Evan Thomas
Inactive
I've deleted a couple of posts, one of which used a Nazi reference as an insult. We don't do that here.
That "militia thing"
- Thread starter tomrkba
- Start date
Frank Ettin
Administrator
But what does that, exactly, have to do with:tomrkba said:
tomrkba said:
How would your proposed exercise have an impact on gun control efforts?
What purpose supportive of the RKBA would your exercise serve? Why would you think it would serve that purpose? How would it serve that purpose? Any evidence or data to support your beliefs?
More importantly how does your idea counter the knee-jerk reactions from people who are afraid of guns?
Gun Nuts Playing Soldier.
Anti-government Militia.
I could come up with more that deal even more directly with the stereotypes of doomsday preppers, and quasi to fully terrorist "militia" organizations in Idaho, Montana and elsewhere, but that would likely get me a spanking from the mods, and the first two should give you an idea.
Gun Nuts Playing Soldier.
Anti-government Militia.
I could come up with more that deal even more directly with the stereotypes of doomsday preppers, and quasi to fully terrorist "militia" organizations in Idaho, Montana and elsewhere, but that would likely get me a spanking from the mods, and the first two should give you an idea.
Edward Veira, a Constitutional scholar, wrote a pretty good book about what The Militia is all about. I haven't finished it yet but it has lots of good info.
(Has a picture of the Porcupine Flag on the front cover.)
Congress is charged to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining The Militia. (They've never really done this. )
And there are words in the Constitution about "the Militia of the several states" implying that it is normal and expected that the States would have their own Militias. And there are words about the Militia being called forth to enforce the laws of the union, suppress rebellion and so forth.
All this to say that Veira's view, supported by extensive citation, is that the Militia is an instrument of each State. Citizens are armed in order that when they are called to serve in the Militia that they bring their weapons with them.
(The Swiss model works pretty well to show what ought to be in place.)
If you could convince your state to authorize your group as part of the State Militia then you would have a completely Constitutional activity. The Militia is an agency of each State. ("the Militia of the Several States")
A self-selected group of armed citizens holding maneuvers would not be well-treated by the media, the police, or the courts. How could anyone know if you're rehearsing for insurrection instead?
(Has a picture of the Porcupine Flag on the front cover.)
Congress is charged to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining The Militia. (They've never really done this. )
And there are words in the Constitution about "the Militia of the several states" implying that it is normal and expected that the States would have their own Militias. And there are words about the Militia being called forth to enforce the laws of the union, suppress rebellion and so forth.
All this to say that Veira's view, supported by extensive citation, is that the Militia is an instrument of each State. Citizens are armed in order that when they are called to serve in the Militia that they bring their weapons with them.
(The Swiss model works pretty well to show what ought to be in place.)
If you could convince your state to authorize your group as part of the State Militia then you would have a completely Constitutional activity. The Militia is an agency of each State. ("the Militia of the Several States")
A self-selected group of armed citizens holding maneuvers would not be well-treated by the media, the police, or the courts. How could anyone know if you're rehearsing for insurrection instead?
carguychris
New member
Zukiphile and Aguila- I've edited post #10 to clarify what I really intended to say. I realize in 20/20 hindsight that I unintentionally obscured the distinction between state and local governments and the federal governments as they relate to the militia.
JimDandy said
^^This^^
The Militia movement picked up steam in the early 1990s. You can read about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_movement
The movement focussed on the increasing power of the federal government and encroachments on the RKBA. Gosh that sounds good, where do I sign up... ?
Unfortanately, the Militia movement found itself on the wrong side of public perception after the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing. No matter how they tried to distance themselves from Tim McViegh and Terry Nichols, the words that those two terrorists spouted sounded an awful lot like the preachings of the Militia movement.
I have 0% interest in associating with anyone who calls themselves a militia, or with anyone who is prepping for armegeddon, or for the end of government, or other such nonsense.
^^This^^
The Militia movement picked up steam in the early 1990s. You can read about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_movement
The movement focussed on the increasing power of the federal government and encroachments on the RKBA. Gosh that sounds good, where do I sign up... ?
Unfortanately, the Militia movement found itself on the wrong side of public perception after the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing. No matter how they tried to distance themselves from Tim McViegh and Terry Nichols, the words that those two terrorists spouted sounded an awful lot like the preachings of the Militia movement.
