uncoolperson
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
Never had a club house and a club name as a kid?
sv_libertarian wrote:
Never had a club house and a club name as a kid?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Local Militias
- Thread starter gsx1138
- Start date
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
uncoolperson wrote:
Self declared military units organized along military lines that are not answerable to civil authority as ALL military units are supposed to be is not my idea of a clubhouse. Self proclaimed paramilitary units operating independently of any authority are probably not what the founding fathers had in mind (popular mythos aside...)
uncoolperson wrote:
So you are equating private paramilitary organizations with kids and a clubhouse?
Self declared military units organized along military lines that are not answerable to civil authority as ALL military units are supposed to be is not my idea of a clubhouse. Self proclaimed paramilitary units operating independently of any authority are probably not what the founding fathers had in mind (popular mythos aside...)
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” ~Thomas Jefferson
Many of the Founders expressed a desire for the people (and/or militia since they are one and the same) to be kept as the ultimate tool to resist the tyranny that all governments eventually descend into.
Do you believe the government will be an effective check on government's power if the Founders were correct?
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” ~Thomas Jefferson
Many of the Founders expressed a desire for the people (and/or militia since they are one and the same) to be kept as the ultimate tool to resist the tyranny that all governments eventually descend into.
Do you believe the government will be an effective check on government's power if the Founders were correct?
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
There is a difference between the unorganized militia (the people) and the organized militia (organized military units answerable to civil authority.) Privately formed paramilitary units that are held to no authority, nor perform any of the historical tasks of the militia are simply private armies operating on their own whims.
There is a difference between the unorganized militia (the people) and the organized militia (organized military units answerable to civil authority.) Privately formed paramilitary units that are held to no authority, nor perform any of the historical tasks of the militia are simply private armies operating on their own whims.
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
The legality is a question of Constitutionality. The latest ruling by the SCOTUS portends a different outcome for future attempts to begin forming real civilian militias in Washington State. I may very well challenge the Constitutionality of the misdemeanor and have it eliminated from State law fairly soon.
The SCOTUS said that:
Applies to civilians and State equally. This was the gist of the majority opinion. So how does our desire to begin taking back the rights of the people and the States from the Federal Government make us nutters or wrong? Maybe you just don't want to be a part of any group as you think you're better than all of us. Fine! No problem!
You have an opinion. We all know what it is. It is different than ours.So be it. We probably won't change your mind, and you will not change mine, so we might as well agree to disagree.
sv_libertarian wrote:
The legality is a question of Constitutionality. The latest ruling by the SCOTUS portends a different outcome for future attempts to begin forming real civilian militias in Washington State. I may very well challenge the Constitutionality of the misdemeanor and have it eliminated from State law fairly soon.
The SCOTUS said that:
Applies to civilians and State equally. This was the gist of the majority opinion. So how does our desire to begin taking back the rights of the people and the States from the Federal Government make us nutters or wrong? Maybe you just don't want to be a part of any group as you think you're better than all of us. Fine! No problem!
You have an opinion. We all know what it is. It is different than ours.So be it. We probably won't change your mind, and you will not change mine, so we might as well agree to disagree.
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Damn you figured me out again. Keep that up and the government and ADL will take away my infiltrator stipend, and snazzy decoder ring.
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
Rather than make snarky replies, why not debate the Second Amendment and the recent ruling from the SCOTUS. Do you believe my reading of the majority opinion is somehow in error? If so, do please elaborate.
Rather than make snarky replies, why not debate the Second Amendment and the recent ruling from the SCOTUS. Do you believe my reading of the majority opinion is somehow in error? If so, do please elaborate.
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
I believe PRIVATELY FORMED PARAMILITARY GROUPS OPERATING AS PRIVATE ARMIES THAT DO NOT FILL ANY OF THE LEGAL OR HISTORICAL ROLES OF THE MILITIA ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER LAW, NOR HAVE ANY LEGAL STANDING AS MILITIA UNITS.
The Second Amendment has nothing at all to do with the modern "militia" movement which as even Ohio Patriot admits (and he runs one of the damned things) has nothing to do with the historical roles of militias in this country.
