ctdonath
Member
There is nothing "not appropriate" about it.
Is the Militia Appropriate for Our Time?
- Thread starter Werewolf
- Start date
- Status
There is nothing "not appropriate" about it.
DontBurnMyFlag
Member
we all have friends, we all have friends who shoot, we all have friends with military/combat tactics experience, we all hang out, we all shoot together, camp together, etc etc.
When I go out camping and shooting with my friends, the feds will see that as a militia. Will my friends and I defend my country from invaders/looters etc, of course. Does that make us a militia??? who knows
When I go out camping and shooting with my friends, the feds will see that as a militia. Will my friends and I defend my country from invaders/looters etc, of course. Does that make us a militia??? who knows
1911 guy
Member
Needed bot often misused.
The milita is a needed thing in any time for a free society. The sad thing is that the term militia has been bandied about by those who don't understand the concept and co-opted by those who defame the heritage.
Under our Constitution, all males betwen the ages of 17 and 45 (I think, have to double check ages) are part of the militia. We, the populace, are to be called on in times of national emergency. Most americans are clueless to this and "They" (insert evil organization here) are happy to let us forget it. The National Guard does a fine job of taking up the slack, but this has further marginalized the true militia because those who are aware of the obligation too often are blind to the "emergency" part of this and only concentrate on the "reset button" possibility. Bad press for all gun owners and serves to further alienate Average Joe from the concept. Hey, some folks think I'm radical and not even I want anything to do with groups like that.
So yes, the militia is needed, but not the militia we have all come to know and loathe lately.
The milita is a needed thing in any time for a free society. The sad thing is that the term militia has been bandied about by those who don't understand the concept and co-opted by those who defame the heritage.
Under our Constitution, all males betwen the ages of 17 and 45 (I think, have to double check ages) are part of the militia. We, the populace, are to be called on in times of national emergency. Most americans are clueless to this and "They" (insert evil organization here) are happy to let us forget it. The National Guard does a fine job of taking up the slack, but this has further marginalized the true militia because those who are aware of the obligation too often are blind to the "emergency" part of this and only concentrate on the "reset button" possibility. Bad press for all gun owners and serves to further alienate Average Joe from the concept. Hey, some folks think I'm radical and not even I want anything to do with groups like that.
So yes, the militia is needed, but not the militia we have all come to know and loathe lately.
Molon Labe
Member
And what have you done to further this goal? Have you started a militia group? If not, why?1911 guy said:
I just find in interesting that many on this board are supportive of the concept of an unorganized/citizens' militia, yet are unwilling to join or form a group.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind. I don't know what happened in either of those incidents, but I do know that the official explanations don't make much sense. What I do know is that the government made it abundantly clear that it would not tolerate whatever it was that was happening.
This makes sense in a historical context. One traditional definition of a soveriegn nation-state is that the state has a monopoly on the controlled use of violence. Since the founding of our country, the Second Amendment has made the federal government's authority over the controlled use of violence somewhat less than a monopoly, though we have been steadily progressing towards that end.
Mark my words--if the Bush administration's declaration that it is officially beyond the limits of Constitutional law is allowed to stand, it will only be a matter of time before the confiscation of privately owned weapons begins.
Molon Labe
Member
Lobotomy Boy:
I guess I don't follow you here. What does Ruby Ridge and Waco have to do with not wanting to start or join a militia group? Are you saying you're afraid the federal government will raid your group?
And again, I just find in interesting that many on this board are supportive of the concept of an unorganized/citizens' militia, yet are unwilling to join or form a group. Can someone help me out with this?
I guess I don't follow you here. What does Ruby Ridge and Waco have to do with not wanting to start or join a militia group? Are you saying you're afraid the federal government will raid your group?
And again, I just find in interesting that many on this board are supportive of the concept of an unorganized/citizens' militia, yet are unwilling to join or form a group. Can someone help me out with this?
Molon Labe...
First off, after I ETSed out of the Army, I said I'd never join anything again
.
