Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[Swindle1984]

ETA: And isn't it actually the Hague conventions that involve what weapons can be used in warfare?

Yes

I'm about to leave, so I don't have time to look up the details on the conventions applying/not applying if your opponent isn't a signatory. However, while the US generally abides by the Geneva conventions, we do so on a voluntary basis, not because we have to. We never agreed to anything, so we don't have to abide by them if we don't want to.

Following info from here.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

You are obligated to follow the Conventions regardless of whether your opponent has signed or not.

You'll also find that the US has signed them.

The way I read that, it says you're bound by the rules if your opponent is also bound by the rules, and you're bound by the rules if the enemy follows the rules, even if they didn't sign anything. Nothing in there about having to follow the rules if the enemy is not a signatory and doesn't follow the rules.

Also, since it's actually the Hague conventions we're discussing rather than the Geneva conventions, the US signing the Geneva conventions is irrelevant. Chalk one up to confusion between the two.

[Serafina]

You can read, can you?

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

If one of the powers of a conflict did not sign the Convention, all parties that signed are still bound to the convention.
Furthermore, if the non-signatory power behaves according to the rules of the Convention, their opponents also must apply the rules on the non-signatory power.

Example:

Four nations A and B are allies and are waging war against C and D who are also allied.
Nation A, B and C did sign the convention, but not D.
A, B and C have to follow the rules as far as A, B and C are concerned.
If D also follows the rules despite not having signed the convention, A, B and C also have to follows the rules in regards to D.

ONLY if your opponent is not following the rules of the convention AND did not sign it in the first place, you are not bound by them.

[Ritterin Sophia]

and partly because the intent of the 2nd Amendment requires us to be armed so we can form a militia and fight off an invading army or our own government gone wrong.

Excuse me whilst I laugh at the ridiculousness of this.

[Coyote]

and partly because the intent of the 2nd Amendment requires us to be armed so we can form a militia and fight off an invading army or our own government gone wrong.

Excuse me whilst I laugh at the ridiculousness of this.

That was part of the original intent. The early USA didn't even have a navy, most of our men-o-war ships were armed merchantmen and privateers, for example, with privately owned cannon. Up through the War of 1812, IIRC.

Whether you think this is still valid or possible can be another matter, of course. Although it was only a matter of time before the old "armed civilians vs. modern military" argument came up. Bear in mind as we enter this phase of the discussion that the motivations for why an armed uprising against the government would be occurring will play heavily into the arguments about effectiveness.

[Serafine666]

My opinions are unchanged, but I misattributed them.

Easy mistake to make I suppose. After all... "Serafine" is the Anglicized form of "Serafina"

My understanding is that single-shot hand loaded rifles are normally called "breech loading," because you load individual rounds at the breech instead of the muzzle. Rifles that "automatically" load the next round into the firing chamber are "automatic" or "semiautomatic"*

All modern small arms (and most larger arms) are breech-loading; the term simply means that each round is loaded at the breech of the gun instead of the muzzle. And generally when you say "semi-automatic" where rifles are concerned, you're talking about a system where the action utilizes a limited form of the automatic mechanism to load one round every time the trigger is pulled whereas an "automatic" rifle loads rounds as long as the trigger is held down.

If I'm not mistaken, and I could easily be, "bolt-action" normally refers to clip or magazine-fed rifles (like your Mosin-Nagant), which are NOT self-loading at all. They are distinct from breechloaders, the difference being that the back end of the gun has machinery to hold rounds in storage so that the same process of opening the bolt to eject the round also loads the next round. But you still have to do it by hand; the exploding propellant charge doesn't do it for you the way it would with a self-loading weapon like an American Garand or a machine gun.

