So we havent heard of State Militias resurging
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
I think you may be confusing the so-called "militias" that sprung up with the actual state militias. State militias still exist, but are typically underfunded and overshadowed by the National Guard. I suspect we may indeed see a resurgence of true state militias as budget cuts continue and there are fewer federal resources available to clean up after storms, earthquakes and so on.
Most of those laws are still there, still on the books. So technically that hasn't changed a bit. In practice of course states just rely on Uncle Cheddar.
carbuncle
Member
I agree with this, my run ins with local examples of this breed in WA were less than impressive.
herkyguy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,409
A funny aside on militias -
I completed a Masters Degree at Norwich University in Vermont. It's half military (ROTC)/half civilian, but all the professors have to be part of the Vermont Militia, complete with rank structure and all. The requirements goes back to the school's beginnings in 1819 or so. It bothers some of the more sheltered academic types up there. But I thought it was pretty cool.
I completed a Masters Degree at Norwich University in Vermont. It's half military (ROTC)/half civilian, but all the professors have to be part of the Vermont Militia, complete with rank structure and all. The requirements goes back to the school's beginnings in 1819 or so. It bothers some of the more sheltered academic types up there. But I thought it was pretty cool.
mastiffhound
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 420
In response to krupparms,
I thought very highly of some of the militias. I thought that was clear.
Getting out with some of those other types would be counter productive. A bunch of morbidly obese people sitting around drinking and shooting airsoft guns isn't doing anything.
I doubt it. I was fair to the militias. Some are serious and are a credit to our freedom, and some are just a sad bunch of alcoholics.
I never said it was, but the show seemed pretty honest. It wasn't anti-gun or anti-militia. The militias were shown to be like most americans, some good and some not so good.
Last edited:
I wouldn't be so sure that we won't see a resurgence of groups that identify themselves as "militia", but I do not think we'll see the same sorts that existed in 1990s. This time I expect the militias will be antigovernment groups composed of more mainstream citizens who are willing to engage in court actions as well as civil disobedience to proposed restrictions on gun owners as opposed to armed resistance that was the core philosophy of the 1990s.
The Administration and the Anti politicians have provided a spark to revive the militia movement, but I think the approach these militias will take will be more like a PAC with civil disobedience added.
The Administration and the Anti politicians have provided a spark to revive the militia movement, but I think the approach these militias will take will be more like a PAC with civil disobedience added.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
This I can see happening, and maybe even soon. I'll be curious to see if (m)any of those groups adopt and try to renovate the title of "militia" or if that's taken too big a hit in the shenanigans of recent memory.
For a great many people, especially outside observers, that title itself will be a distraction and stumbling block to what they're trying to achieve.
Sam,
I expect some will use "militia" with the full intent of sending the message that they recognize the "last resort" aspect of the debate and others will because of the older historical link. Many will call themselves something else not wanting to "muddy the waters", concerned that they'll not be taken seriously politically if they identify themselves as a militia.
Cuomo's War On Gunowners has provided a lot of motivation for people to speak out and threaten to act out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTdhVxva5KU&feature=youtu.be
I expect some will use "militia" with the full intent of sending the message that they recognize the "last resort" aspect of the debate and others will because of the older historical link. Many will call themselves something else not wanting to "muddy the waters", concerned that they'll not be taken seriously politically if they identify themselves as a militia.
Cuomo's War On Gunowners has provided a lot of motivation for people to speak out and threaten to act out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTdhVxva5KU&feature=youtu.be
SharpsDressedMan
member
It has been rumored that less than 10% of the men of able age in the 13 Colonies participated in the American Revolution against the British. I suspect that less than 10% of the people on this site (along with a like percentage among the rest of the populace) would truly stand up together against a government out of contol that was subverting the Constitution. The "milita" woiuld be the place to gather for such a purpose.
Bad mistake for anyone including the government to underestimate a loosely formed state militia. Those old fat white boys know the territory, can leave the "concrete pounders" in circles in the woods. They don't brag or threaten anyone as long as they aren't pushed and from this area most are better than decent shots. Old guys from WV & KY have held their own in every war, maybe a little older like me but 60yrs of shooting gave me enough practice to hit what I want.
Kansan
Member
In the "Shot Heard 'Round the Word" thread, the OP (Mac66) mentions:
Looks like they had to resort to calling it something else in the days leading up to the original Revolution.
USAF_Vet
Member
Here in Michigan, the militia has always been pretty active. In recent months, there has been a lot more activity.