More importantly, I would venture to guess that a lot of miltia members are Fibees and I just don't care for the attention. I like to fly under the radar whenever possible.
Biker
First off, after I ETSed out of the Army, I said I'd never join anything again
.More importantly, I would venture to guess that a lot of miltia members are Fibees and I just don't care for the attention. I like to fly under the radar whenever possible.
Biker
hayseed
Member
Molon Labe, you may have noticed that many of these same folks who say that they partake in such activity experience immidiate mock and ridicule by at least half of this community, even before they discern whether the group is a reasonable civil defense type, or the racist nutty type. It's no wonder people balk at the thought of participating, when doing so means being labeled by fellow gunnies as "bubba", "uneducated", "fat", "crazy", "extremist", ect. It's ironic that at the same time, I hear almost unanimously from this community how what one does legally with their own time and resources is no one elses business and not subject to baseless judgements (i.e., owning and shooting firearms), and how MSM, Hollywood, .gov, NEA, ect. paint gun owners with stereotypes like "bubba", "uneducated", "fat", "crazy", "extemist", ect. Now, I'm no self appointed para military group apologist. My only point in all this is that we gun owners tend to treat our own the way the antis treat us in this regard. I don't think it's right. Let's confirm groups/individuals are racist nuts before making the claim.
Molon Labe
Member
Thanks hayseed. Agree.
Here's how I believe my conversation with a Typical THR member would go:
Typical THR Member: "Yes, an unorganized/citizens' militia is an excellent concept, as it represents the last line of defense for liberty. I'm all for it."
Me: "Great! So you want to join a militia?"
Typical THR Member: "Um, you mean hang out with those fat rednecks who run around the woods with assault weapons? No way."
Me: "Wow, you seem to know a lot about the guys who are active in the unorganized militia, and what their training entails. What is the source of your information?"
Typical THR Member: "Um, well, I remember seeing a news story on militias in 1996."
Me: "So you trust the mainstream media's portrayal of the militia?"
Typical THR Member: "Well, uh, not necessarily."
Me: "And even if there are some groups who fit your stereotype, is it fair to paint all groups with this brush?"
Typical THR Member: "Well, I guess not."
Me: "So you're willing to check out a group?"
Typical THR Member: "Well, um, no. I'm a low-key kind of guy."
Me: "I see. So the militia is for other people to join. Not you."
Typical THR Member: "… and besides, there's no militia group where I live."
Me: "Then why not start a group? I mean, you've already said you support the concept of a militia. Then what's stopping you from starting a group? How about getting off your butt and doing something, instead of just talking about it? Starting a group also has the advantage that you can operate the group as you envision a militia should be operated."
Typical THR Member: "Um, well, um, I'm just not, um, into that sort of thing, um..."
Me: "I see. So you believe a militia is very important, but you're unwilling to do anything to make it happen. It's a job for others to do. Is that correct?"
Typical THR Member: "Well, um, the militia groups don't conform to my idea of what a militia group should be."
Me: "Fine. So like I said, start a group and run it the way you think a militia should be run. I mean, you said you supported the concept. So get off your butt and help make it happen."
Typical THR Member: "Yea, um. Well, um. I have to go back to my computer now..."
Here's how I believe my conversation with a Typical THR member would go:
Typical THR Member: "Yes, an unorganized/citizens' militia is an excellent concept, as it represents the last line of defense for liberty. I'm all for it."
Me: "Great! So you want to join a militia?"
Typical THR Member: "Um, you mean hang out with those fat rednecks who run around the woods with assault weapons? No way."
Me: "Wow, you seem to know a lot about the guys who are active in the unorganized militia, and what their training entails. What is the source of your information?"
Typical THR Member: "Um, well, I remember seeing a news story on militias in 1996."
Me: "So you trust the mainstream media's portrayal of the militia?"
Typical THR Member: "Well, uh, not necessarily."
Me: "And even if there are some groups who fit your stereotype, is it fair to paint all groups with this brush?"
Typical THR Member: "Well, I guess not."
