Militia

[FourNineFoxtrot]

Like I said, there are militias, and there are militias.

The second amendment would seem to indicate that since there is a militia, and this militia consists of all able-bodied people, this being the primary defense (and now perhaps an auxiliary defense) of the nation, citizens have the enumerated right to own firearms.

Frankly, I could wish that the second amendment said "Defense of one's person being an inalienable and natural right of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Unfortunately, I didn't write it.

One thing to keep in mind is that the militia was not really intended to serve an active "watchdog" role in "preserving freedom". It would be more accurate to say that the enabling of a potential militia in the very constitution was supposed to provide for exigencies of national defense, so as to obviate the necessity for a standing army.

The idea being that if we relied on a militia, called up at need, rather than a standing army, then we could sidestep the inherent dangers of such an army. The founders were far more concerned with having a standing army than with what kind of weapon a man could own. Standing armies were (and are) very dangerous. Armies being what they are, a standing army is inherently susceptible to "Caesar Syndrome". Give them a popular leader and an unpopular government, they have historically been rather prone to enthroning their favorite general. It could well have happened with Washington, had he been a different sort of man. It could have happened with Patton, if we had a different sort of country. It kind of did happen in France with De Gaulle in '58, although the result was simply a differently constructed representative government.

Now that we have a standing army, the militia (unorganized) is relegated to the role of auxiliary defense.

As I said, I personally wouldn't mind seeing militias, especially local ones. That, however, doesn't make it any more likely. As far as the government is concerned, "The Militia" is something to be called up in support of the army in times of need, or more realistically, drafted. Any other kind of militia sounds suspiciously like "Revolutionary" to them. I don't dispute that there is a difference between "preserving freedom" and "revolution", I just doubt that our government is likely to see it that way. Freedom as we tend to mean it generally means freedom from the government. Since this kind of freedom comes at the expense of government power, government can hardly be expected to support it.

 

[docwatson]

Many states today have 'anti-militia' laws from the Clinton-era on the books and joining or participating in militia training is a class 1 felony.

YMMV so check your local and state laws.

 

[yokel]

Alexander Hamilton wrote, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence."

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the issue."

Benjamin Franklin's words are still very much a part of reality.

The Second Amendment guarantees people power, not state power.

It ought to be very, very clear that an unarmed minority of virtually any stripe will not have access to liberty, freedom, and the "pursuit of happiness" without the permission and/or indulgence of the majority. It should also be clear that an armed minority -- even an armed elite -- can rule tyrannically if the majority is unarmed. Or if the majority is just stupid and uninformed.

Without guns in the households -- a lot of guns in the households -- an out-of-control, runaway government, seeking power via fear, and looking for Enemy Combatants in every closet (and without a search warrant) will have nothing to fear in carrying out its unconstitutional agenda.

The only security of a free state is when the people can defend themselves. Period.

The fact that it may not be enough is sad, but does not reduce the fact that an armed citizenry will hopefully at least make tyrants hesitate.

 

[docwatson]

@ Yokel :

Nice thoughts - and I share them - but you need to check to see if you're going to wind up jobless, gun-less, and homeless for playing in the woods with a bunch of skinheads and 'anti-gubbermint' types. The laws on the books need to be changed but idiots like the Montana Militia have made it very, very hard to form like-minded groups without coming under very close scrutiny by Federal, State, and local LEO.

Now if you were to incorporate and form a 'Society of Gun Owners and Militaria' and conducted educational recreations at events....

 

[ctdonath]

Congress has unilaterally declared me a member.

§ 311. (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 ... citizens of the United States

Duly registered with the Selective Service System. Self-equipped. DCM/CMP (and lots more) trained.

Thus, I want my M4.

 

[Treo]

We have an option that wasn't available to the colonists, we are able to hold free elections. Like it or not the Government we have now is one we put in place.

If you go back and read the Declaration of Independence Catherine was nice enough to post for us the Colonists did every thing in their power to resolve the issue peacfully, and only took up arms in self defense as a last resort.

I think America has shown what it does when politicians pass laws that the population doesn't support (think 55 MPH speed limit)

If you're looking for civil organizations to help out in time of need , there's the Red Cross, there's The Civil Air Patrol, your local VFD I thing there's actually an armed group here in Colorado called the Colorado Mounted Rangers (or something close to that) they actually have uniforms
& do security for gunshows.

 

[Tommygunn]

We have an option that wasn't available to the colonists, we are able to hold free elections. Like it or not the Government we have now is one we put in place.

If you go back and read the Declaration of Independence Catherine was nice enough to post for us the Colonists did every thing in their power to resolve the issue peacfully, and only took up arms in self defense as a last resort.

