Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Wow, these are good questions! I will try to answer as best I can.
Well being a student of history I will try to approach this one in a different way. One thing I have learned about catastrophic things like war is that they seldom seem to come about like we think they will.
When I was a student at the Naval War College during the '90s we spent a year trying to figure out who our next conventional enemy would be. We figured Iran and North Korea and we planned how we would beat them. We were wrong of course and terrorism became the next challenge for us to face.
So in that vein I think the next "tyranny" that we could possibly face would not be the Nazi/Stalin scenario that so many seem to believe will occur complete with cattle cars and concentration camps. I see political and community apathy being the real danger and so the minority of gun owners would never be able to change that threat with the mere ownership of guns.
In other words I cannot see a "tyranny" as many hold out here on TFL that could be opposed by Joe Citizen with a machine gun.
When you say unregulated are you talking about unorganized? Keep in mind the unorganized militia was a term that came out around 1830 as a way to keep people OUT of serving in the militia.
Nevertheless, the states are allowed to form their militias now. Nothing to stop them. Ever wonder why they don't do it? Even Walter Dellinger agreed with that and I posted links to his comments on that before. The militias died because the states did not want to pay for them, they were ineffective in defending the nation, and citizens did not want to serve in them. The unorganized militia that exists in statute today has no rights, duties, or responsibilities and so is a dead letter in fact as well. It is a mere statutory construct.
However the 2A part of the equation was that our nation would be defended by a small standing army with a large state militia system and the 2A was written to keep state control intact over those miltias that the Federalist COTUS had given the Fed large amounts of control over these militias to.
The idea was that with a small standing army and a large state militia defending the country the ability of a tryant to take over would not be there since the state militias would not allow them to effect such and would out number the standing army. That dynamic is no more and after the civil war I don't think the state militias could perform those functions.
RDak said:How would a group of people organize to remove tyranny in modern day America, (i.e., in your opinion)...Let's assume the voting booth is "out the window' and there is clearly a tyrant attempting to "takeover".
Well being a student of history I will try to approach this one in a different way. One thing I have learned about catastrophic things like war is that they seldom seem to come about like we think they will.
When I was a student at the Naval War College during the '90s we spent a year trying to figure out who our next conventional enemy would be. We figured Iran and North Korea and we planned how we would beat them. We were wrong of course and terrorism became the next challenge for us to face.
So in that vein I think the next "tyranny" that we could possibly face would not be the Nazi/Stalin scenario that so many seem to believe will occur complete with cattle cars and concentration camps. I see political and community apathy being the real danger and so the minority of gun owners would never be able to change that threat with the mere ownership of guns.
In other words I cannot see a "tyranny" as many hold out here on TFL that could be opposed by Joe Citizen with a machine gun.
RDak said:Wouldn't the unregulated militia, or State authorities, then be allowed to form well regulated militias?
When you say unregulated are you talking about unorganized? Keep in mind the unorganized militia was a term that came out around 1830 as a way to keep people OUT of serving in the militia.
Nevertheless, the states are allowed to form their militias now. Nothing to stop them. Ever wonder why they don't do it? Even Walter Dellinger agreed with that and I posted links to his comments on that before. The militias died because the states did not want to pay for them, they were ineffective in defending the nation, and citizens did not want to serve in them. The unorganized militia that exists in statute today has no rights, duties, or responsibilities and so is a dead letter in fact as well. It is a mere statutory construct.
However the 2A part of the equation was that our nation would be defended by a small standing army with a large state militia system and the 2A was written to keep state control intact over those miltias that the Federalist COTUS had given the Fed large amounts of control over these militias to.
The idea was that with a small standing army and a large state militia defending the country the ability of a tryant to take over would not be there since the state militias would not allow them to effect such and would out number the standing army. That dynamic is no more and after the civil war I don't think the state militias could perform those functions.
Last edited: