Militia page 2

48 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

The black panthers wouldn’t really be a militia, as would the KKK be one. These are not concerned with the welfare of the country.Although, I could be wrong and they may be considered a militia group.

I think you would have to call both militias as they were both organised and had a militant purpose.

I don’’t know Vika, maybe we should research that a bit. Sounds viable, but I just don’t know.

 
Flag Post

This is how we set up our country. We Americans don’t like tyrannies and our founding fathers took measures to protect the country, militias being just one measure.

Isn’t it a tyranny if you’re forced to form a militia?

 
Flag Post
This is how we set up our country. We Americans don’t like tyrannies and our founding fathers took measures to protect the country, militias being just one measure.

Although with one exception: the tyranny of Wall Street controlling Washington as well as the whole nation is always appreciated.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
This is how we set up our country. We Americans don’t like tyrannies and our founding fathers took measures to protect the country, militias being just one measure.

Although with one exception: the tyranny of Wall Street controlling Washington as well as the whole nation is always appreciated.

Hi Karma. I know this is you because you use the same “wee bit” and bold words surrounded with capped words. :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Hi Karma. I know this is you because you use the same “wee bit” and bold words surrounded with capped words. :)

Paranoid much?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by 1132:

In addition, militias would ultimately just be composed of the most anti-government and radical people in the area. Not exactly the people I’d want to give guns and training to.

Playing devil’s advocate here, even if these militias do declare war against the union, who are they realistically going to attack? The state next door. Whose anti-government and radical people will attack right back, with everything they have.

The military can step in once the radicals have blown each other to bits. There isn’t really a downside.

Honestly, they couldn’t fight the US military if it ever came to that.
Planes>AR-15.
Which is one reason I’d consider them ultimately pointless. Militias, in the past, have always been instigators and trouble makers, even when there was no reason to. No matter how noble the intent, they tend to fill up with fanatical state’s rights advocates, who also tend to be just a wee bit racist.

 
Flag Post

So you are saying that Americans can’t fight as well as the Egyptians. the Libyans, or the Serbs? Why is that? We are already armed and from seeing the uptick in guns and ammunition sales, I think we stand a pretty good chance. You keep forgetting the police, many who have said they would back the civilians. And why are you so sure our military forces would take the governments side? You know, we can take the weapons we need as we go. What makes you think this will be an all out offense…army vs civilian? You are taking a lot for granted in your personal scenario.

You using the Wee bit now too? LOL!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 1132:

Honestly, they couldn’t fight the US military if it ever came to that.
Planes>AR-15.

That would be the idea. The military can keep them under control with rediculous ease, but at the same time they can kill each other off in pointless battles over which state is superior. If they are well regulated, fights can take place is designated areas to eliminate civilian casualties. Then they can shoot holes in the racists of both sides with their weaponry.

I’m not seeing a downside to the country at large if these far, far right lunatic fringe people blow each other to kingdom come off in some field. They get what they want; the rest of us, left and right alike, get what we want – rid of the lunatic fringe.

 
Flag Post

The concept of a militia is a pointless historical anachronism. It serves no useful social or defence function now that they’be been rendered obsolete by the idea of a standing army.

 
Flag Post

Unfortunately it is the entire concept of having a standing army that those in favor of a militia, are against. They’re claiming having a standing army is itself unconstitutional, and we should go back to having a militia only.

With the number of countries that hate us in the world now, I personally can only see that ending with America being occupied, as we would not have the strength with just a militia, to fight modern standing armies off.

 
Flag Post

Relying on state militias is insane. Apart from the issue of them fighting each other, what happens when the federal government needs their services? It would be like England in medieval times, when the king relied on the private armies of his robber barons. Sometimes soldiers were supplied, sometimes they weren’t. Sometimes private armies attacked the king (central government). It led to centuries of internecine fighting and civil wars.

One of the reasons England lost the hundred years war, after many notable early successes, was that France had a standing army and England did not. Having to rely on the goodwill of his barons made the English king very vulnerable. Five hundred years ago, Henry VII banned private armies, on pain of death or a gigantic fine. He was actually after the money, but one of the results was a period of unprecedented growth and stability, interrupted only by the war between Charles and Parliament, which turned England from a backwater into a huge empire.

To disband its standing army, or split it up under the control of all the individual states, and then rely on the goodwill of those states, would make America vulnerable and weak. It would make a very strong bargaining chip for the states, all demanding concessions in return for military support. I’m sure things looked very different when the second amendment was written, but to do it in todays world is just asking for trouble. History has a tale to tell, if only people bothered to read it.

 
Flag Post

Technically the conservatives are correct. A standing army was not supposed to exist. The militias were to be the army. The navy was a standing navy and authorized. I don’t think you will find any conservative that suggests we do away with our standing army. The militias are still useful and in reality are like a reserve of soldiers. Although we have a national guard in each state, and a state militia in most, they are different entities. Both are able to be called upon by the state during a conflict that may arise, but the government can only call the national guard. Keep in mind the national guard didn’t exist until later in our history.

Picture a foreign entity attacking the United States and gaining ground into the country. Even with entry into the country, they would run into other armies from each state in the form of armed militias, pouring in from all parts of the country. The United States is a formidable force. Think of it like this. The only two wars ever fought on our soil were the war of independence and the civil war. Even after disseminating our western defenses in world war 2, the Japanese new better than to enter the country. I don’t think anyone is suggesting we disband our standing army, but don’t underestimate the power of the militias

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we disband our standing army, but don’t underestimate the power of the militias

Unfortunately, Jhco’s not alone in calling for the standing army to be dismantled. that’s why I’ve used the disclaimer of ‘far right wing’, as opposed to left and right respectively. The far right lunatic fringe has nothing in common with republican beliefs. they are the ones (like our resident Jhco) who honestly believe the republicans are too left wing.

