Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

[Danzig]

a "vote" is NOT the same as representation. Sure I have a vote..but that does not mean that my viewpoint or ideology is actually represented in any way in the government. "Representation" means that there is somebody standing up for my rights..not simply that I get to vote for somebody who would support my rights IF they got elected.

The congresscritters that have been elected to represent my STATE do not speak for me. They, therefore, do not represent me.

Tennessee Gentleman, I did not in any way give a reason WHY libertarians are not represented in the government..only that they are NOT. The fact that you had to explain why I am not represented only serves to explain my point. Thank you.

The end result is the same...I have no representation in this government.

This does NOT mean that I have declared rebellion or that I plan on shooting politicians. It it what it is and nothing more.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sure you have the right to individually bear arms. If your well-regulated militia is in rebellion against the government, it won't be treason if you win! LOL . If it's treason you'd best make the most of it! I do believe the founders - at least some of them - were aware of that ambiguity.

.300 H&H thoughtful comments. Thanks. Yes, one man's treason is another man's patriotism. Or is it terrorist and freedom fighter? Oh, and the victor writes the history as to which you were.

Anyway, where I get hung up is this dichoctomy of "well regulated" and what is in reality an armed populace. This is my own bias as a retired military guy who has seen combat. When I read about this great unorganized militia I see a mob of people who report to no one, have no organization, spotty training, and a lot of keyboard bravery or may not even own a gun. I can't see that as any type of bulwark against tryanny. There are some who have little knowledge of history that point to guerilla warfare but fail to see that these guerilla groups were well organized and trained and not the X-box commandos with guns that we have today. These folks watch movies like Red Dawn and think they are Patrick Swayze:barf: ready to fight off hordes of whatever.
I think the model Hamilton talked about in the 1790s may even be outmoded. Frankly, I think if there were to be a tyrant today he or she could control us much more effectively through other means than armed combat. As a society we have become apathetic and too dependent on technology and consumerism and that is more of a weak point than a lack of machine guns in civilian hands.

Therefore I see the real bulwark against tyranny within our legal and constitutional systems and our participation in it rather than the kooky "militias" out there today.

People point to incidents like Katrina, but what stopped the gun grab was not the fact that people were armed but when the NRA filed an injunction in District court. Others foolishly argue if only the New Orleans citizens had had automatic weapons and rocket launchers then things would have been different! Crazy stuff.

It seems to me in the 21st Century the greatest bulwark against tyranny is our other freedoms such as speech, and the press coupled with better awareness by us and less apathy toward operating this wonderful self government we earned 200 years ago. Don't get me wrong though, I still believe in what Heller decided about my right to own a gun. But I want it to protect myself from criminals who are a greater physical threat to me than my government.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Oh, and Kozinski's dissent was referenced by Scalia. Albeit in dicta.

I looked for his name but didn't find it in there. I did find the case but it was quoted by Justice Stevens in his dissent. I am sure you didn't want him as a refernece

History has this very funny habit of repeating itself. To say it will never happen is to ignore what has gone on in the past. Since the past is the only reliable indicator of the future, it is wise not to ignore it.

History is a funny thing. The real problem is the context with which you view it and then try to apply it to current times. Like when people try to compare the gun issue with the Weimar Republic in 1920s Germany. Or other comparisons between the Roman Empire and the US today. Apples and oranges Al, but it sounds good!

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The fact that you had to explain why I am not represented only serves to explain my point. Thank you.

You're welcome. I guess you need to swell your numbers.

The congresscritters that have been elected to represent my STATE do not speak for me. They, therefore, do not represent me.

Yeah they do actually under law. You may not like it but see below...

The end result is the same...I have no representation in this government.

Danzig, I look forward to seeing your candidacy. Send me to your election website. Hey you might get some contributions. Remember, vote and the choice is yours, don't vote and the choice is theirs!

 

[RDak]

TG wrote in part:

When I read about this great unorganized militia I see a mob of people who report to no one, have no organization, spotty training, and a lot of keyboard bravery or may not even own a gun. I can't see that as any type of bulwark against tryanny.

But that is the bulwark against tyranny the 2nd Amendment provides TG.

Now I see why you have a problem with this. You feel ordinary armed civilians cannot form, and eventually be, a bulwark against tyranny. If you believe this TG than you are kind of arguing against yourself IMHO. It comes down to a judgment call which doesn't adequately support your own argument IMHO.

Your link to the man on youtube is worthless in this regard. He never gets to that point about the unregulated militia. He stops at the regulated, (i.e., almost quasi-military) type of militia. IMHO, he does that on purpose to avoid the real argument. He, like I said previously, is a very "dodgy" and condescending type of attorney IMHO.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you believed ordinary armed folks were not loud mouthed ineffective wackos, then you would believe they could be a bulwark against tyranny. And that's where your argument fails IMHO. Not because I, and others, believe you are wrong in your conclusion but that the unregulated militia exists.

This is where you and I differ. And I sincerely believe the founding fathers would disagree with you also. Like I said in the previous paragraph, you admit an unregulated militia exists but you feel it would be ineffective. That's merely a judgment call , like my opposite conclusion is a judgment call. It doesn't extinguish the fact the founding fathers felt the unregulated militias were the bulwark against tyranny. That's a judgment call on their part also.

Sure casualties would be very high, but we'd learn and win in the long run. There are just too many armed civilians in the USA for any tyrant to come into power and stay in power for a long time IMHO. The military would stand absolutely no chance against more than 150 million armed civilians IMHO. Those 150+ million armed civilians are the unregulated militia.

Are they effective? You say "no", I say "yes, eventually". That's all this boils down to TG.

Like .300H&H so eloquently stated, along with others in this thread, the 2nd Amendment has a dual function. Arguably more than a dual function. But for what we are discussing here, a dual function is enough.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You feel ordinary armed civilians cannot form and eventually be a bulwark against tyranny.

Because they aren't that now and so without forming and becoming a well-regulated militia they are not a bulwark against tyranny. Right now they are a unorganized group of people with guns.

That's like calling a random bunch of people sitting around throughout your town, who don't even know each other, a football team. Round 'em up put them on the field with little notice against your local college team and what would happen to them? That is, assuming they would even get on the field. I sure as heck wouldn't line up against my 20 year old. Well maybe since I still have the checkbook

As Katrina showed, even when the authorities are out of line and act in a tyrannical way the guns the unorganized militia had didn't stop the rogue government officials but a legal document did. An injunction filed by the NRA.

Anyway, the 2A talks about a "well-regulated" militia which an unorganized group of people with guns are not.

they could be a bulwark against tyranny

Maybe they could be but they aren't now and therefore not a bulwark against tyranny.

It doesn't extinguish the fact the founding fathers felt the unregulated militias were the bulwark against tyranny. That's a judgment call on their part also.

They may have felt that way then but I maintain it ain't true today. Our democratic government has matured and grown to a point where a despot couldn't take over as Adolf Hitler did in Germany in 1933. Say what you will about George Bush, he will leave office in January of 2009 and be gone. Our system is the bulwark against tyranny and THAT is what I really believe the founding fathers wanted.

BTW Do you think 150 million people would take up arms even if the SHTF? I don't think you'd get a quarter that many if even that. Of course all who post here would be there ready to deal death Just like Red Dawn!

 

[Stagger Lee]

In reality, our founding fathers put so many checks and balances in place that it would be damned near impossible for the "tyrant" that some of you are cleartly hoping for to attain and keep power in this country.

But what's really sad is that I think that there are a number of people--some here on this board--who really wish that it would happen just so they can pull on their size XXL store-bought cammies and run down the street towards the nearest federal building with their SKS and a pocketful of detachable plastic 30-round magazines. I've heard the so-called "unorganized militia" types talk about this stuff in their public meetings and it's obvious that many of them long for the day...the day that they can actually be somebody for once in their sad lives.

And this sort of fantasy game where it's chic and "cool" to pretend that the Democratically-elected government of this country will turn rogue just to validate the hate and bitterness that some people feel is amazing. It's a relatively new phenomenon too. You'd have never heard this stuff back in the 1940's and 50's from our "greatest generation". No, back then patriotism was in vogue. This stuff where people now pretend that they're the ideological kin of our founding fathers and warp the founders' ideals in order to justify their self-exclusion from and hatred of our society is really just pretty sad.

If you don't like the direction the government is going, work for a good candidate or run for office yourself. If you want to fight and kill people, join the military and serve like the real patriots do. But sitting around typing on the computer about how you're standing ready to oppose some tyranny that doesn't exist and can't happen really doesn't accomplish anything now, does it?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Stagger Lee,

More reason.

I have really seen on this board and at some gun shows I attended great credence to the claims from the anti gunners that we gun owners are insecure sad losers in life who only feel powerful because we have guns.

I hate to even say this but maybe Obama hit on something with his bitter remarks. It's not true what he said about us all but there is some truth in it for some.

 

[copenhagen]

Stagger Lee:

XXL?

Why I'm a size 32/34 (Med/Extra Long for you Military types.)

SKS's with Plastic Mags?

I prefer an HK 91 with Steel Magazines, thank you.

Fantasy game?

Hmm, well while most Americans are watching the fantasy worlds of the stars, I'm performing weapons maintenance.

"Cool" to pretend?

Why I don't think there's anything cool about realizing that the principles our country was founded upon are being eroded.

Never heard of this stuff back in the '40s and '50s?

HAHA, of course not, back then we weren't being pushed quite the way we are today, hell, you can't even build a shed without begging permission these days.

