Militia II - Invasion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
During our Civil War, we had some roving marauders.
I've included a link http://hometown.aol.com/jweaver301/nc/7csahis.htm to substantiate this, to some degree.

Of interest of this topic is that civilians were the targets, more than not, of these raiders.
Were these civilians NOT to defend themselves against certain renegade factions of the Armed Forces of the day, either Confederate, or Union? It matters little which political alleigance a soldier takes, when he behaves in a manner of no honor, and displays disrespect for the non-uniformed enemy in his midst.
It would be considered that the civilians were in a battle with a certian element of the government. Regardless of the fact that these men were renegade soldiers, they were still military, and therefore under direct scope of federal power. Was it illegal for them to use lethal force to secure their peace, and protect their lives, from these out of control elements of that same Federal Power?

Is this a similar problem we're seeing today with military type actions such as Ruby Ridge and Waco, to name a couple? One would be led to believe it's not the same, if you simply weigh that no Federal officer or agent, has ever been punished for the deaths of, and actions against, the civilians in these cases.

What about the term the government uses freely, War on Drugs. When there is a raid on a home, the wrong home, and lives are lost, is this still a war?
If it is, then innocent civilians have died at the hands of Federal agents at war. And what war did Congress declare upon whom? Isn't it the duty of Congress to officially declare war?

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited June 27, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
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? :)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> DocH: 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.[/quote]

Seems Munro Williams' post kind of blows a whole in you argument doesn't it. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yamamoto dissuaded the Japanese high command from invading the USA because, in his words, "We will meet a rifle behind every blade of grass."[/quote]


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Glenn E. Meyer 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.[/quote] Tell that to the Afghanistan gorillas! They did one hell of a job on the Russians.

But maybe you guys are right. It’s time to just rollover and give up our right. So come get my firearms. I hope you are preparing to pay the cost. But that’s right! Without a standing army to back me up I can’t possibly stop you. I’ll bet your wrong!!!!!

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

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

[This message has been edited by Jerry45 (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
Doc - we are doing OK this time. :)

I think this is a fascinating exercise, when we did it at the conference we got entangled in the viability of local citizenry vs foreign invasion - like the Afghans and the Boers. But those were mismatches and had other geopolitical aspects.

How about this? The Brits in fact called for US civilian weapons for the Home Guard when actually faced with the Nazis. But after the war, that experience certainly hasn't help support the RKBA in the UK. Their citizens aren't clamouring for weapons for home defense against invasion now.

I like the SW argument still. The borders are not defended by the government. However, the government here would resist attempts by locals to block the border. It was in the paper the other day. Also, these locals aren't acting in an official capacity to defend the border.
 
DocH..

You asked:

"..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...",.. "

I've not run into anyone so dependant on the government that they've asked who would supply them with a gun should they need one. However, if asked I will reply, "Who in the world ever said the government would arm you?
They've spent the last 20 years trying to take them away, now they're going to give them to you? Are you willing to wager your safety and your families safety on the ability of the government to supply you a weapon during a time of crisis? Would you be asking them to secure food, clothing and shelter as well?"

DocH also wrote in response to Oleg's rifleman comments:

"..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..."

Doc, would you consider yourself to have been a firearms neophyte at the time of your training? Had you handled weapons before? If we're talking about the average fence sitter who may have no experience with firearms, or an aversion to them it is less than likely they will step to the plate and bat .300 as you seem to have done. Very few would pick up this skill so quickly.

Glenn said,

"..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 are handling the rebuttal but you are simply not willing to accept it. Merely stating 'an appeal to authority' doesn't hold water doesn't make it so. I say again, the context in which you frame the question, asking us to refute fear based responses with ethereal defenses of the 2nd based on invasion/tyranny models is fatuous. The context is utterly wrong.

You can argue the self defense model which is arguably emotional for the Columbine type issue, but to dispel the concept of tyranny/invasion based on this premise is disingenious.