Bolt action refers to a rifle that has a hand-operated bolt that is pulled up and back to eject a round and then pushed forward and down to load the next. You also hear things like lever-action (a lever below the barrel is swung down to eject the round then swung back up to load the next), hinge or break-away action (the entire barrel swings downwards to eject the round and another one is hand-inserted into the exposed breech and then the barrel is swung back up to lock the round into place), and pump-action (the pump is pushed forward to open the breech and eject the round then pulled back to load the next round and close the chamber; this is most commonly used for shotguns). And what you refer to as "self-loading" I would call "semi-automatic" to distinguish it from the type of action my Mosin-Nagant uses.

*I gather that people started using "semiautomatic" for single shot self-loading weapons after the first use of "automatic," which is why single shot self-loading pistols were called "automatic" at a time when no single shot self-loading rifles existed.

This is hard to know for sure. I believe the first genuine automatic pistol came about after the invention of the gas-operated ejection and loading system used in automatic long guns (i.e. machineguns).

Only if the weapons and ammunition are available for them. Even if you've got a British Mk. I tank parked on your lawn, you'd be hard pressed to find shells for the Hotchkiss QF 6-pounder these days.

Given. Still, even a mildly-armored vehicle with an operational cannon should be at least equal in import to an automatic weapon (and many tanks did indeed also have automatic weapons) as far as regulation is concerned.

[Serafine666]

Figured you meant you have a Mosin-Nagant and you were using mail order ammo

You would be quite correct, Azazal. I'm actually impressed that someone could get my general model of rifle as well as know the site I was referring to from my rather vague description. Not that I would actually buy the ammo in question... I could get thousands of rounds for the price of just that incendiary and they would be infinitely more useful.

[Alyeska]

Yeah, sorry, I just realized that that makes no sense at all. What I meant was that the rifle in question has a magazine; you can load 5 bullets into it and every time you open and close the bolt, it loads another round. It's sort of a bridge between a conventional bolt-action rifle (load a round by hand, close the bolt, fire, open the bolt to eject the round, repeat) and a semi-automatic (round is automatically loaded each time the trigger is pulled). Sorry about the confusion.

Thats a horrible way to describe your rifle. The Mosin-Nagant is a bolt action rifle. It is not a bridge by any sense. It has a top feeding stripper clip ammo setup, but that has nothing to do with the action. The M1903 is the exact same way. There are other bolt action rifles with bottom feeding external box magazines. They are still bolt action.

The action is completely different from the ammo feed.

Muzzle Loading
Breech Loading
Revolving Cylinder
Lever Action
Hand Crank Mechanical
Bolt Action
Pump Action
Semi-Automatic
Fully Automatic
Electrically Driven

Single shot breech reload
tubular magazine
top feeding stripper clip
top feeding external box magazine
side feeding external box magazine
linked ammunition
bottom feeding external box magazine
cylinder
drum magazine
internal magazine

There is no bridge between Bolt Action and Semi-Auto. It is one, or it is the other.

[Knife]

and partly because the intent of the 2nd Amendment requires us to be armed so we can form a militia and fight off an invading army or our own government gone wrong.

Excuse me whilst I laugh at the ridiculousness of this.

That was part of the original intent. The early USA didn't even have a navy, most of our men-o-war ships were armed merchantmen and privateers, for example, with privately owned cannon. Up through the War of 1812, IIRC.

Whether you think this is still valid or possible can be another matter, of course. Although it was only a matter of time before the old "armed civilians vs. modern military" argument came up. Bear in mind as we enter this phase of the discussion that the motivations for why an armed uprising against the government would be occurring will play heavily into the arguments about effectiveness.

And while it isn't exactly a grand victory on either side; eight years of fighting in Afghanistan against rednecks and crappy rifles against our 'modern troops and weapons' would tend to suggest that you can do it and not get wiped out in a day or two.

That said, it's not like a gang of hillbillies are going to march to Washington and defeat the US Army, no.

[Ritterin Sophia]

First off Coyote, I do know it was a valid intent at the time, however it does not work anymore. You know as well as I do that what he means isn't a popular uprising but a fascist overtaking the government and expecting to win out against modern mechanized divisions and the like.