I've got a buddy who runs a military surplus store, and he can't keep his shelves stocked. The volume of sales he's had since opening last year has already made him outgrow the shop he had and move to a larger location.
They might be unorganized survivalist preppers, but they consider themselves a militia.
I don't think the prepper types are planning on fighting the Government, more likely these are the bug out types. They train to defend themselves and their family and get off the grid and stay low key.
Why has this resurgence not been covered by the MSM? It doesn't push their agenda. Not until some group comes out and does something stupid. People in the militia, especially here in Michigan, know the MSM is not their friend. There was the Hutaree debacle a few years ago, and they were lumped in with all the other militia groups. The name Timothy McVeigh still stings with the Michigan militias, even though be was not ever a member. The militias still remember Waco and Ruby Ridge, and how the government treats people who did not toe the line. How did the media spin those incidents? This leftist state controlled media will never give the militias a fair shake, even if in all fairness they are just a bunch of middle aged fat white guys sitting in the woods telling lies.
I've got a buddy who runs a military surplus store, and he can't keep his shelves stocked. The volume of sales he's had since opening last year has already made him outgrow the shop he had and move to a larger location.
They might be unorganized survivalist preppers, but they consider themselves a militia.
I don't think the prepper types are planning on fighting the Government, more likely these are the bug out types. They train to defend themselves and their family and get off the grid and stay low key.
Why has this resurgence not been covered by the MSM? It doesn't push their agenda. Not until some group comes out and does something stupid. People in the militia, especially here in Michigan, know the MSM is not their friend. There was the Hutaree debacle a few years ago, and they were lumped in with all the other militia groups. The name Timothy McVeigh still stings with the Michigan militias, even though be was not ever a member. The militias still remember Waco and Ruby Ridge, and how the government treats people who did not toe the line. How did the media spin those incidents? This leftist state controlled media will never give the militias a fair shake, even if in all fairness they are just a bunch of middle aged fat white guys sitting in the woods telling lies.
Last edited:
So has the fact that the elites in the Federal Government at that time required regular inspection and cataloging of all the privately owned guns of those militiamen. A Federal gun registry and inspection that - if even proposed today - would inspire a venom that makes the current reactions look tame.
A fond remembrance of a bygone is venerable; nonetheless, that era of militia wasn't completely so.
With respect; so have young, "concrete pounders" from the Bronx, Atlanta, Washington DC and Chicago.
JustinJ
Member
Militias, as in those of the 90's, are a potential self fulfilling prophecy. What better way to motivate the government to come for your weapons than to make them believe you intend to use them against it.
Cosmoline
Member
The test for whether the militia is legitimate or not is pretty simple. If the membership is around 95% enlisted and 5% officer, then it's legitimate. If everyone is an "officer" then it's an armed political club.
palmrose2
Member
As alluded to by USAF_vet, there have been no recent recent events that compare with what happened at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco.
The OP seems to connect the 90s militia movement with Clinton's AWB. I believe it was more related to federal government tactics at the time. It was the behavior of the feds that led McViegh to his murderous idiocy.
I think that the Waco Siege led to the formation of many militias. I also think that the Oklahoma City bombing was responsible for many to put distance between themselves and the movement.
The OP seems to connect the 90s militia movement with Clinton's AWB. I believe it was more related to federal government tactics at the time. It was the behavior of the feds that led McViegh to his murderous idiocy.
I think that the Waco Siege led to the formation of many militias. I also think that the Oklahoma City bombing was responsible for many to put distance between themselves and the movement.
You have been here two days and think that THR is a Brady gun control site...
Maybe have a look around at all the calling, writing and other things the members of this site have done in defense of the 2nd Amendment before passing judgment.
Take a look at the number of members who run or help run competitions or who mentor others with hunting skills. Clearly Brady type things.
Back to the point.
My experience with militias has been very limited so I am not trying to paint with broad strokes, only to what I have seen. I am confused as to how a bunch of guys that can barely make it up a flight of stairs armed with 70 year old bolt action rifles or an AR they never shoot are going to accomplish very much at all. Now let me be clear, I am not saying that all militias are like this, but this has been my experience. I have no issue with the concept of a militia, but the execution sometimes leaves something to be desired. And as others have pointed out it does tend to make one a very clear target for the government.
Last edited:
Outlaw Man
Member
I keep trying, but that same Congress won't let me.
Highland Ranger
Member
There may or may not be more militia activity - everything you "know" is fed you through the lens of the media - no good way to judge that.