No PRIVATE PARAMILITARY FORCE has stepped up to fill the traditional, historical, or legal role of the militia, and I suspect they will continue to not fill the role of a true militia.
I distrust the notion of private armies with no oversight the same way I distrust the notion of a large Federal standing army. Both are dangerous in their own ways.
Either the militia fills it's true roll as local defensive units under local civil command that can be used to expand the standing army in time of war and invasion, or they are not true militias.
Show me one private militia that has taken the true roll of militias? Where were they during Katrina? Or any other case of civil unrest and/or government tyranny?
As I keep saying, modern "militias" are not at all related to the historical militia of the past, nor anything at all like existed in 1776. They are illegitimate.
You are advocating forming an organized militia, which by legal definition is under civil control. If you are not a member of an organized militia, then also by legal definition, you are a member of the unorganized militia. Now what does unorganized mean to you? To me it clearly means without organization. Now if something is without organization, that means it is not a group. It is a loose collection of citizens who have the right to arms, and can be called upon by civil authority when the need for militia service arises.
By forming a militia company that is not under civil control, you have a private paramilitary unit, not a true militia. Organized militias belong to state and local government. Private paramilitary units are not defined nor protected. Owning firearms for personal protection, or public defense, or of course to use as a last resort to government tyranny is a well defined and poorly protected right.
Forming private military units is not so well defined or protected.
I believe PRIVATELY FORMED PARAMILITARY GROUPS OPERATING AS PRIVATE ARMIES THAT DO NOT FILL ANY OF THE LEGAL OR HISTORICAL ROLES OF THE MILITIA ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER LAW, NOR HAVE ANY LEGAL STANDING AS MILITIA UNITS.
The Second Amendment has nothing at all to do with the modern "militia" movement which as even Ohio Patriot admits (and he runs one of the damned things) has nothing to do with the historical roles of militias in this country.
No PRIVATE PARAMILITARY FORCE has stepped up to fill the traditional, historical, or legal role of the militia, and I suspect they will continue to not fill the role of a true militia.
I distrust the notion of private armies with no oversight the same way I distrust the notion of a large Federal standing army. Both are dangerous in their own ways.
Either the militia fills it's true roll as local defensive units under local civil command that can be used to expand the standing army in time of war and invasion, or they are not true militias.
Show me one private militia that has taken the true roll of militias? Where were they during Katrina? Or any other case of civil unrest and/or government tyranny?
As I keep saying, modern "militias" are not at all related to the historical militia of the past, nor anything at all like existed in 1776. They are illegitimate.
You are advocating forming an organized militia, which by legal definition is under civil control. If you are not a member of an organized militia, then also by legal definition, you are a member of the unorganized militia. Now what does unorganized mean to you? To me it clearly means without organization. Now if something is without organization, that means it is not a group. It is a loose collection of citizens who have the right to arms, and can be called upon by civil authority when the need for militia service arises.
By forming a militia company that is not under civil control, you have a private paramilitary unit, not a true militia. Organized militias belong to state and local government. Private paramilitary units are not defined nor protected. Owning firearms for personal protection, or public defense, or of course to use as a last resort to government tyranny is a well defined and poorly protected right.
Forming private military units is not so well defined or protected.
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
sv_libertarian wrote:
Cite please?
uncoolperson
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
But, actually I am (the equating question).
When is a meet of 10-20 OCers having dinner an organized group of armed men? (in all seriousness I've kinda wondered this myself). I mean heck, armed group of people that probably train to some degree, with a definate hiarachy (I know I am way beneath you on the pecking order), out there making a political point (why my wife will never join, doesn't like perception of showing off).
If you're concern is legal you could have just as easily stated "watch out how you go about this, under some circumstances it's illegal". But you keep equating these people to nuttjobs of one kind or another.
Larger scale or smaller scale we really have the same ideals as the folks that do this, I like my toys, I like to know how to use them, and I enjoy the company of like minded people. How many of the posts here fit into the category of "looking for a problem"? Seriously some of the posts and threads here are people all out begging for a problem. Every crowd has that group, can't judge the crowd by a few and all that right? Or is that just one of our talking points?