And the government we've put in place has grown ... like that gelatinous mass in the old Steve McQueen movie "THE BLOB." The government is no longer responsive to the citizens' needs it's only responsive to what gets its members four more years.
And, no, I am NOT making a case here for armed rebellion.
Why was kongress so ready under Klinton to pass an assault weapon ban? Well, certainly one reason was Klinton twisted their arm to get it. You might recall that it actually failed the first time it went through, then Slickie twisted some arms and got it. But another reason was a lot of Americans had become persuaded to the idea that one was needed due to propoganda spewed by a number of antigun organizations.
Everyone here is familiar, no doubt, with the churlish and devious propoganda these organizations fling out, and which are often picked up by the MSM. Heck, even hunters are often persuaded to believe that while their bolt actions are OK the people have no need for SKSs, ARs, AKs, and other semi auto military clones.

One thing (aside from poilitical pressure on our kongresskritters) that we need, is better education. History, and civil service, need to be revamped. As well, the PC cr@p that has been allowed to creep into the education system and replace traditional history courses must be excised.
The people need to become more of the persuasion that the government is not supposed to be big daddy to everyone, or provide a cure for all our problems, and it is not supposed to be a mechanism to steal wealth from the high income earners to redistribute to the poor.
If we get more people off the govt. teat, and away from the idea the govt. should be able to solve all the peoples' problems and cure economic cycles then, eventually, IMHO the need for some mythical "revolutionary war, part deux," will be avoided.
Watching movies like "The Patriot" allows us to appreciate what the founders did ... but war is not a romantic endeavor. "War is Hell." as General Sherman said, and he said it best. No sane person wants that.

I like the idea of a militia as much as anyone here. It's a shame some states passed anti militia laws in the '90s under Clinton -- a foolish reaction which is as short-sighted as we all believe is typical of government.
During the Clinton Regime, I was quite torn -- I genuinely feared what Clinton was doing to this country ... "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans," said Bill Clinton not long after taking office.
DO WHAT????
"Preserve the rights" of "ORDINARY Americans???" Should I have infered that he only cared about the "rights" of "elite" Americans???? -- or had no interest in anyone's rights? What an incredible thing for an American president to say!!!!!!!!!!!!
And yet the militias seemed far too ready to go off "half cocked" and start some war. Ruby Ridge and Waco seemed to exemplify to an extent the danger big government posed, even though they seemingly resulted more from excessive "enthusiasm and bureaucratic clumsiness" on the part of the governmetn than any tinfoil "conspiracy" to overthrow the Constitution. But a bunch of bubbas shooting tin cans off tree branches in the woods every weekend didn't seem the first best answer to run too -- and a fairly bad "fer Krist's sake" last ditch Hobson's Choice.

The final thought is, though, if we can't educate people better, and provide a betters sense of "civil service" and what our nation's history is, then even if we should have another Civil War ... and win ... then what have we really gained?
Nothing.
We're right back where we started.



"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." ~~Voltaire.

 

[brighamr]

Nice thoughts - and I share them - but you need to check to see if you're going to wind up jobless, gun-less, and homeless for playing in the woods with a bunch of skinheads and 'anti-gubbermint' types. The laws on the books need to be changed but idiots like the Montana Militia have made it very, very hard to form like-minded groups without coming under very close scrutiny by Federal, State, and local LEO.

Now if you were to incorporate and form a 'Society of Gun Owners and Militaria' and conducted educational recreations at events

a) Montana doesn't have a law forbidding militias
b) how many skinheads are here on THR?
c) educational recreation events are otherwise known as appleseed...

 

[Rachen]

Another thing. alexd has is spot on. I've got a strong suspicion that virtually all of the self-described Patriots wouldn't last 2 days in a fight with a modern 1st world military like the US. There's a lot of talk about having weapons capable of fighting tanks and body armor.

I am never advocating armed resistance when there is a political alternative, but as a student of history, a reader of Mike Vanderboegh and Mao Zedong, I have to ask: In these two days of fighting, just how much modern technology and superior weaponry would have been captured by the Patriots. In 1938, the Battle of Pingxingguan lasted only 5 hours, and in that 5 hours, the 8th Route Army captured over 5,000 trucks, 600 tanks, over 50,000 rifles and machine guns, and over 10 million rounds of small arms ammunition from the Japanese led by General Abuguisho.

There is an ancient Chinese saying: "A general who wins the heart of the people, will essentially win the country". Look at Vietnam. The NVA had almost all of the South Vietnamese population as supporters, and they had a righteous cause for fighting: to preserve their land, heritage, and freedom.

And in Dien Bien Phu, when the Viet Minh engaged the French in an all out battle, a great amount of that French "invincible" military technology changed hands, and had beautiful red stars with the yellow hammer and sickle placed upon them.

The Patriots in 1775 stood up against the world's most powerful military force and defeated it after 8 years of fighting.

And in China, the starving and impoverished Red Army engaged two of the most powerful Asian militaries in a 20 year period, first with Chiang Kai Shek's Guomingdang, then with the Imperial Japanese, and then, with the Guomingdang again after 1946. Over these years, they captured STAGGERING quantities of enemy technology and weaponry. From a bunch of ragtag fighters with nothing but tattered cloth to keep their feet warm in the brutal cold of the Great Snowy Mountains.......to a great republic.

 

[conw]

Tommygunn, that's a total butchering of an interview Clinton gave. I don't support the sentiments he expressed, but please don't add fuel to the fire and such by misquoting.

Clinton: You know, you can't have – be so fixated on a desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles. It's something that I strongly support. You can't be so fixated on that that when you're unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation – no other nation – has permitted to exist. And at some point, you know, I still hope that the leadership of the National Rifle Association will go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member of it – (laughs) – because they put out valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to ignore the conditions we face today in a lot of our cities and other places in this country and the enormous threat to public safety is amazing.

As you can see, taking one sentence from this as you (perhaps unintentionally) did is dishonest.

Rachen wrote:

There is an ancient Chinese saying: "A general who wins the heart of the people, will essentially win the country".

The Patriots in 1775 stood up against the world's most powerful military force and defeated it after 8 years of fighting.

Interestingly, something I was reading recently said that one of the most important "strategic" decisions in most modern conflicts was to be a "good guy." In other words, choose the side that is morally right (or at least, that the most people see as being "morally right"). The unjust side usually loses in the long run.

 

[hso]

Many states already have official state "militias" that you can join.

Tennessee's is the Tennessee State Guard. It is not the TN National Guard. It is an all volunteer force with official sanction of the state.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I would join to defend the homeland from invasion or to fight internal tyranny.

 

[primer]

I followed the link to the Tennessee state guard and I am interested something like it, but are they subject to call outside of their state? The militia that I have in mind is the one that defends/assist the home state in an emergency or while the regulars are away.


BTW: You know what really aggrevates me? I'm sitting here talking about this and am accually concerned that big brother is watching. It's a weird feeling to have to watch what you say in the fight to maintain our rights. You ever get the feeling someones watching you? It's just weird to live in a "free" country were we have freedom of speech, but have to worry about what we say. Anybody got some foil I can use?

 

[jfountain2]

hso,
Thanks for the link. I should be hearing from a recruiter soon.

 

[rjohnson4405]

Anyone know of anything like the Tennessee State Guard in Ohio? The militia's I've seen don't appear to be state sanctioned.

 

[ezypikns]

Sure.

If I was drafted.

 

[primer]

In the militia that comes to my mind there isn't any drafting. Simply people fulfilling their need to help fellow man in times of crisis. There are many of us who would choose to do good for our fellow man and for our own good. To stand up for the needs and rights of our people. Forcing people into a service to protect other peoples rights isn't what I would have in mind. Taking away someones right of choice to protect someone elses rights would be kind of hypocritical.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

If I could be a freelancer and pick my own assignments but still have command and support I would, otherwise it would be more like a Montagnard for me.

 

[hso]

Ohio - http://www.ohmr.ohio.gov/

Called to serve out of state? Seems improbable since they're funded by the state and under state command (unlike the National Guard).

 

[Treo]

Sorry Guys I Ain't up

I looked online and it appears that Colrado does in fact have a "State Defence Force" I looked up their website , I read their information, and I believe they are legit. And I'm not interested. I'm old, I'm tired & I've already spend most of my adult life in the Army. Young guys it's your turn.

 

[primer]

Treo, I understand your position. Allthough older people do have their place in the kind of militia that is my vision. Experience is a major plus. If there was a militia along the lines of the one I've been talking about, there would certainly be a place and a need for the experience that you have. Don't count your self short because of your age. Most of the time with age comes wisdom.

 

[Treo]

As an MA who's shooting to work in an E.R. I think my place in an emergency situation is kinda set.

 

[Nolo]

I am already in it.
All able-bodied males between the ages of 17 to 44 are.
And, thanks to assault rifles, even cripples are "able-bodied".

 

[Kentak]

primer,

I'm still trying to figure out what kind of militia you are envisioning. Are you thinking of an armed group, sanctioned by the state, but not under the direct command of state authority and that can act autonomously?

K

 

[MIL-DOT]

Re-read his original post, he seemed to mean both possible scenarios, from defending against illegal arms confiscation to backing up our military.