Swiss and Israeli gun culture, responsiblity.

[nicki]

Much discussion happens on this forum and others about gun rights.

What I would like to address is what are our "gun responsiblities".

Where I am going with this is both of those countries have modern day versions of many of the features "our militia" would have if previous generations had keep the responsiblity to maintain it.

If we had maintained the militia as envisioned by our founding fathers, our need for a huge military and massive police forces in the US would diminish.

Our civil order can break down anytime, we don't need a terrorist attack. Mother nature could do that to us anytime.

You see, in Switzerland and in Israel, a armed public can be seen as a major public benefit.

The reality is those who wold cause public harm are a small percentage of the population.

Having the ability to maintain public order, especially in times of crisis promotes the general welfare of the country.

A citizen based militia is probably the most cost effective means to maintain public order while at the same time the most effective way to make sure that rights are least effected.

In the old days of the West, when the sheriff needed men, he would quickly deputize average citizens and those citizens would bring their own guns.

To me, this is an example of the "Militia in action".

During WW2, armed citizen volunteers watched and guarded our coasts. That is another example of the militia in action.

It is interesting that the English were begging for Americans to send guns to them during ww2 to arm their population in case Hitler invaded.

They had disarmed their Militia and when invasion was immenent, changed their ways.

Here is one for you. When I was stationed in Hawaii in the 1980's, I had to register my guns at the local police station. All the records were kept on paper at the time.

I was talking with cops at the time about why everything was on paper and I was told that they needed to be able to quickly destroy the records.

It was a carry over from World War 2. The people of Hawaii were afraid of being invaded by the Japanese and that fear was still there even in the early 1980's.

History is on our side, even recent history.

One could argue that Katrina was far worse than it needed to be because the government officials of New Orlieans didn't maintaim the militia.

In times of crisis many Americans will help, it is in our nature. Bringing back local militias would help public safety in numerous ways and it would also help move public perception to accept that we are a public benefit.

Americans are rightly concerned about private militias, but establishing units of concerned local citizens who are under the leadership of the local sheriffs is a different story.

In fact for a sheriff to be anti gun, he would have to be anti militia and that would mean he/she is anti public safety.

If you have gotten this far what I would like you to think about and share with us is what you think should be some of the elements we would need to bring back the citizen based militias which we should never have gotten rid of.

Nicki

 

[Titan6]

Well, it has already been done. Back in 1792.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Sub in the AR-15 for the Musket and .223 for the round ball and magazines for powder and I think we have it.

 

[R127]

I agree with pretty much everything you said except this part.

Americans are rightly concerned about private militias, but establishing units of concerned local citizens who are under the leadership of the local sheriffs is a different story.

Liberals are probably really scared of militias because they are affraid of anything even vaguely martial. Look at all the laws against martial arts weapons that exist in various states and cities for an example. Beyond that there is no rational reason to be concerned about private militias. Private militia organized at the community level is the missing check and balance as well as the only form of security you can really count on in hard times. The Katrina incident also illustrated that point as the neighborhoods who banded together to form what were pretty much militias did not suffer what the areas that didn't did at the hands of looters and others.

I would agree that if a sherrif requested aid from militia local to the scene they should help out. The militia doesn't need to be called out by the governor to respond to a local security concern. I can actually think of a incident a while ago near where I live that resulted in somebody calling the police. Over half an hour later a lone officer showed up but didn't want to go back into the dark woods to investigate the disturbance alone so a few people from the neighborhood went with him. That's sensible.

I would disagree that the sheriff should lead the militia though. I don't recall such a provision in the constitution but if there is one then it should be followed. If not it would seem to be counter-productive to me as one of the chief virtues of the militia as a check and balance is that it removes the government's monopoly on force. A militia under control of a sheriff under control of whoever higher up on the food chain who decides to issue an illegal and unethical order, say seizing food and guns from families during a time of crisis like a giant freak'n hurricane, could at least in theory summon the militia to help him do this. Conversely if this was going on and an independent community ran militia got wind of it they could provide a credible deterent to the looters and probably never have to fire a single shot. The checks and balance system would be working.

Originally we weren't even supposed to have peacetime standing armies because the founders knew full well that if the government had troops it would put them to use. We were supposed to have a navy. That makes sense, a navy is important to defending a nation from invasion. Now obviously a land invasion through Canada or Mexico is possible but historically such has met swift resistance from the militia. The Soviet invasion of Finland would be another similar example. I think the concept still makes sense. If you aren't engaged in aggressive foreign policy like we're not supposed to you don't need a large standing peacetime army. A navy can keep invasion forces out of seas and skies and militia can control the ground. Artillery and other such weaponry would be stored in a community arsenal just like they used to be. If an invader did manage to wipe out the navy in one sudden fell stroke there is no way on earth they could ever in a million years destroy every community arsenal with any kind of speed and they would begin taking fire from all directions almost immediately. Militia makes a lot of sense. As you pointed out it has worked extremely well for the Swiss.

The way things are right now it'll be a while before real militias come into vogue again. In the meantime the logical course of action is to buy a handgun, get a license and carry when you are in public. If that isn't an option then lobby to get concealed carry laws passed in your area. Concealed carry provides at least a good measure of what militia does. An armed populace will always have somebody around who can end a bad situation like Assam did in the church shooting case and an armed populace is a proven deterent to violent crime.

We are by law and American tradition all militia. We should arm and train as such and probably try to organize a neighborhood watch or at least an understanding. Our broken system won't ever want us but that hardly matters. When things go bad they are nowhere to be seen and all we have is eachother.

 

[revjen45]

If I remember my history right the sheriff has been the fyrd thegn since before the magna charta. It is the duty of the fyrd to muster to defend their homes and neighbors in times of threat and emergency, and to take up the hue and cry when criminal acts are perpetrated in publick. This is most succintly set forth in the Second Amendment. Those who would enjoy the fruits of liberty are bound by honor to defend the Constitution, the People, the Republic, and the social order when Society is threatened by invaders or criminals or any other enemies, foreign or domestic.

 

[R127]

Well actually the sheriff comes from the old English system shire reeve not the fyrd thegn. The fyrd were just militia mustered from ordinary working people. A thegn was a free man at arms who served a lord and he could in fact muster a fyrd. The shire reeve, from which we get our sheriffs, was a serf elected by serfs to supervise the serfs for their lord. After a thorough search of the constitution I can find no reference to the sheriff having the power to muster the militia though an act of congress could probably legitimately set that up.

Sheriff is an elected office at least but exactly how a sheriff relates to other laws enforcement entities seems to vary considerably and I do not believe that turning over the militia to the police is a prudent move in a system of checks and balances as it only enhances the government monopoly on force. If in a given state the sheriff service was seperate from other police and law enforcement then I think a good case could be made for having him be the highest in the militia's chain of command in the county. I do believe that having been a policeman before being such a sheriff would probably be a conflict of interests.