The practicality of the militia

ATW,
Armed goon squads from the DEA and the BATFE may not fit the definition of an army, but they're too close for my tastes. They do represent a clear and present danger to anyone trying to exercise his constitutional rights.

Would the founders see a difference between British soldiers and the band of JBTs that gathered in Waco because of some unconstitutional and unpaid taxes?
Click to expand...

Well, the founders thought the British were a big enough threat to warrant the need to actually take up arms and fight British soldiers. They picked up thier rifles and took decisive action to resolve the matter. How many JBTs have the militia groups killed lately? I mean... if the Feds are such a threat, shouldn't they be out fighting them actively?
 
Most of you seem to have either forgotten or never known is that the militia is everyone.
Click to expand...

We are the militia (well, not me, I'm not able-bodied), but not in an active militia. I think of it like the draft, sure, we are all able to be drafted, but we aren't actually in the military.
 
ATW, if infrastructure is difficult to replace and troops can be replaced quickly (increase salary until they get more applicants... after all, it's the taxpayer's dime), what sane militia would attack soldiers rather than the infrastructure?
 
The use of millitias way back when was not only from a patriotic standpoint, but it was cheaper. True militias, self-armed, moderately trained, are cheaper to run than a standing, professional army. They are effective dollar for dollar. They are most effective at resisting invasion and also at resisting tyranny.

Many countries rely heavily on militias simply because they cannot afford a professional army. I don't think they're nut jobs or weirdos. They simply cannot afford to enforce their soveriegnty any other way.

Ultimately, an army or a militia is simply a way of enforcing sovereignty. If you are a sovereign nation, you must enforce it. Militias do so at a negligible cost. Currently, it doesn't pay to have a standing army if you are Afghanistan or Honduras. Militias are cheaper. They also ensure that the subjects who fall under them do so out of loyalty or patriotism rather than brute force.
 
It is; but currently more in principle than practicality - since for it to be effective it must have structure, organization and leadership in place.

It is not by accident that government and media have stirred up the image they have. For these people are well aware of the essential elements of organization - or infrastructure - and leadership. While structure is not that difficult to define on paper, the other two elements are extremely difficult to build cohesively in a hurry.

So by "discouraging" them as an ongoing activity they effectively preclude their potential overall impact to a significant degree.

KJM,

Additionally, it was never intended that we have a standing army; not because of the monetary cost, but that a standing army is always a threat to the liberty of a nation's citizens.
 
LAK, I think they have brought it upon themselves, and the media and gov't were all too happy to sieze the moment and capitalize on it.
 
ARE MILITIAS LEGAL? In a word, "YES."

How legal are militia's? Seems anyone that gets off the ground gets a swift in the arse from the feds........ I don't see how it would be possible to have a non government (see: politically) run militia......Not in this day.
Click to expand...

How legal are militias? I do not have a chapter and verse reference in front of me - I will look for it and edit - but the United States Code, otherwise known as "Federal Law," codifies the issue as follows:

"The Militia of the United States of America shall consist of every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age..."

Sounds pretty legal to me!

Furthermore, it sounds like if "The Government" tries to suppress the operation of the Militia, "The Government" is in violation of federal law. Oh, well - it wouldn't be the first time "The Government" violated federal law... :mad:
 
+1 on tyme. Everyone that is a man and 17-45 is in the unorganized militia. That is different than being in a non-state sponsored militia.

Although, I doubt it is illegal, under that whole peaceable assembly thing.
 
Milita

TYME;
I have no idea how you got , the organized militia, only from this thread, I do not see a reference to that in any post except yours.
The milita is esentially everyone, some may gather for drills, some not, but that has always been the case.
Some states used to have annual drill days, similar to the Swiss outings, I do not know of any now, but it would be a good idea, might increase the pucker factor in some dictatorially inclined pols.
:D
 
drinks, my comment was directed at progunner, who seemed to have misinterpreted which type of militia Trapp was talking about.
 
I've been serriously thinking of it... and I believe I've got a different stand point than previously stated..

Most of who are gun owners believe in the rights and duty of self protection. We know that it is our own personal responsibility to protect ourselves. That is why we carry guns, and keep guns in the home for self protection.

If things were to go bad(natural disaster, riots, Nuclear/Biological/Chemical terror attack, etc), most of us would cower in our homes till the government comes and "rescues" us, with the Military or the Police. The purpose of the Militia is to train the citizens to fulfill this role, to keep the peace during a time of unrest, and to come to the aid of themselves and others in times when the government can not do so. The militia fills the role of rapid response, that logistically neither the police or the military could fill.

Folks, whether you choose to see it or not this world is VERY unstable, and always has been teetering on a knife's edge. Its better to have and not need, than need and not have.
 
We need a new name....

because via the press especially, as well as the government, the term militia has become associated with so many negative ideologies and other nonsense.
In short, 'militia' has come to mean "a bunch of guys with guns"

My idea of a true militia would be a group that stands ready to ASSIST the government in time of local or national threat, by keeping order and helping citizens in need. While some of that may include "armed response"/training, it should also (and maybe more importantly)include preparedness for first aid/medical triage, distribution of uncontaminated food/water, shelter if needed....You get the idea....

This to me would be a true citizens militia....No ideological/political agendas allowed!
 
"My idea of a true militia would be a group that stands ready to ASSIST the government in time of local or national threat, by keeping order and helping citizens in need."

I agree with you 100 percent, but as we've seen recently where citizens have banded together to help keep our southern border secure, the press *did* come up with a new name for them: "vigilantes".

The press, and by extension the left-leaners in the country, have decided that the government, and only the government, may be allowed to protect the people from foreign threat.

Tim
 
that is because the press thinks that it can dictate policy in the US. since most people don't truly understand the concept of the government and what they established in the Bill of Rights, then the media plays off this (thank you america for dumbing down our education). many people feel that the media tells the whole truth which in fact it does, if you wrote the article. very few times have i seen a story that tells both sides equally and fairly. until this happens, the gen public will show no support for militias because they do not understand what they are. also we need to reform what gets taught in our public schools. a lot of bs is being put into action by hyphenated americans who feel that they must have their way of life pushed onto others.
 
It doesn't need a new name. It is what it is. That leaves two options;

For the Bush administration to do what it should have done on Sept 12 '01 (or shortly thereafter) and call 'em up.

Or for citizens to carry on forming their own groups.

It is clear to me that the ruling party wants to to see the concept fade away completely. They have and will do anything but call the unorganized militia into national service or encourage it's local utility. "Homeland Security", Americorp, this program, that program - you name it. Any but the United States militia, which is contrary to the status quo. Rather, they want a standing army.

That leaves the second option.
 
It is my idea that a miltia should stand ready to help the people in time of need, then the government. Consider the following, a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence. In particular the highlighted part. Not just a right, but a duty.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Click to expand...
 
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—
Click to expand...

What I hear there is - if the government imposes a long sequence of abuses and usurpations (illegal seizure of power) showing clearly a plan to reduce the people to living under absolute Depostism, then it is the duty of the people to remove that government and appoint another.

That's different than saying - it is the duty of people to organize a militia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top