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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nevertheless, while I deplore many of these so-called militias...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.

I agree. Many militia types/stereotypes worry me. Brown shirts in the making. This is why it is an individual right, not collective. And, here's the tin foil hat.. I have heard it argued that McVeigh was actually set up my the Feds in an attempt by Clinton to demonize the militias and draw attention away from his affair. Of course I'm not condoning McVeigh's deplorable actions, but it is interesting to think about. I believe I read this in Boston's Gun Bible.
 
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 is also a very dangerous and wrong position to paint those who serve as tools and useful idiots for would-be tyrants. That is what many are saying here and that because of that the populace needs to be armed to fight them.

There are good and bad in anything, the question is ratio and I contend the good far far outweigh the bad in the military and LEO world. Always bad apples but the good apples won't let the bad ones prevail.

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.

First of all the "militias" you are pointing to are not constitutional militias but rather are unauthorized volunteer paramilitary organizations. They are NOT what the founding fathers spoke of. I think they are a bunch of nuts. Also, I am not sure it is plain that McVeigh was a part of any of these kooky militias See:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29988.html

Sad to say, but I lament the fact that I worry there are many who would.

copenhagen, don't sell your fellow Marines so short. I served with Marines and none I knew would follow illegal orders or subvert the constitution.
 
TG and Stagger Lee: I'm having a hard time following your argument(s). You're both going off into tangents that are confusing me relative to the original question.

The original question was whether the well regulated militia exists as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

I've posted quotes from the founding fathers stating the unregulated militia is the bulwark against tyranny. I could post more but you guys get the point.

Now you guys keep talking about whether the military would follow the orders of a tyrant. You both feel that question is a "red herring" because you both feel it is impossible for the military to ever follow a tyrant. The founding fathers would clearly disagree.

However, if that was the original question I would say "in today's military - no, in the main".

Please don't take this the wrong way but arguing with you guys is somewhat like arguing with my wife for Godsakes. You're "all over the place" if you get what I mean. (Geez, I hope my wife never reads this! :p)

I've been governed by the Hatch Act for over 30 years now. Yet I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment standing for people like me not being able to run amuck.;)

Does it make me angry to think people feel I might follow a tyrant? No. I explain to them that I love my country and the people living in it. I'm a fully grown man with thick skin and understand the distrust some people have for authority. I don't whine and insult those who have not served and I understand that it is human nature to be distrustful of authority.

The 2nd Amendment (and other BOR amendments) helps to placate that "distrust" and I think that is a very good thing. It helps to keep all of us free in the final analysis IMHO.

I do not philosphically(sp?) separate myself from the general population and I never, I mean NEVER, view myself in the category of "them versus me". I understand their skepticism and feel that a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing overall.
 
TNGent, I think all here who have served, or are serving in any capacity understand exactly that "IF" the military are given and should follow unlawful, unconstitutional, orders against the citizens of the US, then the two would be in opposition.

Stagger is an alarmist, I read no posts in here about desperately wanting for the scenario to happen. No one in their right mind would "want" it, but there are some that it is, albeit a remote possibility. Most servicemen are young, and therefore impressionable. The fear and the obedience that military discipline and life instills makes it a very realistic for them to just follow orders.

Many many servicemen do not even think about the Constitution, or laws. They are there serving, and doing whatever their jobs in the military are. I can say that for myself, and I can say that for nearly all the people in my reserve unit, as well as all the active folks whom I met and served with in Iraq. Military personnel are dreadfully ignorant of the USC, and other important American documents. Why? Because many Americans are dreadfully ignorant of the USC and important American documents, not to mention history.

To chastize everyone here in a simple black and white grouping is incorrect, and negligent to the extreme. You can recognize that dreadful scenario and still be a patriot. As a matter of fact, recognizing that enemies can very well have the possibility of holding some sort of official position is the first and greatest thing a true patriot can do. We are not perverting the founder's beliefs so much as he hasn't read and understand them.

No one here has their fingers on their triggers waiting in their underground bunker for the day. The times we are living in now, do not exemplify the day.

As far as checks and balances go, did you ever think that they could just ignore them? You can see it today even if on a small scale. A Washington DC official recently remarked in the Washington Post regarding the neighborhood checkpoints "I'm not worried about the Constitutionality of it". How about the double standard that I mentioned between anyone in an official capacity and a mere citizen. How does a mayor who is known to have smoked crack repeatedly get reelected? How does the many other incidents of officials behaving in a capacity not becoming of their positions get off with seemingly nothing, whereas you or I will definitely be fined and or imprisoned?