And while it isn't exactly a grand victory on either side; eight years of fighting in Afghanistan against rednecks and crappy rifles against our 'modern troops and weapons' would tend to suggest that you can do it and not get wiped out in a day or two.

That said, it's not like a gang of hillbillies are going to march to Washington and defeat the US Army, no.

Comparing Afghanistan or Iraq to an insurgency in our own back yard doesn't work, simply because the social, national, and religious differences that make getting the citizenry of those nations to cooperate so important and difficult do not apply.

[Simon_Jester]

That was part of the original intent. The early USA didn't even have a navy, most of our men-o-war ships were armed merchantmen and privateers, for example, with privately owned cannon. Up through the War of 1812, IIRC.

Whether you think this is still valid or possible can be another matter, of course. Although it was only a matter of time before the old "armed civilians vs. modern military" argument came up. Bear in mind as we enter this phase of the discussion that the motivations for why an armed uprising against the government would be occurring will play heavily into the arguments about effectiveness.

Thing is, that militia wasn't supposed to exist to overthrow the government. It was supposed to exist to be used by the government; the militias were one of the main arms the state governments used to crack down on dissenters within their own states (see Shays' Rebellion).

There is no evidence I know of that the supporters of the Bill of Rights were such committed libertarians that they expected armed revolts to be a good thing, or even much that they expected the possibility of armed revolts working in their favor.

Moreover, the language of the Second Amendment calls your theory into question, because it talks about the right to "bear arms," not to "possess arms," "own arms," "purchase arms," or the like. "Bear arms" classically has a fairly specific meaning, indicating service in an organized armed force. Thus, my buddy the national guard artilleryman "bears arms," at least occasionally; I do not, even if I were to buy an AR-15 and play at being a soldier.

On top of that, historically no effective militia relied on private gun ownership. The closest to an effective example would be the Massachusetts Minutemen, who were a specialized rapid reaction force within a larger militia. And when they went up against British regulars they got their asses handed to them; it was the bulk of the slower-mobilizing militia that gave the British such a hard time at Concord and on the retreat back to Boston.

All modern small arms (and most larger arms) are breech-loading; the term simply means that each round is loaded at the breech of the gun instead of the muzzle. And generally when you say "semi-automatic" where rifles are concerned, you're talking about a system where the action utilizes a limited form of the automatic mechanism to load one round every time the trigger is pulled whereas an "automatic" rifle loads rounds as long as the trigger is held down.

Yes, I know. I refer to single-shot weapons as "breech-loaders" because while they are breech-loading (like all other modern guns), that is the only common* firearms term which applies to them: they don't have an "action" as I understand it, nor can they be described as any variation on the theme of "automatic" (which would require an action).

*As in not-specialized, not as in "common within the firearms community."

Bolt action refers to a rifle that has a hand-operated bolt that is pulled up and back to eject a round and then pushed forward and down to load the next. You also hear things like lever-action (a lever below the barrel is swung down to eject the round then swung back up to load the next), hinge or break-away action (the entire barrel swings downwards to eject the round and another one is hand-inserted into the exposed breech and then the barrel is swung back up to lock the round into place), and pump-action (the pump is pushed forward to open the breech and eject the round then pulled back to load the next round and close the chamber; this is most commonly used for shotguns). And what you refer to as "self-loading" I would call "semi-automatic" to distinguish it from the type of action my Mosin-Nagant uses.

I used the term "self-loading" purely so that I had a word for guns which load themselves that did not contain the word "automatic," because that was the term I was trying to define.

[Darth Wong]

And while it isn't exactly a grand victory on either side; eight years of fighting in Afghanistan against rednecks and crappy rifles against our 'modern troops and weapons' would tend to suggest that you can do it and not get wiped out in a day or two.

That said, it's not like a gang of hillbillies are going to march to Washington and defeat the US Army, no.

Let's keep in mind that in an occupation scenario, their goal is to outlast the occupiers, until the occupiers get sick of the quagmire and leave. A domestic scenario is totally different because the opponent will never leave. Moreover, it doesn't cost them extraordinary amounts of money to keep troops and police in the field because they're at home, so they can sustain operations indefinitely.

