The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 15, 2010, 11:36 AM   #26
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
but some State Guard members have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and they do have weapons.
They have deployed overseas as members of a state militia? I don't think so, in fact don't they say they don't want you if you are subject to overseas deployment? As I said they may have some weapons sitting in an amrs room but I doubt they are issued as they are with the guard and so I disagree with you that they are a real armed militia is any real sense. Nevertheless, most other states, probably due to funding don't have those militias and probably never will.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 15, 2010, 11:42 AM   #27
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
It seems to me that the first clause of the 2A is meant to preserve the CAPABILITY of state being able to raise a militia from the ranks of the people.
Agree. And if a state did so and choose to equip it's members with Full Auto weapons then they could and the NFA would not stop them. Even Walter Dellinger, hostile attorney in Heller admits that. However, an individual may not circumvent the NFA and possess an unregistered FA by asserting membership in a militia the state has not called up or made provision for.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 15, 2010, 11:46 AM   #28
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,809
I'd have to view the National Guard as an evolved militia, yet some states have additional forces with various names, like Home Guard. One of their functions is to man the national guard armories when the national guard is deployed elsewhere. Here is a basic problem, which is the deployment of the national guard. The national guard does have home state duties, which they are often called upon to perform. Deployment of national guard units overseas leaves a serious gap sometimes. As far as I know, there's nothing the governor can do about it. The original theory was that increased reliance on army reserve and national guard units, like we actually have been doing, would have to mean the public's approval would be necessary for large scale operations involving those units. I don't know it it has worked out that way or not.

While many Revolutionary War period units did in fact employ many men armed with their personally owned weapons, generally rifles, as rifles in this country were generally not provided in military units, the vast majority of weapons were provided by governments, including the Continental Congress. That was even true before the revolution and the sparks that set off the beginnings of the revolution were attempts by the British in both Boston and Williamsburg to confiscate those militia weapons which were centrally stored. But there were enough in private hands to give the British some trouble on the way back from Lexington. The states differed somewhat in both their ability and willingness to equip army units.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 15, 2010, 01:24 PM   #29
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
I am not familiar enough with the Texas State Guard to answer those questions. All I know is:

1. There are pictures on the Net purporting to be Texas State Guard guys in Iraq/Afghanistan.

2. There are pictures on the Net of Texas State Guard guys armed with M9s.

3. In the 1980s, the State of Texas awarded a contract to Holloway Arms to provide the HAC-7 .308 rifle for the State Guard.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 11:38 AM   #30
RunAndGun
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2010
Posts: 3
New here and found this thread from my Google alert I have set up for the Texas State Guard.

Texas State Guard members have in the past been issued weapons from the National Guard Armories. However, TXSG personnel are expected to have access to personal weapons if needed. This is a REQUIREMENT for personnel assigned to the Quick Reaction Teams. These requirements are for 9mm handguns that are on an approved list. Unfortunately, there is no official logistical supply for ammunition set up, so TXSG personnel have to bring there own. Presumably, the 9mm criteria are there for possible resupply by the state or federal government in the field.

Quick Reaction Teams (QRT) main duties and training focus are Force Protection, Infrastructure Protection, and most recently Wide Area Damage Assessment. QRT members are required to qualify with their handguns every year. Qualification for non QRT TXSG members is optional. QRT members train one weekend a month and almost always one day is at the firing range.

TXSG are not subject to Federal military service any more than the average citizen are. However, it is not unheard of for TXSG members to leave state and enter federal service or for prior federal service members in the TXSG to be called up by the federal service. There are also some TXSG members on extended leave providing private security overseas. This explains why you see TXSG being represented overseas, but they are actually in federal or private service.

TXSG participates in the Small Arms Readiness Training programs and competitions provided by the National Guard for rifle, pistol, machine gun and sniper. TXSG for the past 3 years have dominated the competitions over all of the reserve federal forces taking most of the trophies and Governor's 20 tabs in rifle and pistol. Again, TXSG personnel are required to provide and compete with their personal civilian equivalent firearms and ammunition (groan).

In summary, most TXSG are not armed. However some are and take their job very seriously and display a high level proficiency and professionalism.

Last edited by RunAndGun; July 16, 2010 at 01:00 PM.
RunAndGun is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 12:30 PM   #31
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,809
If you think there will ever be a perfect system for the militia based either on something in Constituiton or on something given to us by the Lady of the Lake, dream on. How our rights enter into it is another story.

Many countries have or have had a form of militia, generally in various components. Ours of course consists of the national guard, if you care to include it, plus state guards as described already. I'd have to say the army reserve and the other reserves are more like second line regular forces, though that is not a good way to describe it, especially since they are sometimes on the front lines. But generally speaking, the militia has been that element that is never deployed, that is, not deployed overseas. You could get technical and talk about who controls the militia (at which level, that is) and that is something of a problem. Obviously, it has to be controlled by the government and usually it means the state government. The federal government seems to have set up the national guard to really be an element of the national army, for better or for worse.

