Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
Hell you were implying something
But anyways, whatever the militia situation is right now... seems to be working fine. I definately don't wanna' see civilians with full autos and stuff.
Your thoughts on the modern militia...
Hell you were implying something
But anyways, whatever the militia situation is right now... seems to be working fine. I definately don't wanna' see civilians with full autos and stuff.
Whispering Death said:
Well, my point is that government expansion is sometimes welcomed and encouraged by the populace. Therefore, it is only inevitable in the sense that the populace believes that greater government intervention is beneficial.
Also, the government is only given power by the populace. By the same token, the government's power can be taken away...including its powers of expansion.
Perhaps I am reading you wrong again but I thought you were implying that government expansion essentially occurs without the consent of the populace and that the expansion, once entrenched, is permanent. Personally I am skeptical about whether this is true.
What's the alternative method for politicians? If they promise they will do less for the populace, they are still promising something. Who knows, maybe they will be elected for that.
Anyways I agree with your point to an extent but I think the point seems to play on whether said programs or expansion into the realm is negative. If there is no need to stop the programs /and/ if there is a general consensus for said program, then there would be no reason for the program - and hence government expansion - to be curtailed.
Whispering Death
Active member
Ramjet said:
First off, understand that in this thread I am attempting to state objective truth, not subjective opinion.
In the short run, yes, politicians at times do get elected on platforms of "small government" but in the long run it's always bigger government.
Case-in-point American Republican Politics: Bush Administration: Under this 'republican' administration the government has balooned even further than under Clinton. The truth is that power 'corrupts' to an extent. Not as much corrupts as seduces. Once a party has control of the House-Senate-Presidentcy they then conviniently forget about 'small government' since they are given the oprotunity to, for the first time, turly express their agenda with this power! Now that we can actually do all this cool stuff we've been thinking about we should... obviously people want us to do it or they wouldn't have voted for us! Once you have the power, people never give it up willingly.
That is why government always expands. In the short run, yes, it may contract, but when you look at government in federal democracies they always expand over the long run.
It's an unintended consequence of how the system is set up.
You can look at this and say "excellent, because larger governemnt is better government!" and that is your opinion. You, sir, are on the winning side in a federal democracy. But that is not the point of this series of posts, the point is merely to state objective truth from which other truth can be drawn from.
mmarsh said:
Why dont you agree with the information provided? Its factual. You have this habbit of disregarding info when it doesn't agree with you. This is one of the reason why I mistrust left wingers, since alot of them seem to be like you and totally disregard information when it doesn't suit them, which is actually bad when rulling a society, since you are blinding yourself to the basic facts that can help you, instead of seeing it for what it is, you blidly follow some fantasy of your own idea of a perfect society.
That info alone proves that the US should stay it course rather than follow the European model.
I'm not just talking about the socialist form of government (massive taxes, heavy regulation, no thanx!) about how it runs the trains. I'm talking about the whole liberal/left-wing agenda that runs Europe from top to bottom, from politians to the media, which like I said has this polyana fantasy of creating the perfect PC society.
I'm not even talking far left or far right, just left(liberal) and right(conservative), I haven't even began to get into the extreme groups yet. I think you are over exageratting what I'm saying.
As far as the right having power, I'm glad, I hope it stays that way.
Like I said I'm not looking to join a militia, but if somehow the left takes over where the situation becomes like Europe, and political elitist start forcing their liberal/left views too much on ordinary citizens then I will join a militia.
But thats not going happen since we have Fox News
. That and other elements that will never let that happen. This way I wont even have to consider joining a militia at all. I merely stated the conditions that would cause me to join, not that I was going to ever join.You are only ignoring this inevitability because it is the whole PC/left-wing/liberal mentality is the one that is making this happen.
I am not ignoring the current situation, since this is what making this happen.
This PC/left-wing/liberal mentality in its misguided effort to ensure multi-culturalism has let in one of the most intolerant religions in the name of tolerance, to make a society (although a seperate one) in Europe, with nothing being done to curb this. Maybe because it may "offend" someone.
The European population is shrinking.
The Muslim imigrant population is growing exponentially.
Do the math it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
Why is the European population shriking? Not because of the main reason people think age, careers, ect. It is again because This PC/left-wing/liberal mentality which has gone all out to destroy any meaningful vestiges of Christian influence on society which they hate so much, therby killing the main promoter of family values. Which has been replaced with individual values, where people dont really care to have families. So the Europeans adapting this mentality basicly screwed themselves. (You can't have children when you screw yourself. Lol, thats a joke)
The Muslim imigrants have no such mentality and have mulitple children. Within one generation the Muslim imigrant population will double and within two generations it will quadruple, growing exponentially. Again like I said do the math.
I hope you'll retire there and you'll see this first hand, if not, if you have kids then they can live through this.
But then again, theres always the armed invasion which could also happen.
This is not even counting the bad economic effects of a shrinking population. All the more reason why the US shouldn't follow the European mindset when it come to politics.
What does the patriot act have to do with this, I'm not entirely opposed to the patriot act, we need it for security. I also am opposed to all extremist groups right or left, but I wasn't talking about extreme groups. But there are certain factors that may cause me to go join a militia, but more than lkely will never happen.
Hmmmm, my thoughts on the modern militia... Sorry if this has already been covered - i didn't have time to read everything, plus i've had a few too many beers so the screen is wobbly...
I believe that it is a concept that could work - that is if it weren't for all the Rambo wannabe's who couldn't make it in the army/police force/defense forces/security industry etc etc... I'm talking about the guys who always go "I could do that if i wanted to, but i don't really want to so i'm gonna have another beer and some more donuts". If the guys with the guns know how to use them AND they have some bush-craft/survival training, medical training, and maintain an acceptable degree of physical fitness (just enough so they can run a bit and have a bit of endurance), then i believe the militia would be a reliable force. That is, of course, assuming that they have an elected or stable leadership from which orders are taken and directions given... Failing that militia members should report to police/armed forces personel.
Now, if we see ourselves in a situation where communications are down and the world has basically gone to hell in a hand-basket, then if a militia bands itself together and accurately and tactically assumes control of a certain area, given that there are enough supplies and everyone pitches in, making sure that a degree of lawfulness is kept (basically no rape pillage and plunder shit) - i see no reason to doubt the effectiveness of a militia.
However, due to a militia being made up of, say for argument's sake 1 person out of 3 having had either police/security/military training, then it is safe to say that the militia's greatest strength would be in numbers. Say a militia of 200 troops bands together and comes to assume control of a small town, perhaps a few thousand people. The militia has numbers enough to police the town and to perhaps protect it from any "invasion", whether it be a foreign army or simply gangs, for a decent amount of time. That, once again, is assuming that proper measures have been taken to secure the town and to post lookouts on all viable routes into the town...
I know that if something drastic happened then all of the farms around my area would band together, and i believe many family and friends would join us here. Constant food supply, water, clothing, shelter and weapons - combined with aquired knowledge and common sense would be everything that would be needed for self-sustainability.
Rich.
I believe that it is a concept that could work - that is if it weren't for all the Rambo wannabe's who couldn't make it in the army/police force/defense forces/security industry etc etc... I'm talking about the guys who always go "I could do that if i wanted to, but i don't really want to so i'm gonna have another beer and some more donuts". If the guys with the guns know how to use them AND they have some bush-craft/survival training, medical training, and maintain an acceptable degree of physical fitness (just enough so they can run a bit and have a bit of endurance), then i believe the militia would be a reliable force. That is, of course, assuming that they have an elected or stable leadership from which orders are taken and directions given... Failing that militia members should report to police/armed forces personel.
Now, if we see ourselves in a situation where communications are down and the world has basically gone to hell in a hand-basket, then if a militia bands itself together and accurately and tactically assumes control of a certain area, given that there are enough supplies and everyone pitches in, making sure that a degree of lawfulness is kept (basically no rape pillage and plunder shit) - i see no reason to doubt the effectiveness of a militia.
However, due to a militia being made up of, say for argument's sake 1 person out of 3 having had either police/security/military training, then it is safe to say that the militia's greatest strength would be in numbers. Say a militia of 200 troops bands together and comes to assume control of a small town, perhaps a few thousand people. The militia has numbers enough to police the town and to perhaps protect it from any "invasion", whether it be a foreign army or simply gangs, for a decent amount of time. That, once again, is assuming that proper measures have been taken to secure the town and to post lookouts on all viable routes into the town...
I know that if something drastic happened then all of the farms around my area would band together, and i believe many family and friends would join us here. Constant food supply, water, clothing, shelter and weapons - combined with aquired knowledge and common sense would be everything that would be needed for self-sustainability.
Rich.
bushpig1998
Active member
In south Africa we had what we called Kommandoe's. Basically these were small units in each town, formed by men who had done their National Service (draft) and are now working and living as civillians.Once a week, they would get together and go on patrol in the town and surrounding areas. They were equipped by the Natoinal Defense force with a ratel or buffel and each man had an R1 (FAL) issued. When the police had to go into an area they felt unsafe in, they called these guys. The system worked great. When I lived on the border regions and Mandela's folks planted land mines in our roads, we were picked up from home and taken to school and back in a Kommandoe operated Ratel. I lost a few friends to these landmines. I think we were in 3rd grade. More recently these same kommandoes were responsible for catching farm murderers (people that aren't happy with the color of a farm owners skin and then rapes his wife and kills the whole family - do a google search on Farm Attacks south Africa)) and preventing a lot of these crimes.
What am I saying? We need ex-service men in the militia's - basically to support the police and assist the public when needed. The militia's need to be supported by the government and weekly meetings must be held. Training should also be provided - but then again, we don't have a major enemy among us.
What am I saying? We need ex-service men in the militia's - basically to support the police and assist the public when needed. The militia's need to be supported by the government and weekly meetings must be held. Training should also be provided - but then again, we don't have a major enemy among us.