Besides, the "original intent of the framers" is a stupid justification for anything. Their entire vision for the US government was an abysmal failure anyway. You can't have a bunch of radically disparate states loosely welded together by a weak federal government and actually expect to accomplish anything as a cohesive nation. It was a stupid idea from the get-go.

[Coyote]

Moreover, the language of the Second Amendment calls your theory into question, because it talks about the right to "bear arms," not to "possess arms," "own arms," "purchase arms," or the like. "Bear arms" classically has a fairly specific meaning, indicating service in an organized armed force. Thus, my buddy the national guard artilleryman "bears arms," at least occasionally; I do not, even if I were to buy an AR-15 and play at being a soldier.

Actually, it says to "Keep and bear arms", which implies ownership. Also, the National Guard is not the state militia, due to the "concurrent enlistment" clause that sates that membership in the National Guard means concurrent enlistment in the US Army. National Guard members wear federal army uniforms, nametapes, and have to adhere to Federal hiring standards for armed forces.

The militia is also understood to be all able-bodied citizens (originally only males) from 18 to 45 capable of fighting, since the original intent of the US government was a weak national government with a tiny army that was little more than a cadre force to train militia units into proper form in the event of a protracted war.

Once again, I want to remind everyone who wants to follow this that the reason why an armed rebellion against the government is taking place will be a major factor in how successful it is. I guarantee you that all that beard-scratching redneck talk about "runnin' that thar uppity nee-gro outta the gummint" is popular only with a small band of idiots we can call "the usual suspects". But if there ever was a legitimate reason (that made sense) to force an Administration out of office, we probably wouldn't have to because such unpopular sentiment will carry through the courts, Senate, House, and if necessary the standing Army already. Or, if it did get to shooting, popular sentiment would probably already have much of the Army on the side of the people. "Militia vs. Military" wanking is done primarily in bad fiction and racist masturbation magazines.

Now, a more likely (if improbable) scenario has a foreign military coming to the US and being fought. If that were the case, again, the militias would not be acting on their own but would be acting in support of the US military, so again it wouldn't be a one-sided affair. And, guerrilla militias fighting an invading army would (I presume) have popular support of the citizens. Of course, the notion that anyone would have the ability to stage and maintain an invasion of the US with a serious hope of pulling it off is, again, in the realm of fantasy.

Personally? I support the notion of militias. I think they should be raised and trained at the county and state level. They would be taught useful things like CPR and combat lifesaver skills, and be very useful in organizing evacuation routes in the event of natural disasters, helping to run evacuee camps, etc. A large body of organized eager volunteers can be really helpful for all sorts of things. Firefighting in forests or cordoning off areas damaged by fire or earthquakes, etc. Maybe teach them and issue licenses for driving school busses so in a Katrina-style disaster they can be drafted to drive busloads of survivors out without having to find assigned drivers (who may be dead) and so cops don't have to be pulled away to do it. They can also help support police in social-breakdown scenarios to prevent looting and restore order. With overseas deployments for the National Guard usurping that traditional manpower pool, some militias can be helpful indeed.

[Darth Wong]

Personally? I support the notion of militias. I think they should be raised and trained at the county and state level. They would be taught useful things like CPR and combat lifesaver skills, and be very useful in organizing evacuation routes in the event of natural disasters, helping to run evacuee camps, etc. A large body of organized eager volunteers can be really helpful for all sorts of things. Firefighting in forests or cordoning off areas damaged by fire or earthquakes, etc. Maybe teach them and issue licenses for driving school busses so in a Katrina-style disaster they can be drafted to drive busloads of survivors out without having to find assigned drivers (who may be dead) and so cops don't have to be pulled away to do it. They can also help support police in social-breakdown scenarios to prevent looting and restore order. With overseas deployments for the National Guard usurping that traditional manpower pool, some militias can be helpful indeed.