Did you guys hear about the recent firing of a FL police captain who threatened a coffee store employee that police resources would take longer to arrive in a situation if they did not continued to give him free coffee?

All isolated "minor" incidents of power abuse, which is why I nor anyone else here stated they want that day to come.

This is why I find it so funny that amongst the posters in this thread, numerous people, including myself, who have served in some form, disagree wholeheartedly with Stagger's comments. I can't see how he is coping with these members in his black and white world, for since they served, they can do no wrong, but since they disagree philosophically with him, they are his enemies. :confused: It sickens my stomach as well to hear him utter the words honor, and integrity.

Instead of hearing it from me, you guys should check out the writings of General Smedley Butler, one of two Marines to earn two Medals of Honor. This man has been there and done that, and he tells of it in his book "War is a Racket" how it was all for business interests, not for the rosy ideals of freedom and democracy, not to protect American citizens.

Here's another did you know: a group of very wealthy, very powerful conspirators tried to enlist Butler and Marines of his choosing to assassinate FDR. Fortunately, he did not go through with it...he reported this to Congress but nothing was done about it.

Thank you for pointing out the warnings of Eisenhower .300H&H, people like him and Butler would still be considered unpatriotic according to some here.
 
Way to trivilize all who hold dissenting opinons as internet commandos and 12 year olds...

I don't trivialize everyone who thinks differently...Just the pathetic few who thinks that they can just band together with a few drinking buddies and declare themselves a militia in accordance with the US Constitution. And if those same people didn't sit around constantly planning to kill all the rest of us who don't agree with their warped interpretation of a 230+ year old document, I might not even bother, but odds are that if we ignore them long enough, they'll eventually geek one of their number into pulling another Tim McVeigh-style mass murder.

I love this country, I've invested considerable sweat equity in keeping it on track, and I will defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I definitely consider the anti-government militia pretenders to be capable of becoming "enemies, domestic" if they take their fantasy game too far. Remember how back in the 1980's, we had several college kids lose themselves in the role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons and kill themselves? Well I see today's militia posers being just like that, the only difference is that when they snap, they'll more likely than not hurt someone else.
 
One of the things I dread about a possible Obama victory is that factions of the "right" in America will once again become vociferous conspiracy theorist, ammo stockpiling, "shoot them in the head", activists of the sort that fueled the fervor leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Not that there's anything wrong with having lots of ammo. I still have several hundred rounds of "black tip" 30-06 AP ammo I acquired back during the Clinton years.

I just don't want to see so many members of my "team" go back to that way of thinking and acting.

That distrust of government was a little too "X-Files" for me.

Probably a lot of folks here who aren't going to agree with me or are perhaps even offended by this.

Far from serving this sort of movement, McVeigh's act of mass murder had the effect of causing many people to step back from this way of thinking. What else could they do when faced with the reality of it being taken to it's ultimate conclusion?

Hopefully, we don't have to relearn all this stuff.
 
The Romans ...

... were very good at putting fear in serving armies to fight against their will and to set examples for "cowards" who would not follow orders.

It is called Decimation. Every tenth solider was selected by lottery and put to death by men in his own company. Very effect form of motivation to force well trained and hardened fighters to follow all orders without question.

In a totalitarian system it would be a tool leadership could easily use today.
 
I'm having a hard time following your argument(s). You're both going off into tangents that are confusing me relative to the original question.
I understand RDak and yes it is a bit of a tangent but it points to the bigger issue. Maybe I should add to the original question "Does a Well-Regulated Militia act as a bulwark against a tryannical government today? It is true the Founding Fathers feared a large Standing Army. However, things have changed. Eisenhower talked about the need for a large standing military establishment that the Founding Fathers feared. He feared it's influence and called upon we citizens as voters not as armed militia to be watchful of the MI Complex. But today we have a very large standing Army nevertheless.

The reason we have gotten off on the tangent of loyalty of our military and LEO community is that some of the posters here have said they think these servants would follow illegal orders and oppress us, therefore we need an armed citizenry to fight them. This is what offends me. Now, skepticism of political leaders that is different but I submit our form of government does more to control them than the militia.

The Founding Fathers talked about the "militia" as it preexisted the Constitution but once we created our Constitution the militia became subordinate to it. The founding fathers (like G. Washington) also feared the militia as an undisciplined mob with guns and so the militia clauses were adopted along with the "well-regulated" militia of the 2A. The unorganized militia is just that, unorganized and is a pool of people to be used for the organized militia. Some here seem to raise the "militia" an unorganized partially armed populace up to a creature of its own. It is not. We are a nation of laws not of men or mobs which is anarchy.

