What is the purpose of the Militia?

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Successful Militias/ Militia leaders, (depending on your definition):

In the US
1. Sam Houston and Everyone who fought for Texan independence.
2. John Brown's abolitionists- sparked the civil war.
3. Ku Klux Klan- Maintained their political and economic power for nearly a century through organized violence, despite fighting the government.

In recent history
4. Somalians- Heck they even have armor now!
5. Ahmed Shah Massood "the Tiger of Panshir" - Fought off the Commies and the Taliban, until he was killed just before 9/11.
6. John Garang- Kept the Northern Sudanese from killing Southern Sudanese for years.
7. FARC- Driving the Colombian Army crazy.
8. Iranian Ayatollah's - raised an army in the streets and overthrew the government.

Militia's can always be successful. They just have to be utilized successfully.

A pickup truck filled with guys with AR15s will blow an F22 loaded with Precision Guided missiles to kingdom come if they can drive close enough to it on the tarmac. It's all about the situation not the equipment, otherwise why the Heck did the Nazi's loose? They had the best tank and the first Jet Fighters?

 

[Jeff White]

Successful Militias/ Militia leaders, (depending on your definition):

In the US
1. Sam Houston and Everyone who fought for Texan independence.
2. John Brown's abolitionists- sparked the civil war.
3. Ku Klux Klan- Maintained their political and economic power for nearly a century through organized violence, despite fighting the government.

1. Sam Houston formed a real Army not a militia. Texas Independence was won in conventional combat.

2. John Brown's abolitionists lost at Harpers Ferry and were many hung....I guess that's your idea of success.

3. The KKK never succeeded. They went to prison and have been reduced to a joke. Never had any military power nor did they ever win a battle.

In recent history
4. Somalians- Heck they even have armor now!
5. Ahmed Shah Massood "the Tiger of Panshir" - Fought off the Commies and the Taliban, until he was killed just before 9/11.
6. John Garang- Kept the Northern Sudanese from killing Southern Sudanese for years.
7. FARC- Driving the Colombian Army crazy.
8. Iranian Ayatollah's - raised an army in the streets and overthrew the government.

4. The Somalis never beat any army. They are a joke militarily. They exist because of the indifference of the rest of the world.

5. Massood never beat either the Russians or the Taliban. In case you have forgotten the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan when he was killed. I would hardly call that a success.

6. Sudan is a mess and always has been. Garang didn't accomplish his mission either.

7. FARC has been an active insurgency for over 20 years, but they still don't run Columbia.

8. There was no militia in the Iranian revolution and no real combat between them and the Shah's armed forces. The Ayatollah created a popular uprising not a standard revolution.

Militia's can always be successful. They just have to be utilized successfully.

Militias were not militarily successful in any of your examples. In most cases they had their heads handed to them by conventional forces.

A pickup truck filled with guys with AR15s will blow an F22 loaded with Precision Guided missiles to kingdom come if they can drive close enough to it on the tarmac. It's all about the situation not the equipment, otherwise why the Heck did the Nazi's loose? They had the best tank and the first Jet Fighters?

It's not about equipment. It's about discipline and training. The allies beat the Third Reich by outproducing them and allowing them to beat themselves.

A militia can be a thorn in the side of an army, but they can never beat them on the battlefield. In every case where an insurgency was successful, the militia was replaced by conventional troops with a standard military structure and the war finished conventionally. Either that or there was political solution.

The militia as defined in the Constitution is not a revolutionary force. It is a force to be used in support of the elected government. Any so called militia that would form in this country without the sanction of the person designated by law to form them is not the militia of any state or the United States but a private organization that is a criminal organization in many of the states.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

One thing is undeniable: We have never suffered under a tyranny in this country since 1776. Why? Too many armed citizens. No one dares as a result. That's a success, and we haven't had to raise up one of those millions of arms to fend off a national tyranny.

Why do you think there are so many attempts to disarm us? It isn't for crime control. It isn't to prevent three-year-olds from accidentally killing themselves or others.

Woody

 

[Loosedhorse]

We have never suffered under a tyranny in this country since 1776.

Well, I'm sure you're right. But when I look at the direction of my tax bills every year, and how many hoops I have to jump through to own a gun, and how some people in the Congress seem to be elected for life no matter what they do, and that they just voted to take another $700 bil out of my and my children's pockets to pay to suspect lenders and borrowers in order to make Wall Street "feel better"...well, I just wonder sometimes if we need a new definition of tyranny.

Mr. White, I thank you for the reference.

 

[Kentak]

The militia as defined in the Constitution is not a revolutionary force. It is a force to be used in support of the elected government. Any so called militia that would form in this country without the sanction of the person designated by law to form them is not the militia of any state or the United States but a private organization that is a criminal organization in many of the states.

That can not be repeated too often. It is totally correct, despite protestations to the contrary.

K

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Quote:
The militia as defined in the Constitution is not a revolutionary force. It is a force to be used in support of the elected government. Any so called militia that would form in this country without the sanction of the person designated by law to form them is not the militia of any state or the United States but a private organization that is a criminal organization in many of the states.

That can not be repeated too often. It is totally correct, despite protestations to the contrary.

K

I concur. Anything other than a civilian armed force in support of the civil authority is not militia. It's either a guerrilla force, raiders, insurgents, revolutionary forces, mercenaries, mall ninja forces, hit squads, privateers, security guards, etc., etc...

Somebody please inform the Drive-by Media.

Woody

 

[Jim K]

Remember that it was the militia that fired "the shot heard 'round the world." And they were shooting at their own army. Any more questions?

Jim

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Well, I'm sure you're right. But when I look at the direction of my tax bills every year, and how many hoops I have to jump through to own a gun, and how some people in the Congress seem to be elected for life no matter what they do, and that they just voted to take another $700 bil out of my and my children's pockets to pay to suspect lenders and borrowers in order to make Wall Street "feel better"...well, I just wonder sometimes if we need a new definition of tyranny.

Yup. I too feel a bit like that frog - you know the one. He took a nice cool dip - then he smelled something burning...

Woody