Militia

[Ridgerunner665]

taurusowner said:

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

I may not last 2 days...but I won't go down without a fight.

 

[primer]

Kentak, Yes, but it may be un-realistic. I wouldn't hold my breath over the government letting a militia that it doesn't have complete control over exist. It would be important to be sanctioned by the government, so that access to disaster areas could be granted. And possibly have some kind of authority, so that an attempt to dis-arm us wouldn't be easily made. It would also help cut the red tape in the event that we were asked to assist the national guard locally. One of the reasons that I would want it to be volunteer is because they may be asked to do things that they may not feel comfortable doing in a disaster area. Ex: Locate and secure victims bodies, go into high direct danger areas, ect...


There are a lot of people who wouldn't last 2 days alone, but there is strength in numbers.

 

[Tommygunn]

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.


Quote:
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. ....

Conwict, look at the first sentence and the second sentence in that statement. If he "can't be so fixated on a desire to preserve the the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimatly own handguns and rifles," then why would he then say it's "something that I strongly support"??? You don't see any logical disconnect in those two sentences????
While I did not intentionally take anything "out of context," the "context" you have put the sentence into hardly clarifies anything; it merely confirms his rather dispeptic, meandering, and rather meaningless ways of getting his ideas across -- at best.
What he's saying is that it's perfectly OK to ban some guns, the 'I'm not against bolt action hunting rifles' crumb being thrown to hunters, et al, but we gotta ban the evil "assault weapons."

He also is OK with the NRA promotuing hunting and safety, since he thinks it should "go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member of it." IE., don't fight gun control laws or assault weapon bans, just be for sportsmen ... blah blah blah.

I used the portion of Clinton's statement to which I had access. While the context may not have been perfect, the full(er) quote you provide does not (A.) convince me that I was substantially wrong, or (B.) convince me Clinton had any more regard for the rights of Americans than I believed prior to your correction. I have a really hard time putting the quote I used into any context which would convey the meaning he respects Americans rights. If you can show me how the full quote you used accomplishes that end ... then fine. As it is, he's got two adjacent sentences there that logically clash ... atleast in my book.

I do appreciate that you provided a fuller quote for me to use, though; I will insert that into my notebook of "pithy quotes from the Founders, philosophers, and fools."

 

[biggiesmalls]

if obama wins and texas wants to secede, yes.

 

[LWGN]

Florida militia laws

Title XVII MILITARY AFFAIRS AND RELATED MATTERS
Chapter 250 MILITARY AFFAIRS

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.

History.--s. 4, ch. 8502, 1921; CGL 2015; s. 1, ch. 25112, 1949; s. 1, ch. 73-93; s. 2, ch. 2003-68.

Note.--Former ss. 250.04, 250.05.

 

[Kentak]

primer,

I think I have a handle on what you are envisioning, and I think it is a noble concept. However, I do believe it's totally unrealistic. No state government is going to sanction an *armed* group to act autonomously with police or quasi-police powers, emergency or not. The Alaska Self Defense Force probably comes closest to what you are thinking, but it is not autonomous. The members are officially deputized police (or, military police), and, as such, under direct command of state authorities.

K

 

[amprecon]

It seems to be that we have been conditioned to place too much trust and faith in our government and have subsequently lost the uniquely American independent, self-sufficient qualities that made those that came before us so great and admirable.

We need to stop looking to them to solve all of our problems, when we ask them for help we empower them to meddle in our affairs and as we all can see they are dismally inadequate at handling their own daily affairs let alone all of our hundreds of millions of unique and special situations.

When my fellow countrymen need help, when my country's shores are invaded I am not going to wait for the "go-ahead" from the government, I am going to take action to preserve myself, my family and my way of life. This is what our founding fathers expected of us anyway, this is their idea of the unorganized American militia.

The rest of you do what you want.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

For the reasons yous stated; natural disasters and the like, no I would not. I'm already in the Army National Guard and would be called to duty for that kind of thing. If there were a citizen rebellion against real government oppression, I would have to make that decision at that time whether to join a citizen militia against my fellow soldiers. But I also highly doubt that the number of US Military soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines that would actually oppress Americans is very high. i think most would choose to protect their families and not gun down fellow Americans.

Can you still say that with any amount of credibility after we all saw what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?
All your comrades in arms went door to door, kicking them down and stealing firearms. "Just following orders." And where's the outrage? Where were those desertions?

Nobody joins any military thinking that they are going to slaughter innocent civilians. But it sure did work out that way in the 20th Century, didn't it?

The time to make your choice is now. And it's to get out of a situation where you may very well have orders and a chain of command breathing down your neck when the "time to decide" really comes.

The German army didn't post recruiting posters saying, "WANTED: Brave young lads to invade other countries, round up and exterminate 13,000,000 innocent men, women and children. See Europe like you've never seen it before! Jews need not apply." No, they usually read something to the effect of, "Defend your country!" I wonder: did they really buy the nationalistic garbage? Did they really think that what they were doing was actually and really protecting their country?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[jfountain2]

Can you still say that with any amount of credibility after we all saw what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?
All your comrades in arms went door to door, kicking them down and stealing firearms. "Just following orders." And where's the outrage? Where were those desertions?

This is just not true. I have a freind who was called up to duty to go to Nola after Katrina, he spent 3 months there sitting on old army base waiting for someone to decied what to do. He and his unit did get to help distribute food and water eventually but they were NEVER asked to disarm anyone. A lot of things went wrong after Katrina, a lot of power was abused, a lot of trust thrown away but not everyone was bad. A lot of people did a lot of good too, it just didn't sell enough microwaves to make the evening news as much as the bad stuff.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas

Can you still say that with any amount of credibility after we all saw what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?
All your comrades in arms went door to door, kicking them down and stealing firearms. "Just following orders." And where's the outrage? Where were those desertions?

JFountain wrote:

This is just not true. I have a freind who was called up to duty to go to Nola after Katrina, he spent 3 months there sitting on old army base waiting for someone to decied what to do. He and his unit did get to help distribute food and water eventually but they were NEVER asked to disarm anyone. A lot of things went wrong after Katrina, a lot of power was abused, a lot of trust thrown away but not everyone was bad. A lot of people did a lot of good too, it just didn't sell enough microwaves to make the evening news as much as the bad stuff.

No, not every National Guardsman sent to New Orleans was kicking down doors and stealing firearms. But no one (and if any, few) declined when they were actually ordered to do so.

And that is what I was talking about.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[texas_rebel_1980]

i like to think that if the government ordered the military to do something such as attack citizens, that the soldiers would never follow such orders. after all, we are your brothers, sisters, moms, dads, aunts & uncles, cousins and friends, and fellow AMERICANS. and only the most brainwashed would side with a corrupt government. i know in my heart that 99.9999999999% of servicemen and women are good people and would do the right thing and defend the constitution.

on the militia thing, no. not unless it was sanctioned by the government, recognized as a legitimate organization and led by competent individuals. you won't catch me running around in the woods playing soldier and spewing garbage about taking back america. i love my country and countrymen. i may not agree with my government, or like them for that matter, but they are there by our hand in the election booth. the only real way to change is to cut through the nonsense and vote for the right people for this country, hard as that may be. i believe the US is on the brink of a real turning point in our history and the elections will be a catalyst of change to our future. we all must be very careful and vote wisely this november.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

i like to think that if the government ordered the military to do something such as attack citizens, that the soldiers would never follow such orders. after all, we are your brothers, sisters, moms, dads, aunts & uncles, cousins and friends, and fellow AMERICANS. and only the most brainwashed would side with a corrupt government. i know in my heart that 99.9999999999% of servicemen and women are good people and would do the right thing and defend the constitution.