Me: "So you're willing to check out a group?"
Typical THR Member: "Well, um, no. I'm a low-key kind of guy."
Me: "I see. So the militia is for other people to join. Not you."
Typical THR Member: "… and besides, there's no militia group where I live."
Me: "Then why not start a group? I mean, you've already said you support the concept of a militia. Then what's stopping you from starting a group? How about getting off your butt and doing something, instead of just talking about it? Starting a group also has the advantage that you can operate the group as you envision a militia should be operated."
Typical THR Member: "Um, well, um, I'm just not, um, into that sort of thing, um..."
Me: "I see. So you believe a militia is very important, but you're unwilling to do anything to make it happen. It's a job for others to do. Is that correct?"
Typical THR Member: "Well, um, the militia groups don't conform to my idea of what a militia group should be."
Me: "Fine. So like I said, start a group and run it the way you think a militia should be run. I mean, you said you supported the concept. So get off your butt and help make it happen."
Typical THR Member: "Yea, um. Well, um. I have to go back to my computer now..."
Last edited:
1911 guy
Member
I don't need to start a militia group.
The Constitution says I'm part of it already. To the end of being a useful member of the same, I have and will assist in hurricane cleanups (when I lived in Va.), tornado cleanups (southern Oh.), been a volunteer recovery diver for two local P.D.'s, try to awaken folks to their responsibility and take what measures I can to ensure the safety of myself and those around me. Please don't lose sight of the fact that the militia is not just to be a thing kept under wraps until the last gasp. It is meant to be in use now. I know the things I mention aren't as fun as camping out and telling war stories, but they're just as important. And more important to the survival of the legitimate militia, it's good PR.
The Constitution says I'm part of it already. To the end of being a useful member of the same, I have and will assist in hurricane cleanups (when I lived in Va.), tornado cleanups (southern Oh.), been a volunteer recovery diver for two local P.D.'s, try to awaken folks to their responsibility and take what measures I can to ensure the safety of myself and those around me. Please don't lose sight of the fact that the militia is not just to be a thing kept under wraps until the last gasp. It is meant to be in use now. I know the things I mention aren't as fun as camping out and telling war stories, but they're just as important. And more important to the survival of the legitimate militia, it's good PR.
hayseed
Member
I
Just don't train or practice for these situations with a group. That makes you a kook.
Just don't train or practice for these situations with a group. That makes you a kook.
BuddyOne
Member
What Say I ???????
I say Werewolf is trollin' the waters...
The Second Amendment clearly declares that a militia is essential, right?
Buddy
I say Werewolf is trollin' the waters...
The Second Amendment clearly declares that a militia is essential, right?
Buddy
Aguila Blanca
Member
My sister lives in NH and because I know the MA State Guard includes people from NH, I have read up on y'all a bit. And I have to wonder what your legal status is. You have attached yourselves to the MA National Guard as a way of obtaining a degree of legitimacy that might be otherwise unavailable in your paranoid state. But what if we had a situation in which a true militia would be called upon to OPPOSE the established government? Would you folks fight the government, or would you go along with the National Guard and mobilize against your neighbors to put down the "insurrection"?atk said:
another okie
Member
Switzerland is not homogenous in any way in which the word is normally understood. The militia system exists because they are so deeply divided that no one trusts a large central government to have power over them.
If you have not lived in a country divided by language you don't understand how terrible a division like that is. In addition to four official languages they are deeply divided by religion and have had civil wars in the past based on religion. Religion is the most fundamental divide in the country, Protestant v. Catholic. They are also divided by town v. country.
A good book to read if you want to know the real Switzerland and not the fantasy land is "Why Switzerland?" by Jonathan Steinberg. A reasonably good book on how the militia system works from an American point of view is John McPhee, "La Place de la Concorde Suisse", in English despite its French title. If you read German and want to see how the system worked in World War II, an excellent book is " 'Es war halt Krieg': Erringerungen an den Alltag in der Schweiz 1939-1945" from Chronos books, which is a collection of first person accounts from that time.