There have sometimes been conflict between locally controlled militias and nationally controlled armies in that there is sometimes a kind of competition for manpower. At the moment that doesn't seem to be a problem but in wartime or other emergencies it has been. Arms for the militia is also a problem and always has been since from before the revolution. While it might be nice to think that all able-bodied men were willing and able to muster at the hue and cry completely equipped, it never worked out that way. You know how good people are at obeying the law and the militia law was no different. But it was better than nothing, though the revolution was a close run thing. These days it would be even more difficult to expect much in the way of a meaningful body of armed men if they were left to their own means.

Tell me, someone, what was the state of the militia during those dark days of the late 60s when the country was falling apart and so many big cities had real riots?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 12:56 PM   #32
ISC
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,982
The National Guard and the militia are two completely different entities.

The militia is unorganized and not subject to call up by the federal government. I am a member of the Militia as are most of the men on this board, whether they know it or not. A militia is a local entity that is a organization of last resort to maintain and restore order in the absence of other civil authority. It is from the militia that Guardsmen are recruited.

I am also a member of the National Guard and it is part of that organization that I am now overseas. I am subject to the UCMJ, get provided uniforms and equipment and train to the same standard (or something very close to it) as the regular army.

To equate the National Guard with the militia is an insult and ignores our high standards of professionalism, personal sacrifice, and repeated foreign service. While it is true that all guardsmen are in the militia, all militia are certainly not in the Guard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida State Statutes
SECTION 2. Militia.--

(a) The militia shall be composed of all ablebodied inhabitants of the state who are or have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States; and no person because of religious creed or opinion shall be exempted from military duty except upon conditions provided by law.

(b) The organizing, equipping, housing, maintaining, and disciplining of the militia, and the safekeeping of public arms may be provided for by law.

(c) The governor shall appoint all commissioned officers of the militia, including an adjutant general who shall be chief of staff. The appointment of all general officers shall be subject to confirmation by the senate.

(d) The qualifications of personnel and officers of the federally recognized national guard, including the adjutant general, and the grounds and proceedings for their discipline and removal shall conform to the appropriate United States army or air force regulations and usages.

Last edited by ISC; July 16, 2010 at 01:06 PM.
ISC is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 05:26 PM   #33
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISC
The National Guard and the militia are two completely different entities.
Quote:
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I, § 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution. MARYLAND V. UNITED STATES, 381 U. S. 41 (1965)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISC
The militia is unorganized and not subject to call up by the federal government.
Quote:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions Article One Section 8 COTUS
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISC
I am a member of the Militia as are most of the men on this board
Depends on the state, if you are referring to 10 USC Sec. 311 then only if you are male and between the ages of 17 and 45. Being a member of the "unorganized" militia gives you no rights, duties or responsibilities. See U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976) or U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F. 2d 384 (10th Circuit,1977) The unorganized militia is essentially meaningless.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 05:43 PM   #34
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunAndGun
TXSG are not subject to Federal military service any more than the average citizen are. However, it is not unheard of for TXSG members to leave state and enter federal service or for prior federal service members in the TXSG to be called up by the federal service. There are also some TXSG members on extended leave providing private security overseas. This explains why you see TXSG being represented overseas, but they are actually in federal or private service.
From their website (my bolding)

Quote:
Enlistment Requirements
•Resident of Texas or enrolled student
•Age 17 to 60
•Reasonable Good Health
•Pass criminal background check
•Valid Texas Drivers License
•Prior Military Service - Honorable discharge required
•Helpful skill sets: JAG/Military experienced Attorneys, Rescue, Medical [Doctors, Nurses, Dentist, Dental Asst., Paramedics, EMT], Civil Affairs, Chaplain, Communications, IT, CPA, Education, Historian
•Prior Military Service NOT required
•No educational requirement for enlistment
•Educational and age requirements exist for officer commissioning
•Federal Service retirement NOT affected
NO overseas deployment
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunAndGun
Texas State Guard members have in the past been issued weapons from the National Guard Armories.
Do you have a cite showing when that was done and for what mission? Other than going to the range.

My reading of 32 USC 109 would make the Texas State Guard a state defense force and not the militia found in the COTUS.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 07:12 PM   #35
ADB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
Quote:
The militia is unorganized and not subject to call up by the federal government. I am a member of the Militia as are most of the men on this board, whether they know it or not. A militia is a local entity that is a organization of last resort to maintain and restore order in the absence of other civil authority. It is from the militia that Guardsmen are recruited.
You are wrong. The National Guard is the "organized militia" as defined under the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903. Also, the unorganized militia is also subject to call up by the federal government.
ADB is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 07:14 PM   #36
RunAndGun
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2010
Posts: 3
I cannot for the life of me figure out how to quote in this forum! Help anyone?

