A Well Regulated Militia

[Adrian II]

Why not just call yourselves scouts? Boy scouts are called boy scouts, because, I think, normal 'scouts' would not be boys but men.

Or the "[Location] Scouts"?

CR

The Chelsea Square Scouts?

I mean, 'square' doesn't sound gay does it?

ROFL.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Make it sound as dramatic as possible.

What about the "New York Peoples' Constitutional Defence Army"?

Or something evil, like the "TuffStuff Death Brigade"?

[HoreTore]

Did I say that?

No. So let's cut the strawmen, shall we?

I meant that the people, all of them, should have power and force to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical.

Allowing that will also allow militas like Hamas or SA.

You say you want the power to overthrow a tyrannical government, and you give those wanting a tyrannical government a wonderful opportunity to create it...

[Reverend Joe]

I believe Rabbit was simply referring to the unspoken contract between a government and the people.

(Who was that, Hobbes?)

Anyway, when the Government does not uphold its side of the contract, i.e. it becomes tyrannical and the people no longer wish to be in the contract, they should have the right to end the contract with the government and create a new one (contract and government) which they agree with.

Modern governments -- and people -- would do well to take this to heart.

[HoreTore]

Anyway, when the Government does not uphold its side of the contract, i.e. it becomes tyrannical and the people no longer wish to be in the contract, they should have the right to end the contract with the government and create a new one (contract and government) which they agree with.

All good in theory. In practice, however, it leaves the path open for those desiring a less desirable government, be that fascism, theocracy, communism or whatever.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

All good in theory. In practice, however, it leaves the path open for those desiring a less desirable government, be that fascism, theocracy, communism or whatever.

With the amount of libertarians and conservatives in America, I don't think the rise of fascism or communism is a real issue. Here in Europe we might see that problem a little bit more, but I don't think so for America. Not yet at least.

[HoreTore]

Not yet at least.

That's the problem, isn't it? Who knows what the future will bring? Fascism needs a few people in strategic places with power and money, theocracy needs some religious whippin', communism needs demagogues inciting the poor/working class. None of those are unrealistic in any country IMO.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's the problem, isn't it? Who knows what the future will bring? Fascism needs a few people in strategic places with power and money, theocracy needs some religious whippin', communism needs demagogues inciting the poor/working class. None of those are unrealistic in any country IMO.

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.

[Marshal Murat]

I always figured that a 'well-regulated militia' would be made up of anarchists....

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Tribesman]

What are the smiley's for?

They are for your lack of understanding .
But thats OK as it is a very complex history .

[Rhyfelwyr]

Just call yourselves "Town Watch", and get those red capes the Town Watch of RTW had. That way even if you never went into action at least you would look the part.

Militia's become terrorists when they swap their guns for bombs, or turns their guns against civilians. Just about any group in Ireland (on either side) I can think of has qualified as a terrorist organisation at some point by those standards. And whichever side you believe to be just (which would be the British for me from 1921, although it was also just in the origins hundreds of years earlier, not so much in the space inbetween), it is irrelevant as in the end these groups became little more than bands terrorising their own people as much as anyone else.

[Tribesman]

it is irrelevant as in the end these groups became little more than bands terrorising their own people as much as anyone else

what you mean like concerned citizens against drugs or residents action commitee on joyriding ?

BTW Tuff , how is work on the Batcave coming along ? Are you still wanting to die exacting revenge ?

[ajaxfetish]

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nyg.html
Your state beat you to it.

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nygaform.html
Just print off one of these for each of your friends and you're golden.

Ajax

[yesdachi]

Have you considered joining a currently existing organization as a new chapter?

Does the group you plan to form have any plans for zombie defense? That could affect the name

@ Lemur – it seems like there for a few years Michigan couldn’t buy a piece of good publicity, Michigan Militia aarg.

[HoreTore]

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

Isn't the other side the terrorists?

[Tribesman]

Have you considered joining a currently existing organization as a new chapter?

PehapsTuff could start a local branch of.....
http://sonoguy.tripod.com/
A much nicer crowd than this sort....http://www.adl.org/mwd/gallery/patpray.gif

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Isn't the other side the terrorists?

Or are you the terrorists to the other side?