The Milita issue and incidents

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't trying to make a point that such examples don't exist. I wanted to find examples that do exist so I can use them.

So if I argue the issue and say that defense against tyranny is a real reason and someone says why - I can say something that has real impact.
 
Oh, sorry. I thought you had your answer already and were just being pedagogic. (You know how those blasted academics are.... :))

Anyways, that's the only case I know of. I again submit that such cases are very rare, else we RKBA'ers would be trumpeting them ad nauseum.
 
Thanks, I'm concerned that we have to reach the middle of the political spectrum.

Polling shows that the self-defense utilitarian argument has resonance.

I was looking for reasonable other cases that have resonance with the middle.

That's where I think the battle is.
 
Dr. Meyer -- I agree wholeheartedly that we have to reach the middle ground of voters, but I believe that in doing so it would be prudent to avoid the militia issue -- too explosive, too much negative connotation. The word "militia" has been demonized too successfully in the modern context for it too be useful on any but an intellectual plane, and as we know, mainstream minds are seldom swayed by reason alone.

It's the personal-safety notion that can help us most -- plain folks, who are trying to enjoy life by following rules and being peaceable, contrasted with the predator element; anecdotal evidence of the mild folks being victimized or fending off attacks; reaching for the same emotions the Michelon ad touches, with the baby sitting on the tire.

I avoid arguments over interpretations of the Constitution, as I do those of the Bible, leaving such discussions to those who are trained, paid and, if judiciary, charged to do so. Here's a link to a good judicial discussion of Second Amendment interpretation -- Neal Nox's report on the Emerson case:

http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00293.html
 
Kal-el (can't resist), I agree with you on the nature of the argument. In fact, many of us made similar points at meeting of Academics for the 2nd Amend. But a vocal group argue that the utilitarian model avoids the defense against tyranny argument which they think is just as strong or better.

I was looking for arguments that would give appeal to the tyranny thread of the arguments that might have some modern force.

Thanks for the url.

Glenn
 
Glenn -- I sympathize with your situation, but I still believe the militia issue these days is too fractious to be helpful in the general discussion.

Boundaries are not so clearly defined. It's not Tories v. Whigs, redcoats v. blue or occupiers v. colonists. There are "Indians" in the sense of street gangs, but civilian efforts against them are more vigilante than militia. It just ain't as simple as it was when Sam Adams and his Sons of Liberty deliberately provoked "the Boston Massacre." They had the local press on their side, as well as the local clergy -- powerful allies.

Philosophically, perhaps, Tim McVeigh can be considered a militia operative representing an ideological constituency that believes armed resistance to our government is necessary right now.

The words that stick in my craw in the Second, are "well-regulated." A number of states have militias that are organizations other than the Natl. Guard (I posted a link above to the site with links to each state's militia).

Virginia's Constitutional Militia is not govt. regulated, but neither does it hide in the woods and shoot at targets depicting black people. I believe only veterans may join (not positive on that, but I think that's how it was when it was formed about 15 years ago.) Has Va's militia ever mustered to fight a tyranny? Not with bullets, but certainly with petitions and signs.

I believe its strategic mission is to serve as a last-resort home guard in a circumstance where the National Guard is called up to serve elsewhere in wartime.

Lois, too, says hi.
 
The problem with finding an example of the need of the militia to prevent tyranny is that as Jefferson said, you won't need it until it is too late. It is a deterrent not unlike the bomb was during the cold war. It raises the cost of tyranny to high to make it pay. As long as we have the RKBA and therefore the militia we won't need it. Take the RKBA away and human nature will take over. Someone will always be there to take power over the people.

Is this argument based upon blind faith? No rather logic and history. Sorry, I know that's not what you are looking for, but it will have to do unless you want us to go back in history.