Because universal human nature in the U.S. is so much different than universal human nature in those Communist countries, where Hungarians were torturing Hungarians, Germans were rounding up Germans, Ukranians were slaughtering Ukranians, and Jews were helping kill Jews?

If you read one book in your life besides the Bible, it should be "The Bridge at Andau" by James Michener.

Sometimes I wonder if Americans could ever possibly fathom the idea of being tortured, oppressed and slaughtered by people in uniform who speak English, and enjoy baseball and rock music. Then I see that they cannot.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sixtigers]

No, I wouldn't...not based on what I've seen of "militias".

20 armed and untrained personnel don't make a militia. That's a gang. Regardless of intention.

All this time to plan ahead for adverse contingencies, and nobody takes fitness, communication, transportation, medical, support, and public relations issues as seriously as armament/tactics. It's always about the guns...and that's why I don't want to "join a militia". Yes, guns are important. I get that. I have them and enjoy them tremendously...but why is it only us "gun nuts" who consistently bring up militia? You don't see HAM enthusiasts doing this--they form Emergency Communication Networks.

How come we don't see groups of medic wanna-bes forming militias? Or clans of heavy-equipment enthusiasts getting together and discussing movement strategy?

If I found a group that practiced those other skills, I probably still wouldn't join--to familiarize and become adept with those skills would take more time than I have!

I guess I just prefer to make sure my family can take care of itself, given any number of realistic scenarios. I want to be a good neighbor, and encourage my neighbors (through my example) to do the same.

I've tried to stay politically active, but I've sort of come to see Democracy as six men telling five men what to do...and now I'm more Libertarian-minded.

So...militia? No. Stand by my family, friends, neighbors, and community if necessary? Yes.

Incidentally, I'm retired military.

 

[Samuel Adams]

20 armed and untrained personnel don't make a militia. That's a gang. Regardless of intention.

So, the Sons of Liberty was a gang.

 

[conw]

I used the portion of Clinton's statement to which I had access. While the context may not have been perfect, the full(er) quote you provide does not (A.) convince me that I was substantially wrong, or (B.) convince me Clinton had any more regard for the rights of Americans than I believed prior to your correction. I have a really hard time putting the quote I used into any context which would convey the meaning he respects Americans rights. If you can show me how the full quote you used accomplishes that end ... then fine. As it is, he's got two adjacent sentences there that logically clash ... atleast in my book.

I had seen the abridged quote, too, as it's frequently circulated, and Googled it to find the full one. I think that was a verbal interview he gave, not a speech, and probably not a very formal one at that...then someone found the quote and sound-bit it. I know that in a colloquial setting something I said wouldn't sound very good, either. Now, I know he was against RKBA, and you know that too. I'm not supporting him. But it's pretty unfair to sound-bite someone that badly.

It's like taking a lawyer speaking in context of a courtroom, who says "Those women have no rights as far as I'm concerned" and turning his statement into "Women have no rights as far as I'm concerned." The first statement, while bad, is nowhere near as bad as the second.

It's just that I've noticed a lot of really badly attributed or quoted quotations in people's signatures and I think it can be sort of a negative thing for THR.

 

[herohog]

I WAS a member of the U.S. Militia (unorganized AND organized). Now I am a disabled veteran over the age of 45 and as such am simply an armed citizen who still honors his pledge to God and country to defend the U.S. from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, with my very life if need be.

 

[Jeff White]

So, the Sons of Liberty was a gang.

A criminal gang at that. How many had prices on their heads before the revolution was over?

Have no doubt about it, any unsanctioned militia that got in the way of the government would be branded a criminal and terrorist organization.

That's something a lot of modern patriots don't take into account. Our founding fathers knew what they were getting into. Many of them and their families suffered terribly for the choices they made. Some were executed, some died in prison, fortunes were lost.

It's easy to sit behind your monitor and talk about patriotism and militias. But until you are ready to be a wanted criminal, to have your family hounded, to live on the run, you should probably stick to the means the founders wrote into the constitution to effect change. Things like becoming politically active.

The founding fathers had a lot of advantages over the modern day revolutionary. I'm afraid in this day and age, the revolutionaries would be jailed before they could get one good fight in. Especially those who would post their intentions on the internet.

Jeff

 

[Treo]

Right before Desert Storm my Battery was placed on riot duty for a "demonstration" that was supposed to happen in a town called Tillicum right of Ft. Lewis.

I remember my platoon sgt telling me what the mission was & how it might involve beating up civilians.

I declined the mission & told the PLT. SGT. that I had no problem going to Saudi Arabia and killing all the ragheads (sorry guys that's a direct quote) he wanted me to kill. But I was not going to raise my hand against an American. The look of disgust on his face when he threw me out of his office was un believable. It was probably the bravest thing I did in my entire military career .

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Treo, what if it had been beating up civilians for a just cause? Why are you so willing to kill Muslims, but not willing to lay a truncheon into the skull of a civilian?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[calsdad]

I answered "yes"

As long as the militia is something that is along the lines of the original miltias we had here in the US - under local control and not liable to be sent overseas - or used to subjugate other states - by the federal govt.

This is something I have thought should be revived for quite some time.

I took an Appleseed course recently and thought the same thing as one of the previous respondents - that Appleseed graduates might should somehow keep in touch with each other as a sort of informal militia.

There are people out there who have studied the militia question and done quite a bit of writing about it.

Edwin Viera is one, he has an 8 part series on the subject you can read here:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin16.htm

William L. Lind has also written about the need to reform the militias:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/7847.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind72.html


The question is: how do we get this started? An appropriate state has to be found where this could be proposed and implemented. There was an article I read a while back about a Vermont legislator who actually proposed reviving the militia in that state - I wish I could find the article.

 

[Treo]

QUOTE:"Treo, what if it had been beating up civilians for a just cause? Why are you so willing to kill Muslims, but not willing to lay a truncheon into the skull of a civilian?"

First off the point of that story was that those who question orders that don't sound morally right are not looked upon in a favorable light. In case you missed it the powers that be were about to use active duty military in a law enforcement role against American civilians . Does the phrase "Posse Comitiatus" mean any thing to you?

As for the "ragheads" I was a soldier. I had been given orders to engage in lawful acts of war against a legitimate military target. ( we were under movement orders at the time even though we didn't leave for another 3 weeks). I did not and DO NOT see anything wrong W/following such orders.

 

[wideym]

"What if it had been beating up civilians for a just cause" What is a just cause? Peacefully protesting, marching down the street with signs? No. Rioting, burning buildings, attacking people? Hell Yes!

Soldiers don't choose who they go to war with or which religion that country practices.

 

[moooose102]

i voted yes, but it would be conditional. there would have to be a NEED for me to join. i am disabled, and can't really do a lot of the training excersises that go along with that. i try to shoot at LEAST twice a week, sometimes more. but i just cant see joining just to sit around. i guess i do not know much about the "malitia" as such, except what i have seen on t.v. it looks to me (from t.v.) like there is quite a bit of training involved. if there was a real NEED for the malita to defend our constitution, or against a forign attack on our soil, then yes, if they could use me.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

"What if it had been beating up civilians for a just cause?"

Wideym wrote:

What is a just cause? Peacefully protesting, marching down the street with signs? No. Rioting, burning buildings, attacking people? Hell Yes!

What is a just cause indeed? Is that determined by the soldier, or rather, by the politicians and the commanders whom the soldier is expected to obey?

Wideym wrote:

Soldiers don't choose who they go to war with

I've noticed. And except in rare cases such as Treo's, they also don't choose which civilians they fight with. Do they only have a right to decline some orders if they consider them immoral, (but not what foreigners they go to war with, and for what reasons?)

-Sans Authoritas

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

were guardsmen "kicking in doors" and taking guns? i didn't see that

" It was probably the bravest thing I did in my entire military career ."

there is a humerous element to that