Cypselus said:

"..I agree with Glenn that the argument that we need weapons to protect ourselves from the oligarchy is a loser..."

There is no need to advance the higher concepts of the 2nd for those who obviously are not interested in them. Again, why would you even argue in this fashion with anyone who obviously can't see beyond their nose. We should not emphasize it, that is correct. But nor can we say categorically that is in untenable if and when the context or the audience is right. Granted, right now may not be the right time but I do not hear or see anyone pounding the table insisting this be the main thrust of the fight. Think of the argument as a tool. You use the proper tool for the right job.

My only disagreement here is that the contention these "authority" arguments don't "hold water" when if fact, the initial premise of attempting to quell the fears of those who respond emotionally by relying on the higher truths of the 2nd is flawed.

Well time to call it a day..."It's a day.." ;)

Regards, Chris..
 
Appeal to unqualified authority, if I remember my logic course correctly, is a logical fallacy. Appeal to authority is not necessarily so. It's the difference between citing Rosie O'Donnell and Gary Kleck. In philosophical matters such as this discussion, one could say, and I would maintain, that for practical purposes it may as well be a logical fallacy. Certainly the statement of an idea in and of itself is not an argument at all, however self-evident it may appear to the person who states it.

To make the argument of resistance to tyranny being justification for the private ownership of arms, it is necessary to overcome massive denial about the nature and potential of power in America. I shouldn't have stated that it is categorically a loser; I think that in certain circumstances and for certain groups, such as American Indians and African Americans, who are constantly exposed to the malice of the powerful, it could be a persuasive argument. Ownership by blacks of firearms was an important factor in protection against official and semi-official violence from Reconstruction up through the 1960's. See Don Kates and especially Robert Cottrol. Assuming that we could make that case, overcoming mutual distrust and suspicion, we might still serve further to make ourselves enemies of the state. It's a dangerous course.
 
I find DocH's reasoning about the Arizona ranchers coupled with the experience of wartime Brits to be compelling.

In Arizona, the U.S. Government's interests do not coincide with those of the citizenry, and so the citizens must do with their own guns what the government will not: protect private property. The Government is afraid of offending a certain voter in this election year.

Likewise, in the event of war or invasion, there will not be U.S. military everywhere, only in the places the government wants to protect. The lesson is that if you count on the government or the police to protect you and your family when TSHTF, you're a goner; they'll be protecting important government stuff and bureaucrats, not you. Not now, not ever. That is the way it is during military conflict and if someone can find a different example, set me straight.

"But that can't happen here." Well, it's happening in Arizona (and South Africa) now, you just aren't seeing it on TV, so for most people it doesn't exist.

And that is what the pre-war Brits thought when they turned their guns into scrap: it can't happen here. Knowing they were defenseless, why wouldn't Germany invade. No rifle behind every blade of grass (Thanks Munroe). What happened next? Did the Brit government start issuing rifles to civilians? Hell no, they could barely arm their military.

Lesson: the government will not give you a gun in the case of invasion. And with no private ownership of weapons, the Brits had to plead with sympathetic gun owners in other countries to send them civilian arms. If the U.S. were invaded, who would send us arms? British civilians?

Finally, the inevitable end of any union of states is dissolution. The only question is when (or, how much more). This is history, and there is certainly no reason for the U.S. Government to exist indefinitely. Not Greece, not Rome, not the Ottomans, not the Brit Empire, not the USSR and not the U.S. Government. To believe otherwise is folly, as it is not to be prepared for it.

Great thread. I think Glenn wants to get this argument focused to use in conjunction with other arguments, and to have it taken as seriously as it should be.

I have to go put on my web gear for a while now.