It seems to me that the sort of person who would join the kind of militia you're talking about would probably join the National Guard already. Most people have no interest in pledging to do that kind of work. The second amendment wankers join militias because all they care about is their guns, not actually helping anyone.

[Coyote]

It seems to me that the sort of person who would join the kind of militia you're talking about would probably join the National Guard already. Most people have no interest in pledging to do that kind of work. The second amendment wankers join militias because all they care about is their guns, not actually helping anyone.

Yeah, for the most part you're right, I suspect. The truly civic-minded who actually want to help "protect America" have plenty of outlets. I'd like to see something aloing the lines of the old Civil Defense model which has been largely abandoned, and one which would have the advantage of not having to adhere to Federal Army hiring standards.

As it stands, gays cannot openly serve in the US military; women are barred from combat duties (a technicality, they are fighting in actuality); diabetics, epileptics, and people in wheelchairs cannot serve at all, and of course there are those that would be willing to help but have "trouble" dealing with traditional authority and power structures or just don't want to have to cut their hair, or would like an option to not show up if they don't feel like it that weekend. Militias (as I envision them) would be perfect for all these types.

I'd use a "militia" system to train people on weapons if they wanted to buy such, and they'd get the chance to learn about them, the responsibilities, and try firing a few at ranges to see if that was really for them or not. Accredited instructors that would be part of the militia would be able to see to it they got the proper instruction and licensing and that way by the time they actually bought a gun for themselves they'd know all the safety stuff and legalities. And, as mentioned, they'd be available for civic assistance. Self funded, with their own vehicles, weapons, clothes, etc they'd be next to no drain on government funds. Missing hikers? Timmy fell down a well? Fire at the Back Forty? Activate the phone tree and volunteers will come.

But, then again, that would require an actual sense of civic responsibility to be instilled, and that (as we all know ) is communism. Nice to dream, though.

[Simon_Jester]

Moreover, the language of the Second Amendment calls your theory into question, because it talks about the right to "bear arms," not to "possess arms," "own arms," "purchase arms," or the like. "Bear arms" classically has a fairly specific meaning, indicating service in an organized armed force. Thus, my buddy the national guard artilleryman "bears arms," at least occasionally; I do not, even if I were to buy an AR-15 and play at being a soldier.

Actually, it says to "Keep and bear arms", which implies ownership. Also, the National Guard is not the state militia, due to the "concurrent enlistment" clause that sates that membership in the National Guard means concurrent enlistment in the US Army. National Guard members wear federal army uniforms, nametapes, and have to adhere to Federal hiring standards for armed forces.

While you may have a point about "keep arms," you do not have a point about my choice of example for "bear arms." I picked that example effectively at random as an instance of someone "bearing arms," to illustrate what the word means, not as an example of a member of the militia.

The militia is also understood to be all able-bodied citizens (originally only males) from 18 to 45 capable of fighting, since the original intent of the US government was a weak national government with a tiny army that was little more than a cadre force to train militia units into proper form in the event of a protracted war.

On the other hand, since we have long since moved from that concept to a standing army that actually works, and works enormously better than human-wave tactics involving an armed and hastily trained citizenry, this suggests that the original intent be discarded. The circumstances have changed, and we are no longer mainly concerned with repelling a British invasion through Canada.

Now, a more likely (if improbable) scenario has a foreign military coming to the US and being fought. If that were the case, again, the militias would not be acting on their own but would be acting in support of the US military, so again it wouldn't be a one-sided affair. And, guerrilla militias fighting an invading army would (I presume) have popular support of the citizens. Of course, the notion that anyone would have the ability to stage and maintain an invasion of the US with a serious hope of pulling it off is, again, in the realm of fantasy.

This does at least make more sense (as in, it is coherent, though unrealistic). But we do not need exceptionally liberal gun laws to make this work. We could equally well keep large armories of weapons and pass them out at need to members of a regulated militia trained in insurgency tactics and irregular warfare. In that case we would have the "well regulated militia" described in the Second Amendment, and it would probably be way more effective as a defensive measure than expecting a bunch of amateurs to figure out guerilla tactics as they go along, Red Dawn-style.