In response to Tennessee Gentleman's question regarding issuance of weapons from National Guard Armories:

I have no cite showing when this has taken place and for what missions but there are numerous photographic examples in the Texas Military Forces Museum at Camp Mabry in Austin Texas, published history books pertaining to the TXSG, as well as from my personal photo collection from training missions I have been involved in.

When we were MP's (prior to changing to Civil Affairs) we provided security for the National Guard during FTX's as well as occasionally being OPFOR. We were armed with M16's and M9's if the mission called for it.

You quoted my post pertaining to why TXSG has been represented overseas and quoted the enlistment requirements adding your own bold type. Was there a question or a statement in there that I missed?

Yes. TXSG is a State Defense Force.

Thanks........RunAndGun
RunAndGun is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 08:38 PM   #37
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunAndGun
You quoted my post pertaining to why TXSG has been represented overseas and quoted the enlistment requirements adding your own bold type. Was there a question or a statement in there that I missed?
Just wanted to show that the TXSG does not deploy as the TXSG overseas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunAndGun
Yes. TXSG is a State Defense Force.
And therefore not an armed militia. At least constitutionally.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 16, 2010, 10:13 PM   #38
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
And therefore not an armed militia. At least constitutionally.
Been there. Done that. Many times.

The National Guard is not a State Militia (armed or not). Even Heller conceded that point:
Quote:
Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16.
Slip OP @ 23.

The National Guard is as much a select militia as is a standing army. They are in fact, one and the same. See Congressional Budgets (§8, cl. 12: but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years). If the Guard were not a Federal creation, then the Congress would not be bound by the militia appropriations clause.

State Defense Forces, were a concession to the constitution, made by the congress when it fully and completely federalized the various State Guards.

Can we now stop beating this dead horse?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 01:41 AM   #39
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
Quote:
Can we now stop beating this dead horse?
Yes, I'm surprised this theory is still being argued....especially since, as Al correctly stated, the SCOTUS, in Heller, conceded the point that the National Guard is not a State militia.

Al is also correct when he says State Defense Forces were a concession to the constitution when the National Guard was put under the control of the Federal government.

You may disagree with Heller in this regard but the Court did make the above quoted conclusion.

Last edited by RDak; July 18, 2010 at 01:47 AM.
RDak is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 08:20 AM   #40
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
Well RDak as you know I have claimed all along that there is no more militia and it is a dead letter.

As to Heller did you read the quote (Post#33)above from MARYLAND V. UNITED STATES, 381 U. S. 41 (1965)? Might want to think about that some more. You may disagree with it but the Court did make the above quoted conclusion.

The Guard is the lineal descendant of the Well-Regulated Militia of the 2A. Since the militia system didn't work and nobody wanted to be in it then the NG came along and eventually was federalized. It was just another nail in the coffin of an idea (citizens militia) whose time had long since passed.

From what I have read and seen in my own state these "State Defense Forces" are no more armed militia than I am an Olympic Athlete (and I ain't one) They are support (IT, Medical and logisitcal) and ceremonial outfits to supplement manpower with volunteers. Not the miltia of 1789.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; July 18, 2010 at 08:25 AM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 12:00 PM   #41
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Quick History Lesson

Now, while the Guard, in this case, the Army National Guard, does indeed trace it's history back to the Mass. Bay Colony in 1636 (182nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Engineer Battalion and 181st Infantry Regiment of the Massachusetts Army National Guard are directly descended from Massachusetts Bay Colony regiments formed over 370 years ago), it was not what we today would consider the Guard. It was at that time a citizen-militia of the kind and type exemplified by the founders in the Federalists Papers.

However....

Shortly before the civil war, 2nd Battalion, 11th New York Artillery renamed itself as the "National Guard" in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette (who commanded the "Garde Nationale de Paris" in the early days of the French Revolution). New York renamed its entire militia as the New York National Guard shortly after the outbreak of the civil war.

After the civil war, several States began to follow the lead of New York in renaming their militia.

It wasn't until 1903 that the title, "National Guard," was used by the federal government when many of the States Militias were federalized. In 1916, all State militias were federalized as the National Guard. The Guard is therefore a federally created select militia.

Finally, in 1990, the State Governors lost all control of "their" Guard in Perpich v. Dept of Defense, 496 U.S. 334. The writing was on the wall, long before this, however.

I could go on, for some length, but Tennessee the argument is not whether the militia is useful or its time is past, the argument is that the National Guard is not the citizen-militia of the States. Regardless of what the Supremes have said (obiter dicta), the history is explicit.

None of the above is meant to detract from what the Guard is or does. It is merely to set the documented and historical record straight.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 04:36 PM   #42
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
A slightly different view

Al, I won't refute your history but might but a different nuance to it.