Ledbetter

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
ChrisL replied: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I've not run into anyone so dependant on the government that they've asked who would supply them with a gun should they need one. However, if asked I will reply, "Who in the world ever said the government would arm you?
They've spent the last 20 years trying to take them away, now they're going to give them to you? Are you willing to wager your safety and your families safety on the ability of the government to supply you a weapon during a time of crisis? Would you be asking them to secure food, clothing and shelter as well?" [/quote]

To which I might answer, "Well, if they expect me to fight, they can find a gun to give me. If not, screw 'em. I won't fight then." Note that I am not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to find holes in your line of reasoning. One way is by underestimating the innate passivity of the average American.

ChrisL also replied: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Doc, would you consider yourself to have been a firearms neophyte at the time of your training? Had you handled weapons before? If we're talking about the average fence sitter who may have no experience with firearms, or an aversion to them it is less than likely they will step to the plate and bat .300 as you seem to have done. Very few would pick up this skill so quickly. [/quote]

I will be honest and tell you that I was not a complete neophyte. I had been a hunter since age 12. I would not have considered myself "a trained rifleman" by any means (duffer is more like it), and I had NEVER before used a rifle with iron sights, nor had I any exposure to the M16 rifle before I had to qual. I WAS motivated, though. I didn't want to embarrass myself in front of a bunch of Marines, all of whom had extensive rifle training in boot camp or TBS. My point was that it does NOT take a long time to train a motivated individual to achieve satisfactory combat accuracy with a rifle, thus obviating the arguement of a need for rifles in civilian hands prior to an "invasion".

Jerry45 opined: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Tell that to the Afghanistan gorillas! They did one hell of a job on the Russians.
But maybe you guys are right. It’s time to just rollover and give up our right. So come get my firearms. I hope you are preparing to pay the cost. But that’s right! Without a standing army to back me up I can’t possibly stop you. I’ll bet your wrong!!!!![/quote]

See my previous post RE: "chest thumping"
 
Ledbetter wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In Arizona, the U.S. Government's interests do not coincide with those of the citizenry, and so the citizens must do with their own guns what the government will not: protect private property. The Government is afraid of offending a certain voter in this election year.

Likewise, in the event of war or invasion, there will not be U.S. military everywhere, only in the places the government wants to protect. The lesson is that if you count on the government or the police to protect you and your family when TSHTF, you're a goner; they'll be protecting important government stuff and bureaucrats, not you. Not now, not ever. [/quote]

Thanks for taking this several steps further. I hadn't thought about the government's and citizen's interests not coinciding. I suppose a corollary would occur if the standing army was too demoralized or disorganized to be effective. Also if the army is co-opted by the invading force. Is there anything anywhere about the duties/rights of the citizens if the government, rather than being too oppressive or tyrannical, is simply incompetent?
 
To many, the argument of the "need" of a milita surely is unreasonable. But those many people who feel such have probably been living quite comfortably and are completely ignorant of what can happen. One could also argue that we don't "need" freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. After all, if you say something someone considers offensive, you can get burned. Is the right to vote "needed"? After all, half the population is of less than average intelligence (simple statisitics). Obviously, we could have much better elected officials if some were not allowed to vote. The point is, if "needs" of freedoms are debated, tyranny can and will result.

Using Columbine and other school shootings as examples surely gets emotions and the cries for gun control accelerated. How many students are in class everyday in the U.S.? How many are shot in school shootings? Do the math yourself. You will find the risks of being shot in school are truly statisticly insignificant. Of course, those easily overcome by the emotional aspects will get pretty upset with such a statement. They say things like "if just one life is saved....", but how many lives get sacrificed as result of that "one saved"?

Being stabbed in school is far more likely than being shot. Is there a "need" for knives? Why not require knife registration? It could be restricted to "licensed professionals" such as butchers. When meat is purchased, it could be already cut up into bite size pieces! Just like when Mommy and Daddy used to cut it up for you when you were so small. Of course, that is what all of this results in, a Mommy and Daddy government that has to take care of us.
 
Chris, the self-evident nature of higher truths is exactly the problem.

You may believe in them and that's your right.