Personally? I support the notion of militias... With overseas deployments for the National Guard usurping that traditional manpower pool, some militias can be helpful indeed.

I understand the logic. In essence the National Guard functions as a cross between a reserve and a militia (using those terms in the general sense, not the American-system-specific sense), but has been used as a reserve so many times in recent history that its role as a militia is undermined.

[Coyote]

While you may have a point about "keep arms," you do not have a point about my choice of example for "bear arms." I picked that example effectively at random as an instance of someone "bearing arms," to illustrate what the word means, not as an example of a member of the militia.

Not sure where you're going with this, then. "Bearing arms" would be much the same for anyone, regardless of the capacity in which they are bearing the arms.

On the other hand, since we have long since moved from that concept to a standing army that actually works, and works enormously better than human-wave tactics involving an armed and hastily trained citizenry, this suggests that the original intent be discarded. The circumstances have changed, and we are no longer mainly concerned with repelling a British invasion through Canada.

Yes, but... like it or not, it is already in the Constitution. And people can wail and moan all they like about how it is outdated, stupid, etc etc etc but it is there and I think it is a safe bet that it isn't going to go away any time soon. So instead, re-define the militia concept to dovetail with civil defense and volunteer civil service instead of trying to beat people over the head with the notion of abolishing it, which will not go well.

Now, a more likely (if improbable) scenario has a foreign military coming to the US and being fought. If that were the case, again, the militias would not be acting on their own but would be acting in support of the US military, so again it wouldn't be a one-sided affair....

This does at least make more sense (as in, it is coherent, though unrealistic). But we do not need exceptionally liberal gun laws to make this work. We could equally well keep large armories of weapons and pass them out at need to members of a regulated militia trained in insurgency tactics and irregular warfare. In that case we would have the "well regulated militia" described in the Second Amendment, and it would probably be way more effective as a defensive measure than expecting a bunch of amateurs to figure out guerilla tactics as they go along, Red Dawn-style.

So you have a population that ordinarily has no real access to arms, and they are expected to learn guerrilla fighting as guns are handed out once the invasion is imminent-- in other words, only slightly ahead of the curve of the "learn as you go Red Dawn style" scenario. Unless you think it is better to have people train regularly, even when no danger is imminent? Also, having all the weapons collected in a handful of armories means a few single strikes by a prepared enemy (and no one would attack America without being very, very prepared) means --boom-- all the guns are gone, so grab your pointed sticks and good luck.

Personally? I support the notion of militias... With overseas deployments for the National Guard usurping that traditional manpower pool, some militias can be helpful indeed.

I understand the logic. In essence the National Guard functions as a cross between a reserve and a militia (using those terms in the general sense, not the American-system-specific sense), but has been used as a reserve so many times in recent history that its role as a militia is undermined.

It no longer truly qualifies, really, because Federal missions always take precedent. Think of all the single parents that tried to get out of deployment (Federal call up) so they could stay behind and take care of their children (local community concern). Federal call up took precedence.

[Swindle1984]

You can read, can you?

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

If one of the powers of a conflict did not sign the Convention, all parties that signed are still bound to the convention.
Furthermore, if the non-signatory power behaves according to the rules of the Convention, their opponents also must apply the rules on the non-signatory power.

Example:

Four nations A and B are allies and are waging war against C and D who are also allied.
Nation A, B and C did sign the convention, but not D.
A, B and C have to follow the rules as far as A, B and C are concerned.
If D also follows the rules despite not having signed the convention, A, B and C also have to follows the rules in regards to D.

ONLY if your opponent is not following the rules of the convention AND did not sign it in the first place, you are not bound by them.

Is this not EXACTLY what I just fucking said?

[Swindle1984]

and partly because the intent of the 2nd Amendment requires us to be armed so we can form a militia and fight off an invading army or our own government gone wrong.

