) Afghanistan in the 1980s -stymied the Russians for quite some time
3) Viet Cong -not exactly irregular but guerilla type fighters
4) Philipino resistance/ French Resistance/ Chinise Resistance WW II they sure kept a lot of the Japanese army occupied while the Allies island hopped their way to Japan.
5) Contras in Nicaragua -stymied up the marxist that seized power.

Is a militia in the US an outdated concept? NO WAY. Unfortunately its name has been slanderized by the press.

-Jim

 

[Sistema1927]

The "militia" was guarding this neighborhood in Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They didn't have any looting.

 

[Jeff White]

Here are four examples of how some sort of irregular defense force operated in the past

Well let's look at this in detail.

1) New Orleans -the police are gone and people have turned to looting.

Wasn't this individual armed citizens taking care of their own. I don't recall any reports of organized armed patrols by private citizens.

2) Afghanistan in the 1980s -stymied the Russians for quite some time

Only because they received billions in aid from the US and other Muslim nations. The Afghan resistance was on it's death bed more times then not. Without outside intervention they would have been rolled up into a happy socialist workers paradise in 24 months.

3) Viet Cong -not exactly irregular but guerilla type fighters

Supported by the Soviets and Communist Chinese and leftist radicals in the West. Was totally destroyed by Allied forces in the 1968 TET offensive and for all intents and purposes ceased to exist as a fighting force after that.

4) Philipino resistance/ French Resistance/ Chinise Resistance WW II they sure kept a lot of the Japanese army occupied while the Allies island hopped their way to Japan.

Again, a lot of outside support by the Allies. Without it they wouldn't have lasted very long.

5) Contras in Nicaragua -stymied up the marxist that seized power.

Totally supported from the outside by the US. I was there in July of 1990. Without our support the Contras would barely have been a blip on Daniel Ortegas radar screen.

Is a militia in the US an outdated concept? NO WAY. Unfortunately its name has been slanderized by the press.

The fanatics who started calling themselves the militia slandered it's name.

Jeff

 

[oldfart]

Jeff, the militia doesn't have to be organized-- but it doesn't really hurt anything if it is. Just because the people of NO didn't refer to each other with military titles doesn't mean they weren't acting in the best tradition of the militia. Local law enforcement was gone and there was no telling when it would return so, instead of rolling over and letting the looters roam free, they stood guard over their neighborhoods.
A couple of years ago some Church in Indiana (I think) got into trouble with the feds and were getting closed down. The feds did their usual chest-thumping and told all and sundry what was going to happen to the people who were planning to stand in their way.
Then someone from the Michigan Militia (I think) let it be known that they would help the people in the Church. All of a sudden, the feds decided to negotiate rather than incinerate. Did the militia threat make the difference? I don't know but it obviously didn't hurt either.
How about Jarbridge? Again, the feds were intent on having their own way regardless of public opinion. Then a whole bunch of citizens showed up in an effort to convince the feds of the error of their ways. The feds had armed police on site so it's a sure bet that a good portion of the citizenry also had something on hand for killing snakes.
Klamath Falls: I know there were armed citizens there and you can bet the local and federal police knew it too. If one of those police officers had done anything stupid they wouldn't have survived.
Fortunately, in each of these cases cooler heads prevailed. That wasn't so in Waco or at Ruby Ridge and things turned out badly. Today's militia remembers what can happen if federal police are given a free hand and I think in future cases even the feds will remember. That's not to say that the people acting as a militia will always win but neither will the forces of tyranny.

 

[Lupinus]

Jeff-

If the citizens of Riviera Beach, FL were to organize themselves into a milita to defend their homes and put down a total abuse of power would you consider that out dated or wrong?

 

[xd9fan]

yes the Militia is appropraite for our time. Local people helping and protecting local people. Its seems to work for the swiss for the past 600 years.

 

[RangerHAAF]

In using the term homogenous to describe Switzerland I mean socially, politically and philosophically. They don't have a crime ridden and violent society like we do because everyone is okay with gun ownership and excercises their responsibility in a practical and commonsense way. We have a lot of clashes here because of a very large,diverse and heterogenous population that is competing daily for a finite amount of material resources. It wasn't always this way but it is becoming more commonplace due to this basic competition.

Now on the other end of a homogenous society consider Japan, it has strict gun controls and nobody questions it because everyone does what is considered to be in the best interest of their society. It would be an unacceptable and intolerable limitation in our society but they accept it because they are told by their leaders it is necessary for their social harmony and apparently it works well enough for them.

 

[meef]

Werewolf, I'm in total agreement with you here. Fact is, the National Guard and the various armed forces' reserve components constitute the de facto militia.

And a fine job they did too - in New Orleans/Katrina.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

No.:banghead: