Your thoughts on the modern militia...

[Rabs]

Problem being that anybdoy thats gona wanna be in a milita especially in the south, is gona be a "good ole boy." probally fat and probally racist. Hicks are racist, its a fact. I just dont trust un-managed citizens to take the law into there own hands. It scares me,

maybe if these guys were like an auxillary, with a offical military leader, and just citizen soldiers id be more for it. However i do not agree with completey civilian ran groups being able to jump into the fray.

 

[phoenix80]

I don't like militias, they make me nervous.

1. As somebody said they lack training many of these guys tend to be more wannabes than the real deal. I think we all can agree that playing soldier in the woods is not the same thing as being one.

2. Some of the anti-government rhetoric (be it a republican or democrat) I have heard from them borders paranoia...

3. Both federal and local law enforcement dislike them. Indeed Some of the militia walk a narrow legal tightrope. A few have been caught going over that line, Tim McVeigh for example...

4. There is no control over them. All law enforcement or military organizations have some sort of authority to keep them in line. Militas are independent. What happens if they decide to take things into their own hands?

5. Some (although not all) have close or ties relations with truely detestable hate groups such as Aryan Nation, Christian Identity, and various other Neo-Nazi groups. At the vary least, these viewpoints are tolerated with certain groups. Some militias don't espouse racist viewpoints but many do, And members drift between the militia/racist/survivalist groups easily...

So to summerize. We have a group of extremely well armed people many of which harbor a resentment (and even paranoia) of government and sometimes minority groups without any sort of control or supervision.

Legally their existance is not illegal (for the moment at least). However they make people nervous. Fortunatly the tradegy at Oklahoma City put the movement into a decline.

My .02 cents

u dont like em becuz u dont have any thing like them in Europe and europeans are not really familiar with the concept of it!

 

[mmarsh]

5.56

The reason is the term 'militia' has many different definitions. I found 4 different ones on Wikipedia. I think its also fair to say most people back home when they talk militia the anti-government groups is the most common definition. I agree thats unfortunate, but it must be said that not all groups are racist.

Phoenix

u dont like em becuz u dont have any thing like them in Europe and europeans are not really familiar with the concept of it![/quote]

The German Freikorps, the 16th century Swiss Militia, the UK Atholl Highlanders, not to mention every partisan units in WWII such as the French, Dutch, Czech, Italian, Greek, Serb Resistence Movement, just to name a few. There are still Militias fighting in places like Serbia. All of these groups were Militias.

Did you mean the racist parmilitaries in the US? Your're right that the Europeans dont have such groups, and that's a good thing.

One last thing. For for future reference, I'm a Dual-National French-American who lived there 28 years. I fly the Tricolors because I work there. Being that you are Canadian, please dont ever suggest that I dont know anything about my own country. Thank You.

 

[Rabs]

Do you mean the militias such as the Racists paramilitary groups? Well your're right that the Europeans dont have them, and that's a good thing.

Guess those guys in serbia were freedom fighters.

 

[mmarsh]

Do you mean the militias such as the Racists paramilitary groups? Well your're right that the Europeans dont have them, and that's a good thing.

Touche... Good point. I stand corrected.

 

[Italian Guy]

Do you mean the militias such as the Racists paramilitary groups? Well your're right that the Europeans dont have them, and that's a good thing.

Guess those guys in serbia were freedom fighters.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :bravo:

 

[SmallTownHopeful]

If they could somehow regulate this militia, so they weren't letting the thugs control everything, I would be for it. I mean, in New Orleans you didn't hear anything about a group of good civilians keeping order, you heard about hordes of gangs roaming the streets. It's quite sad, really

 

[Whispering Death]

Citizens will slowly but inevitably lose more and more of their rights to the government.

Why is it inevitable?

Because in a democracy, politicians get elected on what they can make the GOVERNMENT do for YOU. Understand that process. They don't get elected by saying "I AM GOING TO MAKE SURE THE GOVERNMENT DOES LESS FOR YOU!"

They get up they and say I'm going to do X for seniors, I'm going to do Y for working moms, I'm going to do Z for the poor etc.

And once a program is started it rarely contracts or is stopped because of the iron triangle of support; politicians, beurocrats, and the group recieving the bennefits.

So there is a lot of incentive for governemnt power to gradually increase whereas there is very little incentive for it to contract. Look at the history of modern federalist democracies and you will see this trend.