Back to the Founding Fathers. Remember how young our country was when these men wrote their thoughts down. We have crossed a lot of water since that time. I listened to Alan Gura talk about incorporation of the 14th Amendment since prior to really the eighteenth century the BOR was only for the Federal Government. States could do as they pleased prior to that and did. This idea would be anathema to us today. So, maybe the militia meant a quite different thing in 1790 than it does today.

So, taking into account the maturity of our democratic institutions, our media and information access, is the "well-regulated" militia or better yet an armed citizenry still a bulwark against tyranny? I think our democratic institutions with their checks and balances and our media is the bulwark. Hell, I think in this day and age a tyrant probably wouldn't even need an Army to subdue us. He could probably do it by controlling all the computers. Like TheFiringLine:eek:

How does a mayor who is known to have smoked crack repeatedly get reelected?

We get the leadership we deserve. An armed citizenry didn't stop that but his own supporters finally did.

Thank you for pointing out the warnings of Eisenhower .300H&H, people like him and Butler would still be considered unpatriotic according to some here.

Not to me. Eisenhower pointed out the inherent danger in a necessary evil. That being a large standing Army. But he urged political vigilence not armed vigilanteism. Butler, decried the policies of some American Presidents like Coolidge and Harding and Hoover because of the wars in Haiti and Nicaraugra. Had nothing to do with a militia, just his opposition to those wars. Also, Butler was bitter that he was passed over for the Commandant of the Marine Corps position.
 
It is called Decimation. Every tenth solider was selected by lottery and put to death by men in his own company. Very effect form of motivation to force well trained and hardened fighters to follow all orders without question.
In a totalitarian system it would be a tool leadership could easily use today.

Yeah OOOOKay!:rolleyes:
 
Personally, I believe it is possible for any organized military force to be perverted to tyranny. I believe that it is foolish to think it could not happen, and that thinking it could not happen is the first step to allowing it to happen. Secondly, I am sick of people comparing the citizen's militia to a few drunk crazy fat guys. The citizen's militia is the one thing that truly protects against tyranny. As far as I am concerned, that's case closed.

Rant all you want, but that's my two cents, and I just don't see how I can spell it out any more clearly. If you don't agree with me, very well. I would like to suggest that you purchase a copy of "Innocents Betrayed" from JPFO.
 
Personally, I believe it is possible for any organized military force to be perverted to tyranny.

And that includes you then right? Think a bit more about what you are saying. I don't think I could have been preverted as you say and you're not giving yourself too much credit or your comrades for that matter.

Secondly, I am sick of people comparing the citizen's militia to a few drunk crazy fat guys. The citizen's militia is the one thing that truly protects against tyranny. As far as I am concerned, that's case closed.

If you are talking about these modern "militias" then I think they will afford you about as much protection from tyranny as a sharp stick.

Here is what George Washington wrote to Congress about the militia:

To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regulary train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows....Certain I am, that it would be cheaper to keep 50, or 100,000 Men in constant pay than to depend upon half the number, and supply the other half occasionally by Militia.

And here is what he says about a Standing Army:

The Jealousies of a standing Army, and the Evils to be apprehended from one, are remote; and in my judgment, situated and circumstanced as we are, not at all to be dreaded;
 
Last edited:
No, not you TNGent. I don't think we disagree on that much. I respect your views and believe you make reasonable statements.

I forgot to +1 you on an earlier post you made, USAFNodak pointed it out.

Well about Butler, the actions he was involved in and is criticising is well before all of our times. If the actions of an unscrupulous govt. working together with unscrupulous big business went on even in the late 19th and early 20th century, that to me leaves a lot of questions to ask ourselves in our present time.

Did the govts. and the people of those bananna republics pose a threat to American citizens, or to the country to justify sending US Marines there to risk their lives or soil their hands and minds with needless bloodshed?

Are the actions of our govt. during the Cold War becoming of a nation that prides itself on freedom, and justice for all? I mean, during that time, we would have supported the Devil himself so long as he wasn't a Communist.

How many ruthless dictators and despots did we prop up and support during the Cold War. How many of these places are unstable and full of strife today as a direct result of our legacy there? How many of these places breed enemies of the US for generations to come caused by the same actions?

I'm not asking these questions out of naivete. I am tying up these cases with whether or not American serving men were used with the best interests of our country in mind. As I said, many servicemen are young and impressionable. They will go anywhere just for the thrill of adventure. They don't really think about why Uncle is doing this or that. How many really knew about what was going on in Vietnam. How many knew the history of a dozen other places they went to.