Work for a good candidate?

Did all I could to get Dr. Paul in. Even gave him a full pay check.

If you want to fight and kill people, join the military and serve like the real patriots do?

Want to fight and kill people? No, that is not why I have almost 6 years in the Marine Corps. I actually give a damn, that is why.

Stagger Lee, your comments made me sick to the stomach.

 

[RDak]

TG: That's why I say "yes, eventually".

Stagger Lee: I hope what I'm arguing never happens for Godsakes.

Edit: I got a quote from Hamilton for you and Stagger Lee. This is what I believe the founding fathers felt (i.e., that the ordinary armed folks could eventually be a bulwark to tyranny).

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."

Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Papers 29

Now we could argue till the cows come home if ordinary armed folks could ever muster this type of cohesiveness but the founding fathers clearly felt the unregulated militias were the bulwark against tyranny IMHO.

This is all I'm saying Stagger Lee. I hope we never have to find out.

TG you asked me (in so many words) if I believe 150+ million people would ever fight? Yes, if things got bad enough I believe they would.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Want to fight and kill people? No, that is not why I have almost 6 years in the Marine Corps. I actually give a damn, that is why.
Stagger Lee, your comments made me sick to the stomach.

copenhagen, are you still on active duty?

If so do you realize that what many on this thread are saying is that you as a US Marine would follow illegal orders and be a lackey for some tyrant against the people you "give a damn about" and that is why we need an armed unorganized militia to fight YOU.

You see I spent 21 years in the military and I say they are full of #$*(#. Stagger Lee shouldn't make you sick, the dolts on here that say you would turn on your country and disregard the Constitution and your oath of service should make you sick.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This is what I believe the founding fathers felt (i.e., that the ordinary armed folks could eventually be a bulwark to tyranny).

Maybe then they believed that then but it isn't true now. They also believed we should not have a standing army of any appreciable size (even though G. Washington said the militia was basically rabble) and yet today we do. That is the danger Alex Hamilton feared. Some on here think a large standing army is unconstitutional. They also wear tin foil hats.

 

[Stagger Lee]

And let us not forget that our first full-time, paid professional Navy was created at the request of President Thomas Jefferson, who realized that it was necessary to protect American interests on the high seas.

Apparently the unorganized militia was doing something else.

 

[RDak]

Yeah, they were building the ships for the Navy to use.

 

[.300H&H]

Oh the militias were quite busy during Thomas Jefferson's day. For example, the Vice President of Jefferson's 1st term - was Aaron Burr, who had tied Jefferson in electoral votes - 73 - for the office of president. After 36 ballots were cast in the House of Reps. - Jefferson was made Pres. and Burr was made VP. T'was during these aftermath years that Burr and Hamilton dueled<guess they had a different sense of gun control?> While most historians point out the duel, few point out that Burr had been involved in 1 prior duel, but that Hanilton had been involved in over 21 prior duels<most being settled before reaching the field of combat>and that Hamilton's eldest son , Phillip, had died in a duel. Incidentally New York and New Jersey charged Burr with 'felony' murder<but Burr's right to CCW and gun ownership were never taken away>and the charges later disappeared.
BTW, I think Hamilton was a fascist goon.


Burr was later accused of TREASON by Jefferson. Burr had formed a regiment of men<well-regulated?> to seize possesion of territory in the Lousiana Purchase territory of Mexico ostensibly to set up a separate state or nation-state. What was actually going on - is a bit hard to decipher ie. 'Wilkinson' , a lead organizer of the expedition was a confidant of both Jefferson and Burr - but was in fact a spy for Spain. Another leader of the Burr expedition had already set up a private kingdom on an island in the Ohio River - that was later seized by the 'Virginia Militia.'


Burr was acquitted of all charges of Treason, and Burr was basically exonorated of such charges despite the rantings of Jefferson who at one time even called for Burr to be tortured. Jefferson was hellbent on doing all sorts of things to get Burr, including violating the Civil Liberties of people associated with Burr - BUT AT NO TIME WAS BURR'S INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS QUESTIONED! The Supreme Court decided in favor of Burr rather than Jefferson. John Adams was a great admirer of Burr.


The ambiguity of the 2nd amendment is not found in the INDIVUAL'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS inasmuch it is found in the area of what constitutes a 'state' and a 'well-regulated militia.' At the time the 2nd Amend was written, the states had more power as entities than did the Federal Govt. There was concern that one state might coerce or make war against another state.


Jefferson went nuts over Burr - not because Burr had 80 men who were bearing arms - but because Burr was believed to be seeking to form an 'Empire In The West.' Argueably this did sorta happen in the west ie. Texas did later become an Independent Republic, which then triggered the Hartford Convention in which New England states threatened to secede from the Union if Texas was allowed to be a state.


