Defending the Truth

I agree, Tadpole.

When I read this thread I thought that Knight69 was back. Was I the only one? That racist bastard.

Well for one, If I wanted to be in a Militia, id have to start one by myself. Not gonna happen there.

Secondly, My FOID card expired. It takes months to get another one where im at. I do own guns, but im not about to use them publicly and be sent to prison for 5 years, for owning a turkey rifle without a permit.

And lastly, Id have michael moore's fat ass descend upon the area with protests and another pretentious documentary to follow.

I was thinking more along these lines. What is stopping you from doing them? Or am I missing something?

I personally don't see the purpose of militias. Well, by that I mean the private militias that exist today. They just seem to be a hotbed for radical militants to get a chance to get together and have some trigger time. They serve no purpose in the defense of our nation, from foreign nor domestic enemies, as they are much too small to be effective combat units in any battle of significance. Maybe I'm underestimating them. Or maybe I'm just tired of these Timmothy McVeigh types that come from them.

Besides, when does an armed unit constitute a "militia"? A group of people assembled in organization as an armed unit? Then wouldn't gangs also constitute militias? Or is it just constitutionally legal for white skinheads in the forest?

Don't get me wrong; I know they served a much greater purpose earlier in this nation's history. However, today I only see current militias as something that is harmful to the county. Official state militias seem fine enough.

Also, the description in satv's post is already fulfilled. Neighborhood watch groups, crime fighters, etc.,etc. Why must they be armed militants? Those certainly aren't jobs that need arms.

Of coarse I see that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. But I think local private militias are a bit redundant, and advocates militarism in the communities. I don't like children being instilled in them that militarism "for your protection" is a good thing. That could spell out dangerous implications later in the function of our government.

All nine others do not apply to individuals (or better yet, that is not their primary audience). Obviously individuals have those rights. They were deemed inalienable rights conferred upon by god or nature; they're already written. The Constitution is just a legal document that pertains to the government. Our framers thought that if the Constitution were to be destroyed or suspended then the rights detailed in that document still retain to the people, and it is consequently their intention that it is the people's right and duty to overthrow such a government.

So the Bill of Rights is just a legal document that tells the government what it can not violate, not what the people can do. It is already implied to the people that they have those rights. Therefore the Bill of Rights addresses the states and the federal government. Not only because of what I have said but because the Fourteenth Amendment applies them to the states.

If the Police, police's the criminals, who is there to police the police? This comes to every aspect of the Local, State, and Federal Governments. An Armed populace is the best safeguard of liberty. As it was written centurys ago at the founding, as it pertains to today.

A people should never trust the Government about anything. That is where we went wrong. Never trust a politician, a govt office, or anyone who is in power over your rights and liberty.

A militia, derived of citizens and former military people is what is the best safegaurd of our Republic.

I know im not the only one who beleives the Federal Branch has concentrated too much authority since the 1960s. Our bill of rights is literally gone. The NSA, FBI, CIA, can come into your house, arrest you and take you away and nothing you can do about it.

The patriot act, describes drug dealers as terrorists. The Homeland Security Agency, investigates Veagan (correct me if I misspelled it) Protestors. Harasses local toy shop owners over trademark issues from a rubix cube knock off. Theyve made Homelessness a crime in a lot of areas. Detaining legal protestors in cages in New York.

Now, tell me you don't want some people who value the constitution to have weaponry and initiative in this country?

Oh, and if you dont think the Militia can be a valueable thing in your community, go talk to folks in michigan.

This, I mostly agree with. This is why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And I agree that the populace should still have that right. But to what effectiveness is an armed populace when that populace is apathetic and/or uneducated? In fact, when that happens (as I'm sure it has already happened to great extents already) then militias can be counterproductive to this idea, and only exist to serve toward more immediate and superficial of ends (hence gangs).

The best safeguard of our (democratic) republic are means of peaceful and democratic processes. In a democracy, a well educated and active populace is the best weapon the people can equip themselves with to safeguard ourselves from self-infliction and tyranny.

If most communities had armed units, there is the high possibility of these units being used for other competitive purposes. There is no safeguard against factions. Guess what happens in other countries that are torn between armed groups? Unending fighting between warlords and factions. And these units wouldn't have such checks and balances as the government itself to protect itself from tyranny and power-hungry individuals.

