Militia II - Invasion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
First - this all started as I was looking for examples of cases that would make the militia as a defense against tyranny argument sound reasonable.

Remember the focus is to make the point to the uncommitted.

The uncommitted will hear guns are dangerous and see folks mostly coming to ill due to guns.

One way to counter this is the self-defense utilitarian argument.

Another is the need for an armed militia separate from our armed forces. I might be able to cull some incidents useful for the tyranny defense that would be useful outside the choir but from the arguments presented here, it might be a difficult sell - although there were some good points.

Now, the idea of defense against foreign invasion is raised.

I will present it this way and you get to respond (BIG POINT - I am not an anti but if an argument is made, it shouldn't be counterproductive as stupid arguments poison the well). It's nice for us to chant them to each other but so what.

So you are faced with killings and Columbine and an uncommitted person says that guns need to be controlled. You say NO based on the need of a militia to defend against possible foreign invasion.

I say, based on my knowledge of any conceivable foreign force levels in real time that this is ridiculous and no reason for the private ownership of guns.

Convince me otherwise with an cogent argument based on the need to defend against foreign invasion. If you just say it might happen after a total collapse of our military - that won't cut it and you lose IMHO. Might as well say that aliens might invade.

Go for it.
 
After seeing someone else post it on this site, I have found it useful to raise Vietnam and Afghanistan as examples of dominant conventional armies being worn down by rebels.
 
30 said it 'bout as good as any other. A populace cannot be controlled if they have the will to resist.

But, antis aren't going to be swayed without having their own life saved by a gun ... (what's that old line? a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged?) ... or some other shaking event & maybe not even then.

The fence-sitters however ... 'nother question altogether.

IMO, I think it most likely that our own government will be the ones to (attempted) to enslave us & you'd have better luck along those lines.

Problem with the antis is that they're licking the boots already = pretty tough sell.


[This message has been edited by labgrade (edited June 26, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by labgrade (edited June 26, 2000).]
 
Yamamoto dissuaded the Japanese high command from invading the USA because, in his words, "We will meet a rifle behind every blade of grass."
 
Personally I don't think you have to make that argument - alone. Plenty of quotes and writings by our Founders that the right is for self defense, defense of home and property, defense of community and state. The 2nd Amendment was to allow self defense - the primary Natural Right to some and to offer a pool of recruits for the States and the federal government.

Some say Gen McAruther had plans to topple FDR, but didn't know how the states and the armed militia would react. Bonus army

madison46
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
First - this all started as I was looking for examples of cases that would make the militia as a defense against tyranny argument sound reasonable.

Remember the focus is to make the point to the uncommitted.

The uncommitted will hear guns are dangerous and see folks mostly coming to ill due to guns.

One way to counter this is the self-defense utilitarian argument.

Another is the need for an armed militia separate from our armed forces. I might be able to cull some incidents useful for the tyranny defense that would be useful outside the choir but from the arguments presented here, it might be a difficult sell - although there were some good points.

Now, the idea of defense against foreign invasion is raised.

I will present it this way and you get to respond (BIG POINT - I am not an anti but if an argument is made, it shouldn't be counterproductive as stupid arguments poison the well). It's nice for us to chant them to each other but so what.

So you are faced with killings and Columbine and an uncommitted person says that guns need to be controlled. You say NO based on the need of a militia to defend against possible foreign invasion.

I say, based on my knowledge of any conceivable foreign force levels in real time that this is ridiculous and no reason for the private ownership of guns.

Convince me otherwise with an cogent argument based on the need to defend against foreign invasion. If you just say it might happen after a total collapse of our military - that won't cut it and you lose IMHO. Might as well say that aliens might invade.

Go for it.[/quote]
 
Don't have the source here, but someone posted here (Oleg?) that a USSR general once said that the only reason they did not invade the US was that the citizens were all armed. The point being is that private gun ownership is a deterrent. Not unlike having a large military, it makes the other side think twice before trying something.

A good example of this is the Swiss experience. Even during WWII they were able to remain nutral and out of the war... why? because the cost to gain that ground was higher than what it was worth. If an invader can come into a country with little resistance and cost in lives of its troops, why not? If it's going to take everything you have in man and materials and still not be assured of victory would you do it?



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
"...So you are faced with killings and Columbine and an uncommitted person says that
guns need to be controlled. You say NO based on the need of a militia to defend against possible foreign invasion...."

I do not believe there is a person on this board who would say the words you put in our collective mouths under this premise, which would render the relevance of the invasion argument "stupid" and would "poison the well" due to an utter lack of context. One would be foolish to attempt to counter emotional argument caused by stirring current events by stumping on behalf of something so completely lacking in immediacy as invasion.

The people you use as an example see the house as being on fire. This would not be the time to engage them in debate about the merits of fire retardation and sprinkler systems in their next home. They want the fire put out.

"..I say, based on my knowledge of any conceivable foreign force levels in real time
that this is ridiculous and no reason for the private ownership of guns...Convince me otherwise with an cogent argument based on the need to defend against foreign invasion."

May we presume, as part of your premise that you acknowledge the need for a standing army to protect against foreign invasion? If you do not believe this, then this entire discussion is moot. If you do believe this then I submit your argument lacks cogency in failing to acknowledge that even most uncommitted people would fight as best they could along side the armed forces. In such a manner it is not difficult link the argument of an armed citizenry to supplement a standing force. Certainly it is a fact of history that civilians have fought, both here and abroad, separately or in conjunction with their armies. This linkage is not untenable unless one revels in deliberate obtuseness.

I have asked folks, "if this country were invaded, would you help fight?" The first answer is typically, "Well, we would never be invaded, that's impossible." I ask, "So do you believe we need the current army to be active if it will never happen." Silence, then, "Well, yeah, we need the army. All kinds of things happen and it would be stupid to not have one." I ask, "Despite the fact you believe we will never be invaded, how can you justify a standing army?" Answer is usually some form of, "Well, anything could happen and someday we could be invaded, but I doubt it." "So even though you doubt it will ever happen, something could happen someday so we should keep an army?" "Yes." "Given that you say it could happen, however doubtful that may be, would you fight if we were invaded." "Well, yes," they reply. "And what would you fight with?" "Well..." And so it goes..

It's a logical train of thought and although it takes time it is useful WHEN appropriate. Relevant argument can be made "stupid" and "poison the well" if used out of context which I believe is evident under your guidelines. Although it may seem to be the last tool in the RBKA drawer, it is nonetheless defensible under the correct circumstances.

Chris..

[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
Swiss example is problematic given their history of cooperation with the Nazis and the more viable threat of blowing up the Alpine
tunnels that they let the Nazis freely use.

It is not like they held off Germany and DID
not cooperate with them. The Germans had everything they wanted from them. The Swiss even refused to take in refugees from the Holocaust and thousands died because of it.

Also, the Soviet Union was never in a position to come near invading the United States.

Viet Nam and Afghanistan are not examples relevant to the US experience. They were small countries faced with superpowers.

Also, in each case, the superpower liked the political will to use their full force against these countries. The Afghans also had significant help with munitions to defeat the Soviet airpower. They were in some difficulty until they got the Stingers.

We are a superpower with no enemies of conceivable capacity to get here or invade.
 
Glenn,

I'll ask specifically. Do you believe we need a standing army to protect against foreign invasion?

Chris..
 
The Militia is not for protection against foreign invasion. You need look no farther that the Second Amendment to prove this "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State The militia’s first concern is to protect the State from government, not foreign invasion.

This renders the request, “Convince me otherwise with an cogent argument based on the need to defend against foreign invasion.”, null and void.

However, just to prove a point. Sweden and the US are both perfect examples of how an armed citizenry works. Neither has been invade in modern times by foreign troops. And that is not because of a standing army! Sweden doesn't have one. But every male citizen of fighting age owns an "ASSAULT RIFLE".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> “No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms....."
-- Samuel Adams, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779[/quote]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I say, based on my knowledge of any conceivable foreign force levels in real time that this is ridiculous and no reason for the private ownership of guns.[/quote]

I’d say base on this gentleman’s knowledge, or lack thereof, of the constitution and what the forefathers sought to protect, HIS statement is RIDICULES.


------------------
Guns are not dangerous! People are! RKBA!

homes.acmecity.com/rosie/happy/307/

[This message has been edited by Jerry45 (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
Jerry45 wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>However, just to prove a point. Sweden and the US are both perfect examples of how an armed citizenry works. Neither has been invade in modern times by foreign troops. And that is not because of a standing army! Sweden doesn't have one. But every male citizen of fighting age owns an "ASSAULT RIFLE".[/quote]

Actually, I don't believe this proves anything. I believe it's very difficult to prove negative causality, and your premise that "armed citizenry = no invasion" is a fallacy of the post hoc ergo propter hoc variety (i.e. The cock crows, the sun rises. Therefore the cock crowing causes the sun to rise.)

It could just as easily be argued that geography (oceans in the case of the US; mountains in the case of Sweden) prevented invasion, not people with guns.
 
Glenn:

How about this one:

Right now, armed ranchers in the Southwest are trying to prevent a slow-motion invasion by illegal immigrants. The INS /Border Patrol is unable to stem the tide, so ranchers had to take matters into their own hands. This is not the kind of "invasion" most people envisage, but it can be argued it is an invasion none the less.

Kinda weak, but there it is.