Outside this forum they do exist, and as 1132 pointed out, are the ones who would gravitate to such militias if we abolished the army.

 
Flag Post

I am conservative. Not all conservatives are the same, just as moderates and liberals are not the same. Through my reading of this discussion, I didn’t see where Jhco had made the comment that he wished the army be abolished. Maybe I missed it. Of course conservatives, moderates, and liberals exist outside this forum. The are what make up the political spectrum of our country. Although we only have two primary parties, all of these ideals are (basically) mixed into these parties. It makes for interesting politics.

 
Flag Post

He’s repeated it a few times in the gun control thread, that a standing army is unconstitutional, and should be revolked, as the government had no right to create one, etc etc etc. I think it was also in that thread when he said bluntly that the republican party was far too liberal for him. I remember it because I replied to him, asking quite seriously if he had considered joining his local neo-nazi group, as their ideals may be more in line with his.

The far right is as big a problem to deal with as the far left. The further from the center you move, the more likely your views are to enter ‘loony land’ as far as practical implementation goes.

Not all conservatives are the same,

Yea, I know. One of my best and closest friends from back home is very conservative. I’m very liberal. We get on fine, as long as we leave certain topics alone. Otherwise, it be row time!

I guess what I’m trying to say is ideology doesn’t have to get in the way of finding common ground, unless you let it. It’s when you get an individual that is unwilling to compromise on their beliefs in order to find middle ground, that you hit problems.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I think it was also in that thread when he said bluntly that the republican party was far too liberal for him. I remember it because I replied to him, asking quite seriously if he had considered joining his local neo-nazi group, as their ideals may be more in line with his.

LOL! I can see that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by 1132:

Honestly, they couldn’t fight the US military if it ever came to that.
Planes>AR-15.

That would be the idea. The military can keep them under control with rediculous ease, but at the same time they can kill each other off in pointless battles over which state is superior. If they are well regulated, fights can take place is designated areas to eliminate civilian casualties. Then they can shoot holes in the racists of both sides with their weaponry.

I’m not seeing a downside to the country at large if these far, far right lunatic fringe people blow each other to kingdom come off in some field. They get what they want; the rest of us, left and right alike, get what we want – rid of the lunatic fringe.

But how would we get rid of the radical left?
We need balance, after all. They aren’t going to shot each other to death.

It is interesting to note that state militias have almost fought each other in the past- they have certainly fought the Federal government on two particularly notable occasions.

 
Flag Post

Hm, this thread has made me wonder what would be the effects of one state declaring war on the other (i.e. Montana wants Idaho’s potatoes, so they invade)

 
Flag Post
The further from the center you move, the more likely your views are to enter ‘loony land’ as far as practical implementation goes.

+

I’m very liberal.

come again? do you mean that, in some context, liberal is the same as political center?

But how would we get rid of the radical left?

of course, i don’t see why you’d want to. yes they can, like the far right, have blinkers on and approach everything from one persective only, but the future of the past (in other worse: the present) has sided with the left on almost everything.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 1132:

But how would we get rid of the radical left?

Bankruptcy is the usual tool. Too many high-flighted ideas, and not enough self-serving nature to actually make those ideas financially viable. It’s not as permanent as a bullet, but it’s the current best way.


EDIT:

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
I’m very liberal.

come again? do you mean that, in some context, liberal is the same as political center?

No, that was a statement about my own place in the political spectrum. I’m far enough to the left, that my current country of residence, Scotland, who see the democrats as a right-wing party, are actually too conservative for me, more often than not.

I don’t think I’m far left lunatic fringe, based on the fact that most of my ideas actually work, often save money, and frequently make me money in the process, but I’m certainly near the borderlands.

however, I can also see the right’s perspective, even if I’m not comfortable with it. So, I guess i’ll never be loony fringe :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

He’s repeated it a few times in the gun control thread, that a standing army is unconstitutional, and should be revolked, as the government had no right to create one, etc etc etc. I think it was also in that thread when he said bluntly that the republican party was far too liberal for him. I remember it because I replied to him, asking quite seriously if he had considered joining his local neo-nazi group, as their ideals may be more in line with his.

The far right is as big a problem to deal with as the far left. The further from the center you move, the more likely your views are to enter ‘loony land’ as far as practical implementation goes.

And I would like a source for the statement you say I made concerning doing away with the standing Army. It is a fact that a standing Army is unconstitutional, but I have not suggested eliminating it. I wish liberals would quit making up arguments like this. Now i do remember your suggestion of joining a neo-nazi group, but I dismissed it because they have nothing in common with me. You new that when you said it, trying to insult me at the time. I haven’t forgotten your former participation and the insults you hurled at me. I just chalked them up as the heat of the moment.

The far right is far right for a reason. We are not loony as you are trying to infer, we are tired of the liberal slant on life in the bleeding heart lane of lifes highway. We are tired of funding your touchy-feely programs to make you feel better. We are tired of seeing our country torn apart with the liberal idea we should hug a worm and give it welfare, even if it is on the sidewalk illegally. We are tired of the liberal politics telling us what to do and when to do it.

 
Flag Post

It’s a good idea but that’s why we have National Guard, and Coast Guard.

 
Flag Post

The Coast Guard? Please explain that one.