Therfore, government expansion in federalist democracies is inevitable.

 

[sleepyscout]

If the government allowed such groups to exist, then they would not be militias, they would be the National Guard. What is the purpose of these groups? It is to allow every day civilians to come together and train to protect themselves, right? They’re going to get together and train to defend themselves and their fellow country men using fire arms; sounds a lot like I an oath I took when I joined the U.S. Army. If you’re worried about feeling protected, then why don’t you become police officers and work towards improving your community?

To be honest, the militia concept seems born out of mistrust for the central government. This worries me. So now we have a bunch of citizens who are getting together and training with weapons yet are not being held responsible to any one but themselves. Armies are instruments of killing, but a more surgical form, the controlled killing of those deemed as dangerous by the government. A solider is told who to kill and when. The officers in the army are the control mechanism. When a solider kills in a manner that is not to the country’s liking, it’s not wholly the soldier’s fault, but shared with the officers. They control and channel the soldier’s actions. Militias have no control, and while one would say that you could trust most of the people who join these militias and that they have good intentions, it is not enough to guarantee that their actions would be accounted for. When one group does not see eye to eye with another group, what is to prevent the shedding of blood between these groups? That system is called a feudal system and proven by history to not work. The KKK and Black Panthers come to mind, as well as other supremacy groups. Look at Iraq today, warring internally because of hate between tribes. Everyone has an AK-47 and a grudge.
The rights of general peaceful assembly and the right to bear arms are still applicable today, but the days of back water colonists fighting a superpower British government are over. The times must be considered when viewing our rights and freedoms. For instance, in a democracy, certain rights are sacrificed for the benefit of the whole, such as allowing searches in airports. Certainly all good Americans have nothing to hide?
That’s right you can’t have a machine gun because the government says it’s illegal. Not because it doesn’t want you to have it but because it can’t trust ALL of its citizens to follow the law. A good example of the mistrust would be of … I don’t know, two men who went robbing banks with machine guns and body armor and mowed down a modern police force charged with protecting its citizens. Hollywood? Ring a bell?

 

[Rabs]

The times must be considered when viewing our rights and freedoms. For instance, in a democracy, certain rights are sacrificed for the benefit of the whole, such as allowing searches in airports. Certainly all good Americans have nothing to hide?

No sir. My rights as an american(which i thank you for defending) to keep and bear arms, to avoid unreasonable search and my right to free speach. Are not interuptable by the "times" in which we live.

If our constitutution means nothing, whats the point of haveing it? If my rights are restricted because the government finds it helpful, that sir might incourage me to form a milita for much more sinister purpose.

Putting your full trust in our sadly corupt and bloated government is kind of sad. Should you help, and serve your government as best you can. Yes. Should you give your rights and freedoms and put your undeinable trust into it. No

 

[5.56X45mm]

Because the National Guard wasn't part of the militia. It's part of the DOD. And Law Enforcement are part of the Federal, State, COunty, and City Government.

People have a right to protect themselves. I don't depend on others to protect me. I protect myself. And government power can be abused. Waco is a prime example of that abuse of power. Were the folks there breaking the law? Yes. And did the ATF, FBI, and other Law Enforcement Agencies over step their power? Yes. And if the US Legal Code States that the unregulated militia is everyone. Than why are you against they're training and arming of themselves.

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


Look at the last sentence. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Ramjet]

Citizens will slowly but inevitably lose more and more of their rights to the government.

Why is it inevitable?

Because in a democracy, politicians get elected on what they can make the GOVERNMENT do for YOU. Understand that process. They don't get elected by saying "I AM GOING TO MAKE SURE THE GOVERNMENT DOES LESS FOR YOU!"

I agree to an extent, but I think you are missing the point of why the government makes these claims. They make these claims because, essentially, the government is supposed to work for the people. In a democracy, the government should represent the people. Hence why the people are encouraged to vote come election time.

Now, that's the process.

They get up they and say I'm going to do X for seniors, I'm going to do Y for working moms, I'm going to do Z for the poor etc.

And once a program is started it rarely contracts or is stopped because of the iron triangle of support; politicians, beurocrats, and the group recieving the bennefits.

So, why is that necessarily a bad thing? Some programs IMO should be implemented because they are essential. Of course, not all programs are beneficial, but I think it is too sweeping to assume, or imply that all
governmental programs are detrimental.

So there is a lot of incentive for governemnt power to gradually increase whereas there is very little incentive for it to contract. Look at the history of modern federalist democracies and you will see this trend.

Therfore, government expansion in federalist democracies is inevitable.

However, does individual freedom exist in greater qualities in other forms of government? It sounds like you disagree with government intervention in people's lives. Should the government take a lasseiz-faire approach instead?

Also, is "government expansion" necessarily detrimental? With some situations, it seems that the greater the governmental intervention, the more freedom we receive. For instance, the privacy act.

Anyways, back to the militia question. I believe that encouraging the militias = encouraging the disintegration of the state. Now, I find that disturbing because it seems to harken back to an anarchical era where everyone feels obliged to defend themselves.

 

[Missileer]

This reminds me of old bumper stickers. "Rulers love unarmed peasants." And "Freedom is lost slowly, like boiling a frog."

Those anarchists who preach that the Constitution is a "living document" are telling us that freedoms vacillate with time. Someone find that in the Constitution and show it to me, otherwise, I'll take it literally the way it was written and defended by our forefathers.

 

[gladius]

Right now as it stands I'm really not interested in joining, nor do I see the need to encourage any militias. However having a few grassroots militias are I think a good thing just in case. I really wouldn't want to see this grow too much, since there is no real need for it.

However if the US is somehow becomes completely and totally ruled and taken over by liberal, left-wing, socialist who want to make this country another France or something like that, and have some government elitist decide whats best for me. Then I will definately join and encourage militias, and I will defend to the death my right to bear arms. I'm willing to bet, you will see a massive growth in the forming of militias if the situation I described were to happen here in the US.

 

[mmarsh]

Right now as it stands I'm really not interested in joining, nor do I see the need to encourage any militias. However having a few grassroots militias are I think a good thing just in case. I really wouldn't want to see this grow too much, since there is no real need for it.

However if the US is somehow becomes completely and totally ruled and taken over by liberal, left-wing, socialist who want to make this country another France or something like that, and have some government elitist decide whats best for me. Then I will definately join and encourage militias, and I will defend to the death my right to bear arms. I'm willing to bet, you will see a massive growth in the forming of militias if the situation I described were to happen here in the US.

I am curious, how making this country another France is essentially a bad thing? How do you make that judgement? Have you actually lived here?
The Quality of Life is much, much, higher here than in the US. Trust me, there are alot of things we Americans could stand to learn from the French. They are way ahead of us in many different areas...

I have been living here several years now and I enjoy the exact same freedoms I did when I was living in the USA. The only major difference between the French Droit de l'Homme and the Bill of Rights is probably the 2nd Amendment. The only reason France (and most other countries) don't have a 2nd Amendment is because they dont want it. Its not something that was taken away, they just dont want it. Thats not a fault, thats a choice and so far the French are doing perfectly fine without it.

 

[Rabs]

I am curious, how making this country another France is essentially a bad thing? How do you make that judgement? Have you actually lived here?
The Quality of Life is much, much, higher here than in the US.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

http://www.able2know.com/forums/about55762.html

-Unemployment Rates-

http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_eco&article=311616&lng=1

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2129.html


GRRR, looks to me like our quality of life is still better, and being our population is what triple yours. I think thats pretty darn good. Our unemployment is half yours, and our economy is actually growing. Granted those scandavian welfare states have high standards of living and there pretty lefty. Thats possible with a small population, but when you have a population of 300 million its kinda difficult to prove for them all.

No offense to you but i just despise the French.

"Look at us were arrogant and will lecture you on your economy even though ours is terrible."

 

[5.56X45mm]

Well, when France was taken over by the Germany Heer. The Civilian Populace didn't have the means to fight back until the allies supplied the partisan with weapons.

The 2nd Admendment isn't about duck hunting. It's about keeping governments in check. Both ours and foreign. If any world power wishes to inavde the US of A. They'll have a problem. All of us gun owners.

 

[Whispering Death]

Ramjet I think it's you who is missing the thrust of my writing. I am not in favor of gov't expansion but my last post wasn't about that. You can think it's a great thing and that's just peachy. My point was you asked why it was an inevitability and I was explaining to you how the structure of modern federalist democracies creates that inevitability.

It's the interplay between politicians needing to promise something to get ellected and the iron triangle of support that makes it EXTREMELY difficult to curtail or stop programs already in place.