I'm starting to agree with you. All of this chest-thumping about fighting off invading hordes (of who exactly? Mexicans? Chinese? Quebecois? German tourists?) will cause most folks' eyes to glaze over.

Remember guys, Glenn is talking about convincing the unconvinced. What arguements will win these people over (or at least help enforce their neutrality) when talking to them at a cocktail party/barbecue/block party/coffee break? Long-winded and/or goofy-sounding orations about "foreign invasions", "government tyranny", and "inalienable rights" will turn most folks off, 'cause mostly they couldn't give a rat's ass about such stuff.
 
Jerry: Yes, given modern threats we need a standing armed forces to protect against foreign threats.

Then, I would argue that modern armed forces preclude the need for the militia argument.

Armed citizens in the U.S. are irrelevant to any conceivable threat given our force structure and those of foreign opponents.

To those who just argue that the Founding Fathers said so, I would argue back that times change. We don't need guns for that.
They have lost their utility for this purpose and thus their risks to society countervail this obsolete reason.

Living in the SW - the immigration argument is interesting, it could be said to be an invasion and a lack of response by the government. I've slept with a gun next to me in places in the boonies in TX, where a midnight visit from such folks was a real threat.

REMEMBER - I am trying to analyze arguments here, so if you call me names - you lose!

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited June 27, 2000).]

Oops, Sweden also allowed transit of German troops and traded with the Nazis. There was no real need for an invasion of Sweden. The Swedes feared one and were desperately trying to arm themselves after the fact.

Switzerland and Sweden were periphereal to the Nazi war effort and collaborated to a large extent. If needed, do you think that the Germans would have hestitated to invade them?

The hook into France through the Low Countries worked so a hook through Switzerland was not needed. Given the conquest of Norway and alliance with Finland, why bother to invade Sweden?

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
DocH and Glenn...

Given the ease with which you set aside founding arguments and historical representations of armed citizens fighting alongside their armed forces as being unable to strongly uphold second amendment freedoms, based on the notion that uncommitted folks will fail to respond to any of these arguments makes this entire premise and discussion a waste of bandwith.

If we, and these "uncommitted's" are so vacuous that only a 20 second sound bite stands in the way of deciding yea or nay on a major constitutional right then let's drop the pretense of this being an academic discussion. There are no microwave methods to convert folks on the 2nd. You have already rejected out of hand, most or all invasion/tyranny models while continuing to ask for evidence. There is none if the context is faulty or the people to whom we would address these arguments are so obtuse that they would scoff at history, logic or fact. If that's the case, the party's already over.

Glenn argues that acknowledging the need for a standing army to protect us from foreign invasion precludes "..the need for the militia argument....Armed citizens in the U.S. are irrelevant to any conceivable threat given our force structure and those of foreign opponents." I will defer to your extensive knowledge of foreign force levels and our own force structure however I consider this line of argument to be strangly lacking in reality. If one can rightly acknowledge, as you have, the need for a standing army for such a purpose it is inconsistent to implicitly hold that the majority unorganized militia would sit by, like potted plants and do nothing. Take someone through the logic gates of "would they fight or not" if we were invaded, tie it directly to supplementing the common defense with our armed forces, ask what they would fight with and it is not a tall leap unless you have already decided it is. Everyone I have spoken with acknowledges they would fight. Ask them what they would fight with and they stop in their tracks. Perhaps the people I speak with don't fit your model. I have used this argument in discussion. It does work.

The argument is certainly not convenient for coffee klatches or BBQ's but that rings hollow unless one believes arguing points of constitutionality, history, etc. at the water cooler is likely to be effective or even desirable. I refer to my prior post. "..One would be foolish to attempt to counter emotional argument caused by stirring current events by stumping on behalf of something so completely lacking in immediacy as the subject of invasion." The context is utterly faulty.

We can stick with the tried and true self defense model which seems to suffice in making headway in the RKBA fight with some fence sitters or drop the charade, and characterize as mere "chest thumping" irrelevancies; founding history, historical fact, and logic as they pertain to swaying the uncommitted.

Respectfully, Chris..