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

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
I think Bookie pretty much hits the nail on the head. As long a something like 80 million Americans have direct access to firearms, there is little likelyhood of an outright grab for power by a corrupt leader who might otherwise be so tempted.
A coup is very likely when leaders who have engaged in criminal activities are faced with the prospect of falling from power.
This is even more likely in times when the nation is deeply divided against itself on very hot political and moral issues.
I for one do not really believe that arrogant leaders like Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon and the circle of men surrounding them would
have left office in the face of an extremely hostile turn of public opinion if it had been possible for them to supress their oppoisition by force. It is extremely dangerous to place overwhelming military power in the hands of leaders like we have had in the last half of the twentieth century.
Perhaps your academics, at least those old enough to remember how hot the 60's and 70's really were in this country, can see from looking back on their own experience that real safegaurds against userpation of power are not something that can be relegated to a long gone past. We need them as much as any generation of Americans.
I do not think your acadenics can justify throwing away the safeguards of democracy based upon their own personal expeience in these matters. Just ask them to meditate on
the Presidents and administrations they have personally witnessed. It won't be a relaxing exercise.
 
Glenn, as for 20th Century incidents, aside from the vets in Tenn., after WWII, who had to get their guns and throw out a corrupt sheriff and his toadies, here's one where there was a lot of shooting by the People, against the cops and N.G.

Ludlow Colorado Massacre. Sept.,1913. Had to do with a long strike at coal mines in Colo. 66 men, women, and children were murdered by the Natl Guard, and local cops. Not one cop or N.G., or mine guard was ever indicted. Source is, "A People's History of the United States," pgs 346 through 349.

Perhaps this helps. J.B.
 
Thanks, Jay.

By the way, the "Academics" weren't arguing for throwing away protections. We were discussing a very practical argument which was the following.

The RKBA might be seen as losing ground in the US despite all the arcane arguments about the 2nd Amend. being absolute.

If the majority the country turns against it, then it is sunk. You can be a PVC Commando if you like. The collective right interpretation will lead to confiscation.

What arguments can save it? Just two for the moment:

1. Utilitarian Self-Defense as it was part of the intent of the Second.

2. The militia was to be composed of armed citizens to:

a. aid against external enemies
b. aid against internal enemies
c. protect against tyranny.

A counter argument is that guns are too dangerous for us to have and that danger overrides the reasons above.

Kleck and Lott (academics - ha ha) argue the utilitarian argument well. Sorry for those who don't understand the need for research.

A militia to defend against an external enemy
is not viable today.

Internal enemies - another civil war? Hard to see. Rioting like LA is really utilitarian self-defense.

So, we were discussing a case for defense against tyranny. There are foreign examples, but you can argue that their causes are so remote to the USA as not to be relevant to us and a reason for having guns. That's debateable and we did argue whether foreign example aid us. The Holocaust and other racial genocides are the best arguments.

But, I wanted to ask this noble group if we could come up with clear cut examples in the USA of preventing tyranny that would make a relevant point such that we could convince someone who is undecided. Also, the defenders against tyranny should be sympathetic and not seen extremists of unpleasant nature.

I think the hypothetical need argument is one that the choir buys and has little force for the uncommitted. The danger they see from guns would be immediate and override it.

Thus, I wanted examples of legitimate use of force by citizens to resist government or the real need to do it.

Everyone clear? We were debating ways to make the case. DUH!

You're lucky groups like Academics for the 2nd. Amend. exist.
 
If you are only interested in the argument that "Guns are to dangerous of us to own", then your task is extremely simle: just look up the real data on where deaths in this country actually occure and you will be convinced if you have any brain at all that firearms are way down on the list. This has been gone over ad-nausium.
I do not think that the obwious works as we would like because the enemy (Clinton/Gore administration is more interested in percieved politics rather than actual data. We are going to have to hit them as hard as we can any place were it is effective, hope the Bush peoiple know what they are doing and hope that
our enemies miscalculated on this and a number of other points (I doubt they are real political geniuses).
Perhaps the best thing your group can do is try to protect pro-second amendment supporters in the academic community from harassment in the interim.
I haven't the slightest idea what a "PVC Comando" is. All these confusing acronyms we have today!
 