 

[gladius]

I am curious, how making this country another France is essentially a bad thing? How do you make that judgement? Have you actually lived here?
The Quality of Life is much, much, higher here than in the US. Trust me, there are alot of things we Americans could stand to learn from the French. They are way ahead of us in many different areas...

I have been living here several years now and I enjoy the exact same freedoms I did when I was living in the USA. The only major difference between the French Droit de l'Homme and the Bill of Rights is probably the 2nd Amendment. The only reason France (and most other countries) don't have a 2nd Amendment is because they dont want it. Its not something that was taken away, they just dont want it. Thats not a fault, thats a choice and so far the French are doing perfectly fine without it.

I've been to France I actually liked visiting there. The French people and country isnt bad at all. Its all those damn socialist running the place, there and the rest of Europe.

What I don't want is to be ruled by left-wing liberals who want turn the US into a socialist country somewhat like France, or even most of Europe. Where elitist and special interest groups dictate what is in the best interest of the majority of the populace who see their ideas as repugnant. For this I am willing to take up arms.

Second and more importantly these left-wing liberal socialist are the ones causing the collapse of Western civilization. You may think this statement is over the top, but it is not. Within 50 or 100 years max, Europe as a democracy will no longer exist. They will be either assimilated or fall to invasion, and it is these daydreaming socialist left-wing policy makers who rule Europe that are causing and will cause this to happen. Their children and grandchildren will be the ones to pay for their mistakes. The barrel of my assualt rifle will be red hot before I see those same PC left-wing neo-pacifist/socialist policies take over here in the US.

As for the facts about economy, ect, Rabs already pointed them out. There are way more opportunities to get ahead in the US than in Europe, that should always be an option not the stiffling of it in the name of some psuedo equality.

Besides if I want to go to a range and shoot a rifle I should be able to. Than in itself is reason enough.

 

[mmarsh]

Rabs

I never said that France was a better country, there is no such thing as a 'best country'. I'm NOT going to get into that debate with you, the Mods probably wouldnt like it either frankly. I just said the US could learn from France. Your comments remind me of something else the US could learn, humility. Our Image would better in the world if we did.

And no offense to you, but to hate an entire country is very poor reflection on you. America is supposed to be a nation of tolerence, even to those that dare have the audacity to disagree with us. BTW the French tend to agree with the US more than they disagree. Its just that the disagreements are more public. Russia and China are much more anti-US but nobody complains about them. So its hypocritical as well...

5.56 (back to topic)

Def: A group of civilians forming a paramiltary band.

Lets be honest here. Lets hypothetically assume that China invades the US mainland. First of all would there even be a militia? Most able bodied men would already be in the regular military through conscription. And secondly, even if there was this isnt 1776 anymore. In this day and age a direct confrontation between a militia and a standing army such as the PLA or US.Army would be suicide. They would have the advantage in Training, firepower, and numbers.

You mentioned the Partisans, the resistence movement role was not to directly oppose the Germans, but to aid the allies in roles such as sabatoge, and reconaissance. To my knowledge militias only battled the Germans in a open battle once in the Warsaw uprising in 1944. The Jews put up a good fight, but they were quickly overwhelmed.

So I dont see the usefulness to having a civilian militia. I'd sooner join the regular US.Army or National Guard.


Gladius

I dont agree at all with Rabs information, but I dont want to get into that because its stupid, OT, and would mostly likely bring the wrath of the Mods on everyone. So I thinks its in everyone's best interest we let it go.

I really dont think you and may others really dont understand what socialism really is. In France at least all it means is the government watches over a few sectors such as healthcare, communications, transportation etc. Most of these sectors are still open to competition from private industry. Thats it. Its constantly confused with communism or totalarianism. When you were in France did you take a train? If you did the SNCF has a good service (some say best rail system in the world). It was Paid for by the government. Thats all socialism is here, its not a big deal.

You talk about the far left in America, what about the far right? I will remind you the far-right has total power the far left is out in the cold. Your worrying about a threat that doesnt even exsist yet (and frankly you cannot be certain that it ever will, 50 years is a long way away). But you totally ignoring the present situation. Remember who gave us the patriot act? I am opposed to all extremist groups right or left.

BTW guns are regulated but not banned. You are entitled to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting no restictions. You are allowed a handgun as long as its kept at a club (of which there are many). You are just not allowed a semi-auto or a carry a pistol or at home without a permit. But thats true with many nations, its the USA that is the most liberal with its gun laws.