I would rather see the political process and the check on our government in more peaceful means. If our government is really that bad as to render the democratic process void, it is then the obligation of such a citizenry to organize for more productive purposes. In fact, if the populace wasn't divided in militias and factions, then it would be easier to unite the entire populace..rather than possible armed conflict between militias to be the ones that overthrow the government and put one in place that they see fit.

Militias on such a mass scale never work, and it is good reason why we don't have such things in America. Militarism is not democratic, nor is it ever productive.

I agree that more power of the government in whole has been consolidated in the hands of a few. And I agree that this is a bad thing (at least socially speaking). I think we should also have to address changes in the way in which Congress is now operated which is anything but democratic, but that is a different story.

But the way to deal with these things is to not militarize the populace. This would only be counterproductive. Haven't you learned anything from the efforts of Gandhi, MLK, or even Jesus? Nonviolent resistence, especially in a (supposedly) democratic society, is the key to salvation. Militarism will only help the government consolidate their power even further and pit the populace against what they will concieve as "radical vigelanties" (or more pertinent to the times, "terrorist organization"). Armed resistence would only give them reason to impose tyranny "for your protection". If I am wrong, then 9/11 weakend the our resolve and made us sacrafice security for liberty (which I'm sure you know to be directly opposite).

Yes, Peacefull resistance is the most beneficial. Howevor, when the chosen few control the military, the police the government and everything else, what would a peacefull demonstration do, besides get you thrown into FEMA concentration camps. (Check the FEMA charter for info on that)

This is a matter of being prepared for the most drastic of situations. Imagine a president, after a terrorist attack. Convinced Congress to suspend elections and allowed him to appoint all the State's Governors. Suspending the bill of rights, and making the constitution null and void. What would their be left to do, when black helmets come storming through your house looking for weapons, and literature that opposes the State.

This is what the second amendment is intended to remedy. And despite what you think. American (Patriot) militias, respect eachother, and have even collaborated on several occasions.

This is a nation where all people love freedom, liberty and National Unity. YOu would never see small bands of warlords fighting eachother. This isnt Somalia.

Also, I think a militia, can do more for a community than you think. Assist in Disaster zones, etc. Its a great way to simply do good works for your fellow americans, as well as be ready and able to defend the people from within, and abroad.

In that case a peaceful resistance would be more effective. If other citizens saw the government taking peaceful protestors that were protesting for our inalienable rights and putting them in concentration camps as political prisoners, we would have the unity of the population and they would be uncooperative with what they saw as an illegitimate government. Again I cite Gandhi as my source. This happened in India. Only believe me, the Indians underwent much harsher things than FEMA concentration camps. They defeated the most powerful nation on earth at that time without having to fire a shot.

However, if they were armed fighters that they were taking away, the government could say; "hey look, we're fighting terrorism", and much of the already tamed population would go along with the president, and in fact it would hurt the cause of any freedom or constitution movement (as they would be percieved as terrorists).

Oh believe me, don't get me wrong. I totally agree and I fully support the people's right to keep in bear arms. I believe that the right of the people to assemble militias (as opposed to just the states) is a debatable topic but I still believe the people have that right. Its just that you're calling for more widespread community militias. I think this is very dangerous and only detrimental. I don't think it will ever happen because I have faith that the people aren't that militaristically inclined. Most Americans are democratic and peaceful.

Also, I think in any armed resistence against the government, a population that isn't split into militias would be more effective in uniting into larger organizations anyway. So I support gun rights way way more than militia rights.

I think you are overglorifying the majority of the people of this country. Just because you might be inclined to do good with such a militia doesn't mean other people intend to. Militias that are ran today are breading grounds for radicals to be militarized.

And anyway, we already have "small bands of warlords fighting each other". They're called gangs and they create more violence and death than some war zones ("low intensity").

There were militias in New Orleans after the hurricane hit. The white vigilantes were basically allowed to run amok. As a result there were many flat-out murders. Even the hospital recieved sniper fire.

My point is that of coarse there might be militias that are good intentioned. But you can't ignore the bad side of militias. And having widespread militias in communities all across the United States would be very detrimental. State militias are just fine.