Where's the line between good and bad? or legal and not? And should we even really have this line so close to "not causing harm"?
This is how things like bans on hi-cap magazines, scary black rifles, fly fishing only, archery only, classes required for a concealed license come about. Infighting solves nothing and eventually harms everyone.
The OP had pretty nonthreatening purposes, he could have said "I want to get organized for [insert scariest sounding armed rebelion scenerio here]", but he didn't.
Then again, I still can't get into airsoft after all the people I've tried to meet up with having a serious affliction of "GI joe wannabe"... doesn't mean all, just all I've met.
sv_libertarian wrote:
lib, not trying to be too argumentative, or atleast respectfully so... respect you and all that (not the hollow respect some may pretend on the internet).
But, actually I am (the equating question).
When is a meet of 10-20 OCers having dinner an organized group of armed men? (in all seriousness I've kinda wondered this myself). I mean heck, armed group of people that probably train to some degree, with a definate hiarachy (I know I am way beneath you on the pecking order), out there making a political point (why my wife will never join, doesn't like perception of showing off).
If you're concern is legal you could have just as easily stated "watch out how you go about this, under some circumstances it's illegal". But you keep equating these people to nuttjobs of one kind or another.
Larger scale or smaller scale we really have the same ideals as the folks that do this, I like my toys, I like to know how to use them, and I enjoy the company of like minded people. How many of the posts here fit into the category of "looking for a problem"? Seriously some of the posts and threads here are people all out begging for a problem. Every crowd has that group, can't judge the crowd by a few and all that right? Or is that just one of our talking points?
Where's the line between good and bad? or legal and not? And should we even really have this line so close to "not causing harm"?
This is how things like bans on hi-cap magazines, scary black rifles, fly fishing only, archery only, classes required for a concealed license come about. Infighting solves nothing and eventually harms everyone.
The OP had pretty nonthreatening purposes, he could have said "I want to get organized for [insert scariest sounding armed rebelion scenerio here]", but he didn't.
Then again, I still can't get into airsoft after all the people I've tried to meet up with having a serious affliction of "GI joe wannabe"... doesn't mean all, just all I've met.
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
diesel556 wrote:
diesel556 wrote:
It has already been shown they have no legal standing in this state.
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
uncoolperson, the line seems to be drawn when a group of people organize themselves along the lines of a military organization. A group of OC'rs at a meet, or a gun club is not organized along the lines of a military organization, nor does it constitute a private body of armed men, which suggests that it is controlled by one or more individuals or corporations.
So when you have private military units, or groups drawn up along military lines, then the line is crossed.
uncoolperson, the line seems to be drawn when a group of people organize themselves along the lines of a military organization. A group of OC'rs at a meet, or a gun club is not organized along the lines of a military organization, nor does it constitute a private body of armed men, which suggests that it is controlled by one or more individuals or corporations.
So when you have private military units, or groups drawn up along military lines, then the line is crossed.
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
It's also been shown that they do have legal standing in other states. When it comes to rights, I want them all.
We can't OC in a car without a permit yet we still discuss it.
It's also been shown that they do have legal standing in other states. When it comes to rights, I want them all.
We can't OC in a car without a permit yet we still discuss it.
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
Plenty of private militia action going on in the NOLA area after Katrina--almost all of it extemporaneously organized, and arguably they would have been more effective if they had in fact had a bit of training together.
uncoolperson
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
which would be what exactly?
sv_libertarian wrote:
which would be what exactly?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Militia, to my knowledge, has always formed under state authority. Otherwise, they're just citizens going about life. I've never heard of a state law authorizing citizens to form their own militias. I have heard of several state laws where the militia is defined as, for example, all able bodied men ages 18-54.
I've never heard anything about citizens just up and forming their own paramilitary organizations outside of state control meeting the legal definition of militia.
In fact I've come across a few states where such, if they engage in military training, are clearly recognized as private armies and illegal.
It sounds to me like the so-called militias havetakenthe term out of context. If they really wanted an activegenuine militia, they could just get enough people to petition the governor for regular drill periods. Maybe they are just insurrectionists-in-waiting using the term militia, I don't know.