Quote:
Responding to calls for increases in the size of the Regular Army, Guard (read National Guard Association, a lobbying group) advocates argued that a large standing army was inconsistent with traditional American political beliefs. Guardsmen believed that a properly trained, equipped and manned National Guard could provide the country with an organized reserve to augment the Regular Army during national emergencies.

The Dick Act of 1903 temporarily settled the issue by transforming all state militia units into the organized regiments and companies of the National Guard. In simplest terms, Guard units received increased funding and equipment, and in return, they were to conform to federal standards for training and organization.

The law recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia, the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription. The Dick Act required Guardsmen to attend 24 drill periods per year and 5 days of summer camp. For the first time, Guardsmen received pay for summer camp but not for drill periods.-Century of Change, Century of Contribution: A Militia Nation Comes of Age
Then there was WWI

Quote:
The National Defense Act of 1916 was an important watershed in National Guard history. The act specifically designated the National Guard as the Army's primary reserve while authorizing an expanded Regular Army and Army Reserve. There would no longer be state militias; henceforth, all state units would be designated as National Guard. ibid
You see, people ask where did the militia go? The states sold it to the Feds because: it was too expensive, modern warfare made it obsolete, and NOBODY wanted to be in it. It was a PITA and the states got rid of it and that is why even though they could establish one today they won't for the same reason they got rid of it in the first place.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; July 18, 2010 at 04:45 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 04:44 PM   #43
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipitas
Finally, in 1990, the State Governors lost all control of "their" Guard in Perpich v. Dept of Defense, 496 U.S. 334. The writing was on the wall, long before this, however.
Actually, the states NEVER had total control over their militias as Article One Section Eight gave Congress the power to call it forth. This power superceded that State Control and that was unprecedended and scared the anti-federalists so the militia clause of the 2A gave the states the power to arm their militias in case the Fed didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipitas
the argument is that the National Guard is not the citizen-militia of the States.
I would argue that the NG replaced the state militias (Which is what the COTUS refers to in the 2A and Article One) and the states as of today have not "backfilled" those militias unless you consider these tepid "State Defense Forces" to be such and I do not.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 06:42 AM   #44
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,809
Well, I think a good case can still be made that the states all need their own military force, in spite of the fact that the national guard is subject to federal call up. In fact, mostly because of that fact, since the guard is used so much for local emergencies, there being no equivalent organization that can be used instead. When the guard is deployed, the state is kind of left high and dry when there's a flood or something.

But, it seems I'm too old to qualify in the first place. My time in the guard was about 35 years ago (the D.C. National Guard), about 7 years after I got out of the army.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.

Last edited by BlueTrain; July 20, 2010 at 06:55 AM.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 09:13 AM   #45
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueTrain
Well, it think a good case can still be made that the states all need their own military force
Good point. One of the "unitended consequences" I have noticed is that due to the lack of the guard police departments are becoming more "militarized" and I am not sure that is a good thing. But yes, the capability is still required sometimes.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 09:33 AM   #46
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,809
While I agree that the police have become more militarized, I don't think the reasons have anything to do with the national guard, and besides, that is another topic altogether. Most states already have state police that function as, well, a state police force and they have always been fairly militaristic in form and fashion, pretty much the same as the RCMP and the Carabinieri in Italy, only there is no equivalent uniformed national police in the U.S. that function the same as those other bodies.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 07:18 PM   #47
ISC
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,982
Talk about thread drift... Wow!
ISC is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 10:57 PM   #48
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Yup. Even I got carried away... After I made it clear to get back on topic.

ISC, do you want the thread closed for thread drift? Your call.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 08:01 AM   #49
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
Quote:
Well RDak as you know I have claimed all along that there is no more militia and it is a dead letter.
I understand TG.
RDak is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 08:25 AM   #50
ISC
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,982
I don't mind the drift, it brought us to the cusp of the ultimate safeguard from abusive actions by our government: an armed citizen militia.

I understand that discussing the ultimate check and balence against government abuse is a forbidden subject here. I was hoping we could focus more on the measures that could be taken short of armed insurrection. When legal action ceases to be an effective option due to corruption or politicized judges the options seem to be civil disobedience (as in Ghandi and Martin Luther King) or violent destruction (as in WATTs and Rodney King)

I have to wonder which path is more productive in the world today. I also wonder if civil disobedience is even an option when the media is dominated by an oligarchy that is antithetical to the private ownership of firearms. This is further complicated when we are facing the very real possibility of censorship of alternative media sources by regulation and taxing of the internet and reinstitution of "The Fairness Doctrine".

I am in the position of many of the other military and law enforcement members here. We'll have to decide on a personal basis where we draw the line and refuse to follow orders and enforce unconstitutional laws.
ISC is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13594 seconds with 7 queries