When they get to wherever they are, it is about the guy next to you and their backs (I know this for fact). What if they didn't need to be there to risk their backs to begin with. They shouldn't be unless it is absolutely necessary.

What I'm saying is there is a possibility that these young, adventurous, sometimes naive, more often than not ignorant (of history, politics, world events, US laws, USC, etc.) "could" be tasked to do something detrimental to the US and not think that much about it, partly due to military discipline, partly because they don't want to let their superiors and each other down, partly because they want to be good soldiers/Marines, etc., and partly because they outright fear the consequences from their superiors (especially in the USMC).

I agree with you that the possibility is very very remote, and I do not wish for this in my nor anyone else's lifetime.
 
No, not you TNGent. I don't think we disagree on that much. I respect your views and believe you make reasonable statements.

Thank you Sir. I enjoy this forum and I have learned a lot here.

Are the actions of our govt. during the Cold War becoming of a nation that prides itself on freedom, and justice for all? I mean, during that time, we would have supported the Devil himself so long as he wasn't a Communist.

True, and I worked in some countries helping out some of those governments I'm afraid. Not sure how to answer that today. I felt sure when I was 20 and 30 but not so sure now.
 
TG: I pretty much agree with what you are saying when you put it the way you did. Good going! I understand now what you are saying. You have to remember that I'm one of those types who has a hard time straying from the subject if you get what I mean. I've always been a little slow that way.

I've always thought of the well regulated militia as an extension of the formal military. Like you said, in so many words, people would be "drafted" from the unregulated militia and then be trained into a well regulated militia. That's kind of a quasi-military force IMHO. A force with discipline and knowledge of military tactics, etc.

(Believe me TG, I know what G. Washington said about unregulated militias as they compare to regular trained military forces and/or well regulated militias. He's obviously correct but that's a different question. Yes, the well regulated militia would be far more effective as a military force than the unregulated militia. I've never argued that fact.)

I also agree that we have many other checks and balances to guard against tyranny.

I guess I feel, and this is a judgment call only, that if the founding fathers were alive today, they would be satisfied that there was still a bulwark against a tyrannical government. That bulwark being the massive unregulated militia still present in America today.

To me, as one citizen, I am comforted knowing over 150+ million people would have access to firearms should a doomsday scenario ever occur. It just comforts me. Always has and always will. And I think that would comfort the founding fathers also IMHO. (You know, I can't argue with you on this one because it is a judgment call. I can't prove any of this. You get what I mean.)

As far as this doomsday scenario ever occuring, and how I think of it, CGSteve stated it better than I can in post number 144. I agree with his post. He put it very well IMHO.

Stagger Lee: I'd bet my soon to be retirement pension that all of us agree with you on the wacko militia types.
 
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman, I assume you want an honest answer, so here it is:

I feel that the way the military is being used is extremely unconstitutional but not in any way that is directly detrimental to the American People (though certainly the cost of our military operations are extremely bad for America)

If I am given an order that will directly violate the rights of my fellow American citizens, I will disobey it. My loyalty is not to the government...the government changes with every election. My loyalty is to my people and our Constitution.

I am not the enemy but there are many in the military who do not think as I do and will blindly follow any order that is given them by a superior. But, there are also many like me who would abandon the military (but not our vow to serve our nation) if it was ever used as a weapon against America.
 
We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects
experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that
police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of
insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties
when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History
bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty
extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the
end.

Justice Felix Frankfurter
Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 597 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
 
Justice Felix Frankfurter
Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 597 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

Pssst! That was a sixty year old dissenting opinion...which means that it carries no legal weight. I know that some people think that when they cite a judge, it somehow means something, but when that judge was on the losing side of a case, it's just some guy's opinion and nothing more. You might as well cite George Carlin.
 
But, there are also many like me who would abandon the military (but not our vow to serve our nation) if it was ever used as a weapon against America.

I think there are a lot more of you than them.

As to the quote from Justice Frankfurter, I agree with him that eternal vigilence and participation in our democracy will keep us safe from police encroachment. Funny, though he didn't mention guns or the militia. I think there is our difference.
 
Funny, though he didn't mention guns or the militia. I think there is our difference.

So, which do you think would have affected Nazi rule more, Jews with guns, or Jews appealing to their elected Nazi "representatives?"
 
Pssst! That was a sixty year old dissenting opinion...which means that it carries no legal weight. I know that some people think that when they cite a judge, it somehow means something, but when that judge was on the losing side of a case, it's just some guy's opinion and nothing more. You might as well cite George Carlin.

Pssst, it was offered as his opinion. I'll take this judge's legal commentary over yours any day of the week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top