The French speaking population (20% or so) is basicaly anti-weapons and anti-militia and wants a large central government on the French model. In recent years there have been several national votes on gun control and on abolishing the militia system. The Swiss keep their guns because they make the case for keeping them every year and to every new generation.
What keeps Switzerland together is a delicate system of compromise and accomodation of minorities which we would call affirmative action. The German speakers put up with special accomodations of the French, Italian, and Romantsch speakers that most white male Americans would not be willing to put up with for our minorities. Any time there is a committee or a group to accomplish something the Swiss make sure there is a fair sampling of languages and religions on it. Even the presidency is actually a group among which legal authority is rotated among the different groups.
Switzerland is not an individualist's dream country. It is a strongly communitarian place where people put the group first, accept the decisions of the group, and enforce community norms through the law and through community action. Most Americans, who want to "do their own thing," would not be happy there. One reason there are Swiss all over the world is that the nonconformists all leave.
But this "group" whose norms are enforced is local, not national. The national government is very weak and has little power. Their Constitution has an equivalent of our 10th Amendment reserving power to the Cantons, but they mean it, whereas the Supreme Court has gutted our 10th Amendment. This is article 3 of their Constitution (there was a major reordering of the Constitution a few years ago and this cite may be obsolete.) It reads: "The Cantons are sovereign over anything which this Constitution does not grant to the federal government, and which is not denied to them by the Constitution." Real power in Switzerland, including rules about citizenship, is local. To be a Swiss citizen you must first be a member of a local community.
Just a small example: in many Swiss communities you may only wash cars outside on a certain day of the week. And on most Swiss subways they don't check for tickets - it's assumed everyone will obey the law. The militia system is reflection of those group norms.
That said, it is fun, when staying with a Swiss family, to go the range with them and blast off those full auto Sigs. But they only have them at home if they are in the army.
If you have not lived in a country divided by language you don't understand how terrible a division like that is. In addition to four official languages they are deeply divided by religion and have had civil wars in the past based on religion. Religion is the most fundamental divide in the country, Protestant v. Catholic. They are also divided by town v. country.
A good book to read if you want to know the real Switzerland and not the fantasy land is "Why Switzerland?" by Jonathan Steinberg. A reasonably good book on how the militia system works from an American point of view is John McPhee, "La Place de la Concorde Suisse", in English despite its French title. If you read German and want to see how the system worked in World War II, an excellent book is " 'Es war halt Krieg': Erringerungen an den Alltag in der Schweiz 1939-1945" from Chronos books, which is a collection of first person accounts from that time.
The French speaking population (20% or so) is basicaly anti-weapons and anti-militia and wants a large central government on the French model. In recent years there have been several national votes on gun control and on abolishing the militia system. The Swiss keep their guns because they make the case for keeping them every year and to every new generation.
What keeps Switzerland together is a delicate system of compromise and accomodation of minorities which we would call affirmative action. The German speakers put up with special accomodations of the French, Italian, and Romantsch speakers that most white male Americans would not be willing to put up with for our minorities. Any time there is a committee or a group to accomplish something the Swiss make sure there is a fair sampling of languages and religions on it. Even the presidency is actually a group among which legal authority is rotated among the different groups.
Switzerland is not an individualist's dream country. It is a strongly communitarian place where people put the group first, accept the decisions of the group, and enforce community norms through the law and through community action. Most Americans, who want to "do their own thing," would not be happy there. One reason there are Swiss all over the world is that the nonconformists all leave.
But this "group" whose norms are enforced is local, not national. The national government is very weak and has little power. Their Constitution has an equivalent of our 10th Amendment reserving power to the Cantons, but they mean it, whereas the Supreme Court has gutted our 10th Amendment. This is article 3 of their Constitution (there was a major reordering of the Constitution a few years ago and this cite may be obsolete.) It reads: "The Cantons are sovereign over anything which this Constitution does not grant to the federal government, and which is not denied to them by the Constitution." Real power in Switzerland, including rules about citizenship, is local. To be a Swiss citizen you must first be a member of a local community.