Big H.

The task is not simple if one has a real understanding of public opinion and decision making.

Because there are other causes of death does mean that the argument that guns are too dangerous to own has no force. If lions are more dangerous than leopards doesn't mean that leopards are OK.

The crucial variable is the personalized and deliberate nature of the gun as a killing instrument. That makes it more vivid and its threat amplified in the public mind.

One Columbine has more impact that 100 kids killed in car accidents.

Your point might work for arguing that gun accidents are a low risk but it doesn't work for people who fear deliberate violence with guns.

You have to make a point that even if we do have gun violence that the reasons for owning guns overwhelms the gun violence.

But we are far afield and I must say that glocktalk guys were much more useful for me.

Sorry :(

This thread can die, IMHO. If you have a good example, e-mail me please.
 
You keep shifting the questions so as to make me feel more like Socrates than Herodotus!
The answer to you last guestions, is there some value to guns that overrides their inherent nature as weapons was very neatly handled by Jon Lott and his U. of Chicago boys and summarized in the little book appropiately entitled "More Guns, Less Crime". You friends will have lots of fun dealing with this in any serious and honest manner.
Too summerize, deterence works and if we want even less violence, we must find even more deterents that work. We certainly must not take backwards steps, as we clearly would if we adopted anti-RkBA policies.
You can take it from there.
 
Mr. Meyer,
I cannot thank you enough for your thoughtful posts in particular and to most of the people here for the overall excellent quality of thought on this list. The ranting and raving that I see on some of the sites related to these topics can cause despair of our being able to retain our rights. It is late and I want to make two quick points before bed.
First, in general; we need to be as disciplined with our minds and mouths as we are with our hands and eyes or we will surely lose our right. While legal avenues offer some hope, our fight is political and we must persuade or lose. I had been away from shooting sports for some fifteen years before I took it up again and have become alarmed at how the propaganda wars have so damaged the environment for political conversation on these topics. I am thrilled to have this forum available.

To keep this post short, I will give you one example that is near and dear to the progressive heart in the US. The Native American action at Wounded Knee. The AIM was getting nowhere before then. The polictical momentum gained there was lost only when the Pine Ridge shootout left the FBI agents dead; the armed takeover seemed to help the movement in the public mind. The other interesting and poltically riveting moment was when that distraught farmer wired the shotgun to the bankers head BUT DID NOT KILL HIM, he got his say on national TV and there was a sizable increase in understanding of the strain these people were under and how they were being abused by the system. I do not know what kind of legal action was taken against him--probably not much given that he let the man go in the end. The armed standoff seems to be more effective than the actual shooting (Perhaps because it becomes clear to people that folks who do that have been pushed to the point where they are willing to die--but end up not killing--I don't know.
I do agree that we need to steer clear of the militia against tyranny side of this argument no matter how true it is. It is too complex to sound reasonable in a sound bite, and that is about all were going to get. Fear of violent crime works wonders to focus the mind.

(Would Nat Turner's Rebellion help ???)

Just a couple of thoughts and many thanks,
Lonnie
 
"...A militia to defend against an external enemy is not viable today..."

I would disagree with this entirely. If we still have a requirement for armed forces to protect us from foreign invasion, which is THE primary reason they should exist, we are acknowledging that foreign invasion is possible. If so, we still have need for the unorganized militia to assist. Everyone capable would be called upon to aid in the common defense. The two are inseparable in practice. Reality often makes a meal of what is 'viable'.

Respectfully, Chris..
 
Some thoughts on the Second Amendment.

It is my understanding that the unorganized militia, which consists of citizens not enlisted in the regular army (exactly which citizens is a topic of debate), was intended to be able to possess offensive arms equal to those of the regular army. In fact, some citizens pooled together funds to purchase cannons during our country's formative years. I'm pretty sure they weren't registered or equipped with trigger locks.

I have always understood that a "Well Regulated Militia" had nothing to do with government regulation. The phrase pertained to the fact that the milita should be well trained and have discipline and a rank structure, like its regular army counterparts. One definition in Webster's for regulate is "to adjust for accurate and proper functioning". At minimum, I feel that "Well Regulated" meant the militia members should be able to use their weapons proficiently and do battle as a squad or platoon.

Things are more advanced now, so nukes are probably out of the question. My opinion, FWIW, is that the functional equivalent of an M-16 and the Beretta 92 should be allowed for all citizens without registration, regulation, taxation, concealed carry restrictions,...you get the picture. Maybe patriot missles and nuclear submarines could be a point of compromise. I'm a reasonable guy :)

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
Glenn:

I read over the thread on the GlockTalk forum. I'm confused now. Are all those instances of mistaken raids the kind of thing you are looking for? While one could argue these are indeed instances of governmental tyranny, the individuals who resisted seemed to be resisting what they thought were armed criminals, not "tyranny". A number of them also seemed to end up dead for their efforts, which hardly seems to support the premise unless you are looking for contrary evidence as well.

[This message has been edited by DocH (edited June 26, 2000).]
 
"...A militia to defend against an external enemy is not viable today..."


A further rebuttal to this ignorant statement.

Last summer, was over at a friends house helping him work on some pretty big constuction projects, and we were hiding from the early afternoon heat in his air-conditioned living room watching saturday cable tv.

He is not a gunner, doesn't really have any
opinion on these matters one way or the other, and we dont' discuss these things.

Anyway, there was an infomercial on for some fancy treestand which was pretty interesting so we watched it for few minutes. (remember, this guy is not a hunter or gunner, has never fired or even held a gun to my knowledge)

Anyway, we watched this treestand in action and all the neato options and such like the ready-rifle-rest and such things, and sorta outta the blue, my pretty pacifistic friend stated, "Wow, if anybody thinks they are going to invade the US and get away with it, they really don't have a clue what they are in for."

While that point of view is naive to be certain, it is also inescapable that the time honored tradition of American Hunting and the Constitutionaly protected and United States Code specified provision for an unorganised militia provides for a partisan force no army has ever had to deal with in modern times.

Here in WV alone, there are thousands and thousands of blooded snipers needing very little instruction to complete their training. And those holes in knowlege and
skill will be plugged quicky by on-the-job
training.


Todays modern armies rely heavily on armor, hi-technology, air support and fully automatic battle rifles. The true american
rifleman exists in the hundreds of thousands and is a one-shot, one-kill bolt action/lever action terror. He AND she are both quiet, low profile, heavily skilled
in the arts of concealment and marksmanship, able to act autonomously, and are motivated and very self-sufficent.

In these modern times, it has been these types that have tipped the balance in many wars of conquest, but nowhere does this
force of resistance exist in greater numbers and power than in these here United States.

[This message has been edited by dog3 (edited June 26, 2000).]
 
Back in the '30s, or even before then, Gloucester County, Virginia experienced what we now call The Great Oyster War of Ought-whatever year it was. It amounted to about 100 men, who made their living harvesting oysters, standing up to the Virginia National Guard.

The oystermen were resisting legislation that would have opened up to the public oyster beds that had been the "private" domain of the local folks for generations -- even tho the waters were public. They chugged out in their workboats to the disputed areas and stood guard, armed with 30-30s and shotguns. The Guard moved in, pitched tents along the shore and waited for something to happen.

Meanwhile, a popular local storeowner, George Ashe, invited the Guard's commanding general and a couple of leaders among the oystermen to parlay around his woodstove. George even popped for a barrel of beer to he'p with negotiations. It musta he'ped, because no shots were fired, nobody was arrested, and a compromise was reached regarding access to the disputed oyster beds -- a licensing requirement, with first dibs going to the regulars.

The lesson: a no-bull**** stand by a self-(and well-) regulated group of armed citizens caused an intruding government to rethink and back off.

[This message has been edited by Clark Kent (edited June 26, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top