I can tell you that from my perspective, there are more people than ever shooting, buying guns and keeping extra ammo on hand. It also ok to discuss in polite corporate Northeastern conversation these days as well so if anything, seems to me everything that is going on has awakened many who were sleeping on the issue.
I can tell you that from my perspective, there are more people than ever shooting, buying guns and keeping extra ammo on hand. It also ok to discuss in polite corporate Northeastern conversation these days as well so if anything, seems to me everything that is going on has awakened many who were sleeping on the issue.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Bear in mind that any "well-run" (or well-controlled, as the case may dictate) government has (understandably) little tolerance for rival military factions in its midst. The govt made it pretty clear in the '90s that "serious militias" (i.e. the scary kind, with motivated people that have resources and are actually capable of doing things; Regardless of their motivations/membership) are no longer tolerated. Instead, they are to be ridiculed and marginalized, if not quashed outright (if too threatening). This state of affairs is our (and our forefathers) fault for not maintaining the militia.
Milita was once a civic duty (do we still have those, or is that concept "outmoded", too?) but it was allowed to fall by the wayside as the "regular" armies gained prominence over the years. Precisely the standing armies we were warned about; that would gather all the motivated, resourceful people who can actually do things for Federal service. Not local/state service.
The Republic was founded with great faith in mankind (and a heavy acceptance of our failings), but the capacity for locals to maintain a "well-regulated militia" themselves throughout peacetime for any period was apparently heavily overestimated. IIRC, militia were broken up early in the 1800s in many states because they'd become a fraternity of alcoholic, rowdy, reckless jerks who did more harm than good, and cost a lot of money. Who knows, the original militia may have been closer to that description than the white-washed histories indicate
Luckily, the militia was merely the desired byproduct of the Second Amendment, not the sole item protected by it. Our right to keep and bear arms is recognized --that we may form disciplined militia to guarantee our liberty. No promise, request, or stipulation that we actually do so. Even at the time, many citizen-soldier groups (ultimately groups of revolutionaries) were politically inclined, and actively worked to turn the public against the crown. They didn't just drill away anonymously in secret, waiting (at least, while they were still legal). Groups that do that are more like mere insurgents; more a destabilizing force aimed against authority than a pillar for residents to proudly gather about and secure their way of life.
TCB
Milita was once a civic duty (do we still have those, or is that concept "outmoded", too?) but it was allowed to fall by the wayside as the "regular" armies gained prominence over the years. Precisely the standing armies we were warned about; that would gather all the motivated, resourceful people who can actually do things for Federal service. Not local/state service.
The Republic was founded with great faith in mankind (and a heavy acceptance of our failings), but the capacity for locals to maintain a "well-regulated militia" themselves throughout peacetime for any period was apparently heavily overestimated. IIRC, militia were broken up early in the 1800s in many states because they'd become a fraternity of alcoholic, rowdy, reckless jerks who did more harm than good, and cost a lot of money. Who knows, the original militia may have been closer to that description than the white-washed histories indicate
Luckily, the militia was merely the desired byproduct of the Second Amendment, not the sole item protected by it. Our right to keep and bear arms is recognized --that we may form disciplined militia to guarantee our liberty. No promise, request, or stipulation that we actually do so. Even at the time, many citizen-soldier groups (ultimately groups of revolutionaries) were politically inclined, and actively worked to turn the public against the crown. They didn't just drill away anonymously in secret, waiting (at least, while they were still legal). Groups that do that are more like mere insurgents; more a destabilizing force aimed against authority than a pillar for residents to proudly gather about and secure their way of life.
TCB
Silent Bob
Member.
Maybe because they will get deemed a "terrorist" by the Obama administration and receive a little visit from a Predator drone that will send a Hellfire missile into their home or Dodge pick-up.
AlexanderA
Member
Keep in mind that the "constitutional" militia is supposed to have a universal membership (to the extent of all able-bodied male citizens within certain ages, etc.). When you have a self-selected membership (as all modern organized militias do), it becomes a "volunteer" militia instead of a "constitutional" militia. (BTW, this is exactly the change that took place in the militia system prior to the Civil War.) The only "constitutional" militia that we have now is the unorganized militia, as defined in the U.S. Code. So, a group of private individuals -- or even a state-sanctioned group, for that matter -- who form a militia voluntarily cannot claim constitutional protections. If you're going to claim a RKBA in a militia context, you have to remain unorganized.
- Status