FULLMETALJACKET
MilForum Bad Apple
while we do have reserves and national guard, it would be good to know that the common people could rise up and make a stand.
bushpig1998
Active member
ozmilman said:
Thanks, they really saved our butts during the rough times. Just your average Joe that did his srevice time and is now serving his country one day a week. Crime dropped drastically on Wednesdays in our town (when they usually patrolled). Occasionally, they would do a thursday patrol, just for the fun of it - would usually rack up about 20 or so arrests in a night. I went out with them a few times and it was a riot! It was a lot of fun, and the atmosphere was very relaxed, until they ran into someone that wouldn't cooperate - then it got tense.
Kirruth
Active member
Well, I think militias are a necessary part of democracy (whatever you call them, posse comitatus, territorials, civil defence forces).
If there is one thing New Orleans teaches is that in a crisis, civilians are either part of the solution, or they are surely a big part of the problem. It was interesting that in the London bombings, many of the first responders were trained civilians - commandeering buses as ambulances, or setting up first aid stations.
The way to stop them being armed gangs is probably to follow the Kommando model above, or the Swiss model, where people are trained and equipped by the State, with the proviso that they must make themselves available. I think there need to be a range of roles too, not just infantry but also corpsmen (first aiders) and commo people (think radio hams).
The modern Western state relies on a bargain between its government and people: the State reserves the right of using violence to itself, in return for letting people choose their government in elections and for that government to respect its people's (human) rights. The militia has to be a part of that, and so cannot allowed to use violence outside of state control, while this bargain holds.
If there is one thing New Orleans teaches is that in a crisis, civilians are either part of the solution, or they are surely a big part of the problem. It was interesting that in the London bombings, many of the first responders were trained civilians - commandeering buses as ambulances, or setting up first aid stations.
The way to stop them being armed gangs is probably to follow the Kommando model above, or the Swiss model, where people are trained and equipped by the State, with the proviso that they must make themselves available. I think there need to be a range of roles too, not just infantry but also corpsmen (first aiders) and commo people (think radio hams).
The modern Western state relies on a bargain between its government and people: the State reserves the right of using violence to itself, in return for letting people choose their government in elections and for that government to respect its people's (human) rights. The militia has to be a part of that, and so cannot allowed to use violence outside of state control, while this bargain holds.
bushpig1998
Active member
Warwick, the Kommandoes didn't need anyone to keep them in line. They were exceptionally well disciplined and I'm sorry to say, but they were a very lawful bunch of people. We never feared them and trusted them with our lives - mostly because they were our fathers, sons, uncles and even grandfathers. My grandfather ran the local Kommandoe on the town close to our farm (Vivo - population 200). We basically patrolled all the farms and made sure kids got to school ok, etc.
I can't recall a single incident of abuse/rampant violenc or theft by one of these Kommandoe units. The current regime closed all the Kommandoe's down - mostly because the majority of the members were Afrikaners (white south africans). The regime feared that these Kommandoe units would start a rebellion - the reason for the fear - crime, racist behaviour towards Afrikaners ets. Since the kommandoes had been disbanded, rural crime had skyricketed out of control.
I can't recall a single incident of abuse/rampant violenc or theft by one of these Kommandoe units. The current regime closed all the Kommandoe's down - mostly because the majority of the members were Afrikaners (white south africans). The regime feared that these Kommandoe units would start a rebellion - the reason for the fear - crime, racist behaviour towards Afrikaners ets. Since the kommandoes had been disbanded, rural crime had skyricketed out of control.
Thanks for that Bushpig. Sorry to hear that things are not going to well under the new regime.
I do remember seeing on 60mins some time a go a bunch of Boers that were very right wing. Basically trained as there own private militia.
Is any of Zimbabwes problems spilling over the border into SA????
I do remember seeing on 60mins some time a go a bunch of Boers that were very right wing. Basically trained as there own private militia.
Is any of Zimbabwes problems spilling over the border into SA????
bushpig1998
Active member
Warwick said:
Yeah, the right wingers (AWB party) acted out too soon, too harsh. They should have been more discreet and focused more on culture preservation and food programmes, but the past is the past.
Zimbabwe's problems are spilling over on a huge scale. The commie regime went and donated a bunch of tax payers' money to Zim for food and we also have an additional 2 million Zim illegals in the country now. Not to mention that Mugabe managed to destroy some of the best crop producing areas in Africa!
Whole place is going to the dogs - last civilized person to board the plane should just turn the lights out and let it all go back to the way it was 400 years ago - coming from me, that's a lot, since my family's been in South Africa since 1672. We were literally in the cape before the Xhosa's.
Only people in South Africa that can rightly lay claim to any land, are the Zulu's and the Khoi (of which none remain - western diseases wreaked havoc under them). The San still survive in the Northen Cape/Namibia regions. The rest is all Xhosa (the moved down from where Botswana and Zim is now) about 200 years ago, if I recall my history correctly.
Remington 1858
Active member
This link is to a modern militia group in the U.S. State of Oregon. Private militias, firearms ownership and military training is legal in that state. This group has been in operation for five years and has conducted a training day every month for that period. It has no political, racial, religious or social agendas and discussion of those subjects is forbidden in the group. View the picture gallery and see some of the activities.http://oregontraininggroup.webs.com/