A Well Regulated Militia

[HoreTore]

The excellent thing about having a regulated militia is that for every communist militia, you have a libertarian militia. As well as that, you have the regular army - if one militia tries to seize power, the regulars and opposing militias will step in.

The bad thing is that there is no real way of knowing who will end up as the biggest one, nor is it really possible to know who the army will support. The army is always present in coups, and rarely on the "good side".

Also, the "militias"(private army is a better term IMO) are growing.... Blackwater have become a 20.000 man army in 10 years. Imagine 10 such armies 10 times the size, each with a different leader... That sounds like a glorious civil war if you ask me.

[drone]

Also, the "militias"(private army is a better term IMO) are growing.... Blackwater have become a 20.000 man army in 10 years. Imagine 10 such armies 10 times the size, each with a different leader... That sounds like a glorious civil war if you ask me.

Blackwater isn't a militia, it's a professional mercenary army. You can tell the difference by the size of the paychecks. Being in a proper militia should not be your day job...

[HoreTore]

Blackwater isn't a militia, it's a professional mercenary army. You can tell the difference by the size of the paychecks. Being in a proper militia should not be your day job...

No, but for this purpose they serve basically the same role, don't they?

They're a private army outside democratic control, like a militia would be. And a damn big one too...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment behind the idea of militias that guarantee the citizens' freedoms, it is a rather touching fantasy.

One of the best examples for why is the United States herself. Some time past, a group of peoples/their representative states decided they didn't like the way the social contact was going and decided to opt out. Another group of peoples/representative states decided they rather fancied the idea of imposing their version of the contract on the recalcitrant. Inevitably, they had a Civil War about the issue and guess what? Those who had overwhelming control of government assets stomped all over the romantics, despite the latter being better led.

Plus ça change. Insurgencies may irritate governments but whilst those governments control the armies and the means of production, it's tough to overthrow them. Most especially if that government has become tyrannical (inevitably less squeamish) and far more so these days with their hold over modern weaponry. When the Constitution was written, it was still just possible to eject an unwelcome tyranny by militia - as long as it had a four thousand mile supply chain and a mad king. Nowadays I suspect one will find those helpful conditions somewhat scarce.

It took us eight hundred years to change the occupation of a foreign government that the majority of the Irish people hated. And it took terrorists to do it (and the development of a kinder, gentler, more civilised Britain) rather than well-regulated militas.

[Slyspy]

Yes, if you tried it in Ireland all the militias would start fighting each other.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment behind the idea of militias that guarantee the citizens' freedoms, it is a rather touching fantasy.

One of the best examples for why is the United States herself. Some time past, a group of peoples/their representative states decided they didn't like the way the social contact was going and decided to opt out. Another group of peoples/representative states decided they rather fancied the idea of imposing their version of the contract on the recalcitrant. Inevitably, they had a Civil War about the issue and guess what? Those who had overwhelming control of government assets stomped all over the romantics, despite the latter being better led.

Plus ça change. Insurgencies may irritate governments but whilst those governments control the armies and the means of production, it's tough to overthrow them. Most especially if that government has become tyrannical (inevitably less squeamish) and far more so these days with their hold over modern weaponry. When the Constitution was written, it was still just possible to eject an unwelcome tyranny by militia - as long as it had a four thousand mile supply chain and a mad king. Nowadays I suspect one will find those helpful conditions somewhat scarce.

It took us eight hundred years to change the occupation of a foreign government that the majority of the Irish people hated. And it took terrorists to do it (and the development of a kinder, gentler, more civilised Britain) rather than well-regulated militas.

The North had more than twice the number of fighting men than the south and still managed to lose religiously up until Gettysburg! If Britain had entered the war (which it had contemplated until it realized that slavery was incompatible and that they would still have the cotton markets even after the north won) You might be singing a very different tune - similar to the story of the American revolution where foreign powers swung the deciding blow against Great Britain.

What were the IRA terrorists? They were illegal Militias!

[Adrian II]

What were the IRA terrorists? They were illegal Militias!

Can't you see that your reasoning is utterly self-defeating?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Can't you see that your reasoning is utterly self-defeating?

Why? Should I use the BS reasoning that I want to defend the US from foreigners? Militias could do that, but they are primarily for the defense against people within the borders. Government, other militias, oppressive elements that can go south rather quickly. Terrorist is a relative term for one that uses terror. What constitutes terror? Some are terrified of militias, does that make them automatic terrorists?

[Kralizec]

A glorified neighboorhood watch, then?

I don't think it's a necessarily bad idea...I just don't see any point in it.

[HoreTore]

What were the IRA terrorists? They were illegal Militias!

Are terrorists good guys now, or what? I'm confused....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Are terrorists good guys now, or what? I'm confused....

That depends which side you're on, doesn't it?

[HoreTore]

That depends which side you're on, doesn't it?

Isn't the other side the terrorists?

[Tribesman]

What were the IRA terrorists? They were illegal Militias!

They started out as a militia that then became illegal , just like the UVF started out as a militia that then became illegal .

[ICantSpellDawg]

They started out as a militia that then became illegal , just like the UVF started out as a militia that then became illegal .

I agree.
What are the smiley's for?

Banquo credited them along with a dithering British government for the creation of a sovereign Ireland. If that is an insult, I'll take it.