Just a small example: in many Swiss communities you may only wash cars outside on a certain day of the week. And on most Swiss subways they don't check for tickets - it's assumed everyone will obey the law. The militia system is reflection of those group norms.
That said, it is fun, when staying with a Swiss family, to go the range with them and blast off those full auto Sigs. But they only have them at home if they are in the army.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Yes.
It really isn't that simple. The times - they do change.BuddyOne said:
Which is why I asked if the militia is appropriate for our times.
If a genuine interest in the opinions of other High Roaders makes me a troll then ce' la vie - IMA TROLL.
I don't know about others but I tend to learn a lot from threads like this and more often than not my opinion - if not out and out changed - is modified a bit.
Knowledge is power and the most efficient way to gain knowledge is to ask questions. That is what I did and will do again.
Besides I really don't look like this at all - Well - my ears are almost that big...
So how could I be a troll?
Hobie
Member
According to VA law the unorganized militia is all males 18-45. There is a naval militia (not in fact though), the Virginia Self-Defense Force, and the National Guard. The last two being the actual, existing organized militia.
I love it when folks say there is no need for this or that anymore. Sooner or later the need is made apparent.
I love it when folks say there is no need for this or that anymore. Sooner or later the need is made apparent.
yonderway
Member
Werewolf said:
The times change, but except under extreme conditions, the constitution does not. It is not a "living document". If it's not necessary, then congress must amend the constitution. And I suspect if they tried to strike the 2nd amendment outright, they would have a bloody revolution on their hands.
palerider1
member
Is the militia needed,
Well i did some research on that subject. The government does not recognize the militia as being part of its body, other that it is formed by a group of citizens. In fact, most states have laws governing the formation of "unauthorized para-military organizations", and they also have laws which if someone in that group does an illegal act that the body of that membership can all be held legally responsible for what has been done. Call me paranoid if you want and im sure this posting will upset some militia supporters, but thats the way it is. I do not support militia groups, nor do i oppose them. I believe that it is up to each individual to decide for themselves if they want to be part of their local group. I for one have chosen not to be, as i have done my research. After 9-11 happened i thought what can i do for my country? I called the national guard, but i was 6 months too old to join, so i joined my local fire department, which i am very active in and enjoy serving my community. I'm sure we could get into a huge debate on the militia, but i am not going to. I just offer up my opinion. If we were attacked and the President called upon armed citizens to participate, i'd be there with my 45 and rifle in a second, but as of yet that has not happened in many , many decades, has it?
Respectfully yours,
palerider1
Well i did some research on that subject. The government does not recognize the militia as being part of its body, other that it is formed by a group of citizens. In fact, most states have laws governing the formation of "unauthorized para-military organizations", and they also have laws which if someone in that group does an illegal act that the body of that membership can all be held legally responsible for what has been done. Call me paranoid if you want and im sure this posting will upset some militia supporters, but thats the way it is. I do not support militia groups, nor do i oppose them. I believe that it is up to each individual to decide for themselves if they want to be part of their local group. I for one have chosen not to be, as i have done my research. After 9-11 happened i thought what can i do for my country? I called the national guard, but i was 6 months too old to join, so i joined my local fire department, which i am very active in and enjoy serving my community. I'm sure we could get into a huge debate on the militia, but i am not going to. I just offer up my opinion. If we were attacked and the President called upon armed citizens to participate, i'd be there with my 45 and rifle in a second, but as of yet that has not happened in many , many decades, has it?
Respectfully yours,
palerider1
ctdonath
Member
The legal and social cultures have chilled such activity. As LB notes, there were recently some very high-profile violent take-downs of people engaged therein (yes, they tended to be nuts, but the point was made), and there was a deliberate effort to quash any interest in doing so. Forming a militia is frought with risks which, regrettably, tend to hinder those most suited for doing so.