Excuse me whilst I laugh at the ridiculousness of this.

Notice I said intent, not "this is totally fucking practical".

[Swindle1984]

First off Coyote, I do know it was a valid intent at the time, however it does not work anymore. You know as well as I do that what he means isn't a popular uprising but a fascist overtaking the government and expecting to win out against modern mechanized divisions and the like.

Are you talking about me? If so, then where the FUCK did that come from? Or were you referring to someone else's post?

Comparing Afghanistan or Iraq to an insurgency in our own back yard doesn't work, simply because the social, national, and religious differences that make getting the citizenry of those nations to cooperate so important and difficult do not apply.

Right, because we've never had this sort of animosity between fellow Americans before.

Shit, that wasn't even the first time. Whiskey Rebellion, anyone? Harper's Ferry? Granted, for the most part, there was no long-term insurgency involved (though many Confederates would have resorted to such measures if Lee hadn't insisted they surrender.), but the social differences have existed in America in the past.

[Swindle1984]

Personally? I support the notion of militias. I think they should be raised and trained at the county and state level. They would be taught useful things like CPR and combat lifesaver skills, and be very useful in organizing evacuation routes in the event of natural disasters, helping to run evacuee camps, etc. A large body of organized eager volunteers can be really helpful for all sorts of things. Firefighting in forests or cordoning off areas damaged by fire or earthquakes, etc. Maybe teach them and issue licenses for driving school busses so in a Katrina-style disaster they can be drafted to drive busloads of survivors out without having to find assigned drivers (who may be dead) and so cops don't have to be pulled away to do it. They can also help support police in social-breakdown scenarios to prevent looting and restore order. With overseas deployments for the National Guard usurping that traditional manpower pool, some militias can be helpful indeed.

It seems to me that the sort of person who would join the kind of militia you're talking about would probably join the National Guard already. Most people have no interest in pledging to do that kind of work. The second amendment wankers join militias because all they care about is their guns, not actually helping anyone.

That'd be a nice theory if it had a shred of truth to back it up.

The Texas State Guard (a militia that answers to the governor) and other Texas militias form the emergency communications network (primarily ham radio; these volunteers and their counterparts in Louisiana were the ONLY means of communication for a while in New Orleans after the hurricane and continued as the primary means of communication for emergency services once they actually got into the city) and are responsible for providing aid in emergencies. If you ever see photos of guys in camo piling sandbags to slow down flooding in Texas or doing clean-up and search-and-rescue after a tornado or hurricane, nine times out of ten they're militia.

Most militias answer to their communities and augment emergency services when needed. Your concept of a militia is a "good ol' boys huntin' club". Congratulations, you got your opinion from biased media releases rather than doing any research and forming an opinion of your own. Happens to everyone.

Incidentally, one of the top three members of the group that organizes and reviews militias on a national scale is black, just in case you couldn't get that "white supremacist redneck" image out of your head.

[Swindle1984]

Anyone who thinks the State Guard, which answers to federal authority, follows federal regulations, is equipped and funded by the federal government, and is stationed on land leased to the federal government, is a militia has no idea of what a militia is.

Frankly, I think more states should do as Texas has done and officially embrace militias. Reinvigorate the old Civil Defense network. The more professional militias, such as the Texas State Guard and the big Michigan militias, already receive equipment and training roughly comparable to US military reserve units. Anyone with the money can go to places like Gun Site and Thunder Ranch to receive combat training; that's where plenty of soldiers and SWAT members augment their training. Why not start organizing militias that conform to an agreed-upon standard of training and equipment and help fund said training and equipment? The militias already form much of our emergency communications network and provide aid in emergencies like New Orleans and 9-11 (I know the first radio operator to begin coordinating help on 9-11; it messed him up, having to handle it all by himself before someone else took over.), and they provide disaster relief on a local level. Get them all to conform to the same training (CPR, first aid, hazmat, riot control, search-and-rescue, etc.) and ensure they have compatible equipment, and we'd have an excellent national emergency service.