But they definitely are not the classic meaning of militia as I understand it. In fact, I think the main point is the definition of the word. Militia refers to all citizens in the state in the pool defined by the law, or whichever group of them has been called up by the government. There is no provision for a segment of self-called citizens to designate themselves as a militia. I've always seen the word in the context of the militia.
Its one thing to declare a right to organize from self-protection against a tyrannical government. Its something else to call it legal. Such would, by definition, be illegal. Morally right, maybe. But not legal in as much as defining what is legal would still belong toatyrannical government.
Even at Lexington and Concord, while it was colonial militia members who engaged Gen. Gage, they were not acting as militia constituted by the Crown. They were insurrectionists whojust also happened to bemembers of the colonial militia by virtue of being able-bodied, male, andwithin the age bracket. Plenty of Loyalist militia (able bodied male subjects in the defined age bracket) likely didn't come out to participate in the festivities.
Which part or parts of Heller did you see as authorizing forming of private armies/battalions/companies? Can you please show me the paragraphs or sentences?
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
No offense, but I don't see this at all, if you are referring to militia.
Militia, to my knowledge, has always formed under state authority. Otherwise, they're just citizens going about life. I've never heard of a state law authorizing citizens to form their own militias. I have heard of several state laws where the militia is defined as, for example, all able bodied men ages 18-54.
I've never heard anything about citizens just up and forming their own paramilitary organizations outside of state control meeting the legal definition of militia.
In fact I've come across a few states where such, if they engage in military training, are clearly recognized as private armies and illegal.
It sounds to me like the so-called militias havetakenthe term out of context. If they really wanted an activegenuine militia, they could just get enough people to petition the governor for regular drill periods. Maybe they are just insurrectionists-in-waiting using the term militia, I don't know.
But they definitely are not the classic meaning of militia as I understand it. In fact, I think the main point is the definition of the word. Militia refers to all citizens in the state in the pool defined by the law, or whichever group of them has been called up by the government. There is no provision for a segment of self-called citizens to designate themselves as a militia. I've always seen the word in the context of the militia.
Its one thing to declare a right to organize from self-protection against a tyrannical government. Its something else to call it legal. Such would, by definition, be illegal. Morally right, maybe. But not legal in as much as defining what is legal would still belong toatyrannical government.
Even at Lexington and Concord, while it was colonial militia members who engaged Gen. Gage, they were not acting as militia constituted by the Crown. They were insurrectionists whojust also happened to bemembers of the colonial militia by virtue of being able-bodied, male, andwithin the age bracket. Plenty of Loyalist militia (able bodied male subjects in the defined age bracket) likely didn't come out to participate in the festivities.
Which part or parts of Heller did you see as authorizing forming of private armies/battalions/companies? Can you please show me the paragraphs or sentences?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
kparker wrote:
I am of the opinion that unless they were activated by the government, they were really just citizens helping out each other. Who, of course, in that environment, were also likely armed.
This might make them "militia-like", but not operating as genuinely activated militia.
But they were not, to my knowledge, repelling invasion or defending against attack.
The militia has always been to my knowledge a substitute for a standing army, or a supplement to one. The purpose being to come to fight militarily when called. Necessarily, in connection with government, since government is doing the calling.
kparker wrote:
I think we have differing understandings of the word militia.
I am of the opinion that unless they were activated by the government, they were really just citizens helping out each other. Who, of course, in that environment, were also likely armed.
This might make them "militia-like", but not operating as genuinely activated militia.
But they were not, to my knowledge, repelling invasion or defending against attack.
The militia has always been to my knowledge a substitute for a standing army, or a supplement to one. The purpose being to come to fight militarily when called. Necessarily, in connection with government, since government is doing the calling.