While the right of self-defense may be a higher truth, the need to have guns in order to defend against foreign invasion is an empirical question.

In fact, the need to defend against foreign invasion might be a part of the grand higher truth of self-defense set of possibilites.

But my point is that if in today's context you use the foreign invasion argument you look foolish and resorting to an appeal to authority or higher truth is meaningless.

You are eloquent but I don't see that eloquence being useful in the drum beat against the RKBA. Sorry and I don't mean to be rude.

You also continually miss my point. It was to set a debate about whether the need for a militia has validity today and is a useful argument for the RKBA.

Your argument is an appeal to authority and your response is that my context is not valid.

Tell me what higher truth written by humanity has not been alter over the years in response to circumstance.

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited June 28, 2000).]
 
"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."

You need to do a little more research. The truth is a little more nuanced. The ability of the Swiss to defend themselves was part of the reason Germany didn't invade, just as the ability to blow up the Alpine tunnels was and just as the ability to use Switzerland's industrial capacity (which was not being bombed) was. Big decisions do not get made for just one reason. An armed citizenry is a deterrent, even if it may not be enough all by itself.

The Germans did not get everything they wanted from Switzerland. They didn't get Switzerland's Jews, or money. They didn't stop Switzerland from taking in more refugees per capita than any other country in the world. It's certainly true that the Swiss turned some away - so did we. The Swiss are not perfect, but their current bad reputation is the result of a propaganda campaign, not the result of the work of historians.

If you want to know what it was like there in WWII, I recommend "Es war halt Krieg: Erinngerungen an den Alltag ind er Schweiz 1939-1945", Simone Chiquet, Editor, Chronos press. If you want the best study of the German and Swiss decisions, read Klaus Urner, "Die Schweiz muss noch geschluckt werden, Hitlers Aktionsplane gegen die Schweiz, Zurich, 1990. Don't get your history from TIME magazine.
 
Glenn..

I don't believe your response to be rude at all and no offense is taken.

You stated:

"..But my point is that if in today's context you use the foreign invasion argument you look foolish and resorting to an appeal to authority or higher truth is meaningless..."

I agree, given the narrow context you state, emotional responses to Columbine type shootings, arguing the tyranny/invasion model is foolish. I believe, however, that was your original premise, not anyone else's and no one I know would respond in the fashion you indicate. If I've missed the nuances of your premise then I apologize.

I simply disagree that the higher authority appeal is meaningless. Again, the audience and the context are important. The people with whom I have engaged in these conversations have been either anti or ambivalent towards guns. However, since they know me and know I am responsible and somewhat knowledgeable they at least listen and don't immediately discount what I have to say. They do acknowledgement government encroachment, they understand higher concepts of liberty, especially those they hold dear. It is easy to appeal to liberties they enjoy and traverse the logic bridge which leads them along the higher authority route. So I will simply have to disagree with your statement it is meanlingless.

"..You also continually miss my point.."

I'm not sure I missed your point entirely. I believe I understood your point as you describe below, I just do not agree.

"..It was to set a debate about whether the need for a militia has validity today and is a useful argument for the RKBA.."

Is the militia valid today? First, does the militia exist? Yes, that the unorganized militia exists is a fact. I've recited the U.S. code regarding the militia to people, to use the modern touch, and despite an occasional furrowed brow there have been no arguments.

Now, is it valid, that is, would it be useful or do people see a need for it? Does it sway the neutral or neutralize the anti? Honestly, I can't say for sure. I do know, however, that I have never had anyone say, "Oh that's ridiculous," when I have the time to lay out the argument. People can see the logic, understand the history and they DO say they would participate in the common defense. I try and use every argument to sway, based on the audience and context and leave nothing out(use every club in the bag ;)) when appropriate.

I've enjoyed the discussion and thank you for your respectful replies.

Regards, Chris..
 
105K already!

Any of you gentlemen are welcome to start a Part 3 if you like.

Gonna close this one.

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top