Better still, once they met the basics of training and equipment, any additional training and equipment would be out of their own pocket, along with whatever supplies they had on hand. Which means very little budget would be required. The militia would be first on the scene and start handling things until professionals arrived with a bigger supply train and took over.

Seems like a good idea to me.

[Knife]

Let's keep in mind that in an occupation scenario, their goal is to outlast the occupiers, until the occupiers get sick of the quagmire and leave. A domestic scenario is totally different because the opponent will never leave. Moreover, it doesn't cost them extraordinary amounts of money to keep troops and police in the field because they're at home, so they can sustain operations indefinitely.

Indeed, however, the whole argument of 'you shouldn't have a gun, you can't fight off the government and its tanks' is overall silly anyways. We have lots of hard right hillbillies that the governement keeps a eye on; but if they went after them with a lot of force, it would just make many more rednecks flock to the banner. If it were a civil war, a lot of the people driving the tanks would have sympathies to the rednecks. It is just a lot more complicated and gray area than 'your rifle won't do jack shit to a government tank' argument.

Besides, the "original intent of the framers" is a stupid justification for anything. Their entire vision for the US government was an abysmal failure anyway. You can't have a bunch of radically disparate states loosely welded together by a weak federal government and actually expect to accomplish anything as a cohesive nation. It was a stupid idea from the get-go.

Indeed, I'm no fan of the Jeffersonian faction of the Founding Fathers and will usually point out the flaw in their thinking in any discussion. I'm rather quite glad the Hamiltonians won that argument, and won it early.

[Darth Wong]

That'd be a nice theory if it had a shred of truth to back it up.

The Texas State Guard (a militia that answers to the governor) and other Texas militias form the emergency communications network (primarily ham radio; these volunteers and their counterparts in Louisiana were the ONLY means of communication for a while in New Orleans after the hurricane and continued as the primary means of communication for emergency services once they actually got into the city) and are responsible for providing aid in emergencies. If you ever see photos of guys in camo piling sandbags to slow down flooding in Texas or doing clean-up and search-and-rescue after a tornado or hurricane, nine times out of ten they're militia.

Most militias answer to their communities and augment emergency services when needed. Your concept of a militia is a "good ol' boys huntin' club". Congratulations, you got your opinion from biased media releases rather than doing any research and forming an opinion of your own. Happens to everyone.

What the fuck? In your very next post, you say:

Anyone who thinks the State Guard, which answers to federal authority, follows federal regulations, is equipped and funded by the federal government, and is stationed on land leased to the federal government, is a militia has no idea of what a militia is.

The Texas State Guard is not an ordinary citizen militia. They are closely tied to the mainline military forces, and in fact, they require prior military service as a requirement for enlistment.

If you're going to disprove anything I said about militias, you should give a better example than that, especially since you appear to be arguing with yourself in two consecutive posts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Ironic thing is that the Texas State Guard doesn't answer to federal authority. Instead they're a group of, IIRC, six military police brigades that Texas keeps around separate from federal command (though under the same command structure as the Texas National Guard) for the purpose of having what are basically national guard units available to deploy in Texas in emergencies when the entire actual National Guard has been militarized under federal order and sent overseas or whatnot. A fair number of states have such organizations, but they're under military discipline and essentially fill a function as paramilitary security and rescue personnel, more a state level gendarmerie than anything else.

[Serafina]

The Ironic thing is that the Texas State Guard doesn't answer to federal authority. Instead they're a group of, IIRC, six military police brigades that Texas keeps around separate from federal command (though under the same command structure as the Texas National Guard) for the purpose of having what are basically national guard units available to deploy in Texas in emergencies when the entire actual National Guard has been militarized under federal order and sent overseas or whatnot. A fair number of states have such organizations, but they're under military discipline and essentially fill a function as paramilitary security and rescue personnel, more a state level gendarmerie than anything else.

Wait, so states in the USA are allowed to have their own military?!

Wow, thats one excellent federal system /irony