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
And a big +1 to Citizen
And a big +1 to Citizen
scarlett1125
Regular Member
imported post
OK, if the militia is supposed to be organized or ordained or whatever by the government, do you really believe, at this point in our history, that any part of our government (fed, state, local) would ever dream of fighting back against the tyranny that our elected officials now have the power to dictate over us? Take the REAL ID Act, for instance. There is no Constitutional basis for forcing the states to do this, and there have been a few that have refused on Constitutional grounds. However, there have been no militias called. Of course, the mundane acts of our government don't seem to be cause for revolution--at least not yet. However, NSA wiretapping could have been considered darn close--and still, nothing. Those who are elected tend to protect others who are elected. It's part of the great class system that comes with a capitalist society. Voting does little, if any, good because your voice is no longer valued no matter what your vote is. Case in point: a few years back, Washingtonians voted for a pay increase for teachers. Now, whether you voted for it or not is not the issue. The fact is that Washington said that we wanted our teachers to get paid more. But Locke decided that we just were not going to do that. I think he refurbished his jet shortly after that. In that instance, who was going to call the militia out against him? No one.
My point is this: the private militia is necessary to keep and maintain our freedoms because it is only the private militias who will be there when the proverbial SHTF. We don't rely on cops to protect us; why should we trust the government to protect us when it is the government violating our rights?
So, you can believe the hype here, or you can decide to find out for yourself, as the person who started this thread was doing. When we start judging any group based on the actions of a few (often via media influence), then we are no better than those against whom we struggle.
Scarlett
OK, if the militia is supposed to be organized or ordained or whatever by the government, do you really believe, at this point in our history, that any part of our government (fed, state, local) would ever dream of fighting back against the tyranny that our elected officials now have the power to dictate over us? Take the REAL ID Act, for instance. There is no Constitutional basis for forcing the states to do this, and there have been a few that have refused on Constitutional grounds. However, there have been no militias called. Of course, the mundane acts of our government don't seem to be cause for revolution--at least not yet. However, NSA wiretapping could have been considered darn close--and still, nothing. Those who are elected tend to protect others who are elected. It's part of the great class system that comes with a capitalist society. Voting does little, if any, good because your voice is no longer valued no matter what your vote is. Case in point: a few years back, Washingtonians voted for a pay increase for teachers. Now, whether you voted for it or not is not the issue. The fact is that Washington said that we wanted our teachers to get paid more. But Locke decided that we just were not going to do that. I think he refurbished his jet shortly after that. In that instance, who was going to call the militia out against him? No one.
My point is this: the private militia is necessary to keep and maintain our freedoms because it is only the private militias who will be there when the proverbial SHTF. We don't rely on cops to protect us; why should we trust the government to protect us when it is the government violating our rights?
So, you can believe the hype here, or you can decide to find out for yourself, as the person who started this thread was doing. When we start judging any group based on the actions of a few (often via media influence), then we are no better than those against whom we struggle.
Scarlett
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
Thanks. I had the benefit of reading a number of posts and seeing what was being argued from an outside viewpoint. Late to the party as it were.
I really think this comes down to having differing understandings as to what the word "militia" means.
I would submit that, for clarity, the legal definition would be the best use of the word in these discussions. Its got hundreds of years of discussion and conclusions behind that meaning.
I would submit that, for clarity, any group that forms/organizes itself along military lines for military-like purposes to include practicing military drills/tactics be called a private army, even if its only platoon-size.
I think it is the IDPA website that explains the reason IDPA does not teach tactics is to avoid the private army illegalities. IDPA being the shooting organizationwhose competitions are based onscenarios designed to somewhat represent real-life defensive shooting situations.
sv_libertarian wrote:
Thanks. I had the benefit of reading a number of posts and seeing what was being argued from an outside viewpoint. Late to the party as it were.
I really think this comes down to having differing understandings as to what the word "militia" means.
I would submit that, for clarity, the legal definition would be the best use of the word in these discussions. Its got hundreds of years of discussion and conclusions behind that meaning.
I would submit that, for clarity, any group that forms/organizes itself along military lines for military-like purposes to include practicing military drills/tactics be called a private army, even if its only platoon-size.
I think it is the IDPA website that explains the reason IDPA does not teach tactics is to avoid the private army illegalities. IDPA being the shooting organizationwhose competitions are based onscenarios designed to somewhat represent real-life defensive shooting situations.