As indicated by the Militia Act of 1792, the Founding Fathers intended that the local governments handle the organization & training of militias. Sadly, this has proven a dismal failure.
Complicating this is prohibitions against private armies, which militias could easily be confused with.
Finally, the pressing need isn't there. We should hold home/block/town/county/etc. security drills, forming militias, but since we are indeed at great peace and face little threat, gathering people into active militia training just doesn't have the general public urgency needed to overcome the perception of "playing army".
Forming militias, practically speaking, comes down to each of us arming & training ourselves individually, preparing extra arms for family/friends/neighbors if needed, spending range time with like-minded folks, and in a sense creating a virtual militia: never identifiable, but able to materialize when needed.
And thus we come back to the 2nd Amendment argument:
To have a militia, the people must be armed. An armed populace comes FIRST, then they can bind together into an effective unit. Yes, most here have not gotten involved in an organized militia (hence the US Code defining & recognizing the unorganized militia) - but first the people must be armed, lest forming a militia be as pointless as a team of carpenters without hammers & saws.
Can somebody (Jeff?) who emphasizes the "unorganized" part about militias please square that with the "well regulated" militia? It's my understanding that the "unorganized" part is about pre-callup people-at-large vs. being federalized or post-called-to-duty, but it seems to be used in a different context in some posts.
I am not saying there are no "racist militias" or "nutjob militias", but the thread started by asking about "the militia", not any particular one, so I am assuming we're talking about the able-bodied men in each of the Several States, providing their own weapons and training.
Shouldn't the "unorganized" militia drill, have officers (even if they just rotate them every field excercise or drill practice), and make plans for deployment in various scenarios in order to be considered "well regulated"? And do all this without being labeled "bigots", "scumbags", "arch-terrorists", or worse arrested on trumped up charges, etc?
Doesn't the .fed military swear an oath to the Constitution (not to any one person)? Wouldn't the "unorganized militia" be set up to do the same? What is traitorous or in poor taste/judgement about that?
I guess I keep reading (or misreading) the "unorganized" being used in the sense of "completely isolated from each other, not communicating, and rag-tag". I don't know how to square the two, unless I totally misreading some of the above posts.
I am not saying there are no "racist militias" or "nutjob militias", but the thread started by asking about "the militia", not any particular one, so I am assuming we're talking about the able-bodied men in each of the Several States, providing their own weapons and training.
Shouldn't the "unorganized" militia drill, have officers (even if they just rotate them every field excercise or drill practice), and make plans for deployment in various scenarios in order to be considered "well regulated"? And do all this without being labeled "bigots", "scumbags", "arch-terrorists", or worse arrested on trumped up charges, etc?
Doesn't the .fed military swear an oath to the Constitution (not to any one person)? Wouldn't the "unorganized militia" be set up to do the same? What is traitorous or in poor taste/judgement about that?
I guess I keep reading (or misreading) the "unorganized" being used in the sense of "completely isolated from each other, not communicating, and rag-tag". I don't know how to square the two, unless I totally misreading some of the above posts.
yonderway
Member
antarti said:
You have to use the term "regulated" in the late 18th century sense of the word, not the modern sense.
The gist of it is, if the militia were ever needed, it would be a shame to have thousands of guys who are holding a gun for the first time in their lives wondering what to do with it. We should have guns all the time so that, if we are ever called upon to secure our free state from tyrrany or foreign aggressors, we're not standing around like a bunch of clueless tools figuring out how to make the thing work.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Well put, CTDONATH. That is one of the most well thought out posts I've ever seen.
I get that part.
The "milita" needs the regulation though.. as a cohesive unit. I didn't take the 2A to mean "well regulated individuals to form a militia being necessary".
How can you have at once both a "well regulated milita" and an "unorganized militia" if the definition of "unorganized" being bandied about is one of "well regulated individuals" not otherwise organized in any way... I don't see it squaring.
What I do see squaring is the "unorganized militia" needs to be "well regulated" also, which means they get together, train, drill, etc. just like regular troops would, even in peacetime or when not called up.
- Status