[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
I agree that discussing foreign invasions or even gov tyranny and such will not effect most sheeple. They are firmly set in the it cant happen here mind set that years and years of comfort and complacency have bred. What matters most are the short term problems immediately effecting them. Not their countries, states, cities or communities, but rather their owns over grown a$$es. This means crime: rape, road rage, school shootings... One of the most effective arguments I have used on a family member who thought I was nuts for carrying was this. Got her to agree that there were unbalanced people in the world who would not think twice about harming her. Then I took out my gun (unloaded it of course) and cell phone. Placed them on the table and asked her to guess which of those tools would be more likely to stop me from ramming a poker up her a$$. Granted we cant use this all too often as most of us would get arrested for brandishing and so on, but the point is that we need to make it painfully clear to the sheeple that 90% of the time the ONLY thing standing between them and serious harm is them and not the PD. Best case senario is that they have to be able to withstand the initial onslaught till PD arrives. Most people have this Hollywood impression that either Scoty will beam in the reinforcements as soon as 911 is dialed or that when you tell someone you have called the cops they run like little girls. This is why I love the fact that the Central PArk thing actually got some press time. Or the fact that the Deacon was forced to help himself and his family cause the Cops couldnt do diddley. The more of these cases come to light or we bring to light, the better we stand in convincing people that guns are effective tools for self defense.

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
ChrisL wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have asked folks, "if this country were invaded, would you help fight?" The first answer is typically, "Well, we would never be invaded, that's impossible." I ask, "So do you believe we need the current army to be active if it will never happen." Silence, then, "Well, yeah, we need the army. All kinds of things happen and it would be stupid to not have one." I ask, "Despite the fact you believe we will never be invaded, how can you justify a standing army?" Answer is usually some form of, "Well, anything could happen and someday we could be invaded, but I doubt it." "So even though you doubt it will ever happen, something could happen someday so we should keep an army?" "Yes." "Given that you say it could happen, however doubtful that may be, would you fight if we were invaded." "Well, yes," they reply. "And what would you fight with?" "Well..." And so it goes..[/quote]

What do you say if they reply, "I'll fight with guns the government gives me. I don't see what this has to do with private gun ownership."



[This message has been edited by DocH (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What do you say if they reply, "I'll fight with guns the government gives me. I don't see what this has to do with private gun ownership."
[/B][/quote]

It takes a long time to train a rifleman. That is why the NRA training program was first establi8shed during the 1870s. If they are given a rifle they still won't know what to do with it. Moreover, they may be attacked personally when no helpful authority is conviniently available to dispense arms and training.
 
The drum beat of antigun initiatives continues. Look at the NY State suit of the last day.

I have a very practical goal and that is to maintain the RKBA. I see a lot of wasted rhetoric in the struggle. And in fact, I see much counterproductive rhetoric.

Given we will lose the RKBA through the legislative processes and the courts, we need strategy and tactics that work.

If your argument is a loser in the battle because it fails to convince the electorate or in fact convinces the electorate we are not in touch - then you have a problem.


So is it the case, that only the self-defense utilitarian model is the one viable argument to use with the uncommitted?

Do you want to win the battle to keep firearms or do you want to lose it but feel good about your empassioned speechyfing?

It is interesting that people can't handle the rebuttal that an appeal to authority doesn't hold water. The Founding Fathers didn't give women the right to vote and the Constitution allowed slavery. Times have changed now, is that the case for the RKBA?

We have found that the Bill of Rights is a good thing in general. But we can get rid of stuff we don't feel is cool nowadays. Look at the folk on this list fighting over whether they can shove religion in the face of folks in public settings.

Authority is not a good argument.

However, so far, I conclude that except for the illegal alien argument, the milita argument for defense of the nation isn't much use in the pragmatic battles of today.
 
Oleg Volk wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It takes a long time to train a rifleman. That is why the NRA training program was first establi8shed during the 1870s. If they are given a rifle they still won't know what to do with it.[/quote]

No, it doesn't. I scored Sharpshooter (missed Expert by 5 points) the first time I held an M16 on the 300m KD range at MCAS Cherry Point back in 1989. A gunny shooting next to me showed me how to adjust the sights and rig up the sling, and I was on my way.

So, Glenn; before we get locked down for straying off topic, did we do any better than the glock-ers this time? :)
 
How relevant can defense against foreign agression be when the US spends more on "defense" (really imperialism) than most of the rest of the world combined? There is simply no country that poses a realistic threat to the Continental US now, or in the near future. Why else does the military establishment, after years of inflating the Red Peril, now resort to even more outrageous and absurd claims about the perils of "narco-terrorism" and "rogue states."

I agree with Glenn that the argument that we need weapons to protect ourselves from the oligarchy is a loser, even though it's true. People have too much invested in believing that they are free and autonomous to realize exactly how bad things are and how much worse they are likely to get. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. WAR IS PEACE. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. GREED IS GOOD. So while I accept that rationale, I think we ought not to emphasize it. It'll be clear enough when our masters fulfill their dream of making America into another third-world country. In the meantime, buy a shovel and some rust-preventative.

It is a fact, however, that we need arms to defend ourselves against crime. That, in and of itself, can be sufficiently persuasive to most people. It is also an argument that doesn't require an appeal to political theory or to citizenship, but rather appeals to our carefully cultivated passivity and selfishness. Perfect for NWO America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top