In all these cases despite individual men bearing arms did the government - state or federal - seek to take away the rights of individuals to bear arms, although the question of what constituted a legitimate state and state power would continue to be problematic. The Heller decision merely reaffirmed the rights of individuals to bear arms regardless of the collective powers of the states in which they live.


I'm not personally a 'militia' member or really involved in the modern 'militia movement.' I have heard both positive and negatives about these modern groups. All I will say is that regardless of the goodness or badness of these movements, the individulas who join them or chose to disavow them - are all entitled to bear arms as individulas and to make up their own minds.


My favorite 'founder' was Ben Franklin. My least favorite was Hamilton.

 

[Danzig]

Tennessee Gentleman, it is my intent to one day run for public office but at this time, the Hatch Act prohibits me from doing so. I am looking at about eight and a half years before I can run for public office. I will most definitely let you know when my campaign begins. Alas, I do not aspire to any national or state level office. I believe that I can be more effective on a local level. Ron Paul has proven that a single Libertarian voice can not accomplish enough good on a national level if not enough people are willing to hear him.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

the Hatch Act prohibits me from doing so.

This must mean you too are on active duty like copenhagen. I was Army.

How do you feel having others on this board most of whom never served saying we need to have an armed populace to protect them from YOU. Do you feel you would become a stooge of a tyrant and that most of your compatriots and you would forget your oath of enlistment or office and suppress your fellow countryman unconstituionally turning the US into a fascist state? Makes me pretty damn mad

 

[Stagger Lee]

Well, T.G., you have to remember that the vast majority of the internet militia have never served. They have no understanding of the patriotism that inspires military service or the honor that guides most military personnel. And naturally most web warriors resent real soldiers because they know that the real soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are just that: real. Just imagine if you'd appointed yourself a play soldier in some on-line militia and you knew that you weren't anything but a poser. Wouldn't you feel envious of and/or intimidated by the real thing? So naturally America's real heroes have to become the enemy in the internet militia fantasies. Just like anyone who is actually involved in the government, and even you and I (per Nate45's recent post), anyone who isn't for these guys, anyone who actually is a patriotic American and/or a productive member of society, and anyone who really is what they pretend to be has to be cast as the villains in their fantasy world. They can only be the good guys if they recast all the real good guys as bad guys.

 

[copenhagen]

Do you feel you would become a stooge of a tyrant and that most of your compatriots and you would forget your oath of enlistment or office and suppress your fellow countryman unconstituionally turning the US into a fascist state?

I would not follow an immoral or unlawful order. Sad to say, but I lament the fact that I worry there are many who would. This is part of why I stay in the Corps, so I can continue to encourage my Juniors to stick to what is right like the needle to the pole, and to think for themselves.

 

[.300H&H]

I believe it's a dangerous slippery slope to set up 'military veterans' as being real patriots and citizens, but to view other members of society as lesser patriots and citizens. It fosters a militarization of society, and it goes against the founding principles of the United States.


I remember once interviewing an inmate at a local jail. The guards - some of them had begun to revere him as 'special' because he would speak softly of his combat duty in Vietnam - how he had served his country. He was indeed a combat veteran. One day as he was spinning such history in front of staff and a social worker who did not know him...but who now awed him... I changed the manipulative drift of the discussion and just point blank asked him: 'So what does that have to do with you being arrested for impersonating a police officer and pulling women over on the side of the road and raping them at gun point?' He had no answer, and the admirers of his 'combat record' instantly evaporated.


There are good people in the military, and there are some bad people in the military. It is important that the military serves America rather than have an America that kisses the boots of a Military-Industrial Complex. The founders were not fond of standing armies, and standing armies have become a problem for America, especially since WW2. Eisenhower warned us about it. Truman likewise said in his late years that his own biggest greatest regret was the formation of the CIA. America did not listen, and America is now engaged in its 2nd Gulf War - a war of aggression based on lies and sustained by the brutality of torture and the constant occupation of an invaded land. Eisenhower and Truman were fine veterans.


Militias? A lot of the modern militias are composed of military veterans. Tim McVeigh was one. Tim McVeigh won a Bronze Star in Iraq, and he came home and killed more U.S. civilians - many of them children - than the U.S. lost in soldiers in the entire 1st Gulf War.


Nevertheless, while I deplore many of these so-called militias, I support an individual's right to bear arms. Whether a person serves in the military or not - does not stand as the litmus test for patriotism and good citizenship.
Again the definitions of militia and state are multifaceted and subject to changes, but the individual's right to bear arms - is clear as a bell. An individual citizen should have just as much right to bear arms as that buzz cut deputy at the roadblock/checkpoint. An individual citizen should not have to be a soldier to be a 1st Class American. Better to be a Free Spirit than a Redcoat. Only a minority of American supported the American Revolution. Most Americans were Tories ,or neutral on the sidelines.