I have 0% interest in associating with anyone who calls themselves a militia, or with anyone who is prepping for armegeddon, or for the end of government, or other such nonsense.
zincwarrior
New member
Agreed, unless its the chocolate cake militia of course...
Prepping for Armageddon isn't in and of itself a bad thing. Prepping for Armageddon isn't far off from prepping for a massive natural disaster. I'm not saying buy crossbows for when Electricity magically stops working or anything, but prepping isn't totally bad.
The problem with "militia" today is that the image conjured isn't the Minutemen of 200 years ago. It's a bunch of white supremacy anarchists running around in camo reliving Deer Hunter flashbacks. If this would be worthwhile, you'd have to start with the war of words. Call yourself the XXXXX State Civil Defense Force. Anything but militia.
The problem with "militia" today is that the image conjured isn't the Minutemen of 200 years ago. It's a bunch of white supremacy anarchists running around in camo reliving Deer Hunter flashbacks. If this would be worthwhile, you'd have to start with the war of words. Call yourself the XXXXX State Civil Defense Force. Anything but militia.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Let's further suppose that they're all over 40 years of age, and that their interest is defending the United States rather than pursuing dubious political agendas in far-off countries that don't appreciate our so-called "assistance."Buzzcook said:
Your post reminds me of a conversation between two of the younger guys at work just last week. Both expressed an interest in joining the National Guard, but neither has any particular interest in doing long tours in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As a result, the NG is going to have to do without these two guys, because the NG is bring used in a way other than that for which the NG should be used.
I have read much concerning the definition of "Militia" that was accepted when the 2A was written. It was not well defined or understood universally even then. I have the simple understanding that in order for any State to be free the people must have the right to keep and bear arms. Without that right the people do not have the ability to defend themselves against threats from within or without.
I have the ability to well regulate my weapons. I have no need or desire to join with any Militia group to affirm my right to do so.
I have the ability to well regulate my weapons. I have no need or desire to join with any Militia group to affirm my right to do so.
Last edited:
zincwarrior
New member
Did you just call the US military "military govenrment agents?"
Double Naught Spy
New member
What would happen? You already described it. A 100 or more men showed up at the local town square, formed up, said the pledge of allegiance, saluted the flag, and someone did an inspection. Every man would have a full kit, rifle, sidearm and ammunition. There would be no standard uniform or "unit". They'd then disperse and go home. No running around the woods, no diatribes against tyranny, the UN, or anything else. It would not be associated with any sort of protest.
So aside from the fact that the act would disenfranchise potential female members, nothing of any sort of realistic societal benefit would occur.
The people? Really? You are proposing a group of 100 or so and are calling them "the people"? If 100 or so are "the people" then the people regularly get together in various parts of the country and do a lot of what you are talking about. So do run around in the woods. Some worry about tyranny, but they do assemble and consider themselves to be militia.
Stand up and be counted? What does that mean? You mean something like where a census is taken of the attendees' and gear data and put into a database?
I am sorry, but your posting sounds very fringish, but even if it wasn't and as noted previously, sounds like a monumental waste of time in regard to your apparent intended purpose. Your premise is in error that people haven't done this in a while. You just haven't been a part of any of the groups doing it.
When you have a large peaceful demonstration planned, you'll be infiltrated by provocateurs paid by the govt (or someone who opposes your cause -say, Bloomberg?) to turn it into a riot so as to make you and your goals look bad.
And if your demonstration IS peaceful, it will get no coverage whatsoever.
And if your demonstration IS peaceful, it will get no coverage whatsoever.
Double Naught Spy
New member
So there is a government conspiracy against this, Ronbert?
Last edited:
I don't know this for a fact but it would be stupid to bet against it.
There were enough of these kinds of things that the '60's radicals had a thumbrule that the guy in the group in favor of the most radical action was a govt agent. Kind like how Randy Weaver was set up.
Also of note- there are darn few revolutions in history that finished with the same "good" intentions they started out with. Usually they get hijacked.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Sorry, I was confused by your statements of fact that are now things you say you don't know for a fact.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Hmm! If you don't know something as fact, you shouldn't have stated it as one.Ronbert said: