Should militia's be able to have tanks and helicopters?

[Alonzo]

The second amendment states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But what good is an assault rifle or a submachine gun against the u.s. military? In keeping with the original intent, that of having strong, regulated militia's to protect the states and people, shouldn't they be allowed to have weapons that would actually enable them to do so? In this day and age guns, of any sort, simply aren't cutting it.

[firefox]

The feds should stop taking over the state militias, and I don't see why people shouldn't be able to start local defense/rescue/emergency preparedness groups. What do you think, 'zo?

[jafar00]

The feds should stop taking over the state militias, and I don't see why people shouldn't be able to start local defense/rescue/emergency preparedness groups. What do you think, 'zo?


The US govt has a policy of not liking insurgent/resistance groups very much so it's in their best interests to keep them at bay. They are a threat to govt control.

Anyway, to deal with the original question it doesn't matter much that insurgents don't have tanks and helicopters. Other militias like Chechen or Iraqi ones have proven that well placed roadside bombs or shoulder launched missiles are pretty effective against tanks and helicopters.

For example :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZnGc_MBm1U

[Keith Hamburger]

Individual citizens, as members of the militia, should be allowed to posess and own any individually served weapon used by any military in the world. Crew served weapon ownership should be allowed but reasonable restrictions on storage and use may be in order.

Keith

[Easy90]

Individual citizens, as members of the militia, should be allowed to posess and own any individually served weapon used by any military in the world. Crew served weapon ownership should be allowed but reasonable restrictions on storage and use may be in order.

Keith

Yeah, but then you get into squabbles over the word "reasonable." And just getting a nuclear missile submarine into private storage makes for a logistics nightmare.

[Keith Hamburger]

Yeah, but then you get into squabbles over the word "reasonable." And just getting a nuclear missile submarine into private storage makes for a logistics nightmare.

Nuclear weapons and large quantities of other explosives should only be allowed if the owner of these materials has enough land and adequate storage facilities to ensure that such materials do not constitute a threat to neighbors.

In the case of nuclear weapons it is unlikely that any such adequate storage exists within the US, if even the world. A gun is a threat if it is pointed at someone. A nuclear weapon is effectively always pointed at everyone within a given area, therefore, it is always a threat.

Nuclear weapons are a strawman used to justify restrictions on otherwise reasonable defensive weapons.

Keith

[Buck Laser]

Nuclear weapons are a strawman used to justify restrictions on otherwise reasonable defensive weapons.

Keith

Yeah, an artillery piece that could fire tactical nukes would be a great way to protect us from muggers, wouldn't it?:fight:

[Keith Hamburger]

Yeah, an artillery piece that could fire tactical nukes would be a great way to protect us from muggers, wouldn't it?:fight:

Are we having problems with the English language?

I did state that I am willing to discuss reasonable restrictions on where you can keep and when you can use crew served weapons. An artillery piece, even a mortar, is a crew served weapon.

And, I said that nuclear weapons are likely not justifiable in any way because they are always a threat as they are always effectively "pointed" at everyone.

Keith

[PatrickHenry]

Anybody that can afford it can have a helicopter, alonzo.

Or is there a law against helicopters now that I missed?

Who needs a tank anyhow?

C-4...now THERE'S a weapon!

[Alonzo]

Nuclear weapons are ok in the hands of a militia if they can find a suitable place? And it's not a straw man when you bring it up, unasked, and argue in favor of it (under the right conditions), not me.

See this is why I throw out these strange questions. People think things I wouldn't think anyone would ever agree with. I don't see how anyone could approve of militias having tanks and helicopters, let alone nukes under any condition.

Who needs a tank anyhow?

No idea, but apparently some think they should be allowed to have them.

Or is there a law against helicopters now that I missed?

I'm talking about the military kind.

[PatrickHenry]

The questions you should be asking alonzo, are these:

Is the US military trustworthy?

Is the US government to be counted on not to turn its military forces against citizens who have had enough of unconstitutional rule?

How far can citizen protest go before the tanks and helicopters are turned against US?

Why would citizens think that having weapons of their own are worth keeping as a defense against government tyranny?

ETC.

But I can see that your mind can't encompass such questions.

Like most of America, you are in a state of denial about the tyranny we see developing like a Polaroid photo, right before our eyes.

[Keith Hamburger]

I'm talking about the military kind.

It is currently legal to own tanks and military helicopters. If they have weapons on them you have to pay a $200 transfer tax per weapon.

Military equipment like that with weapons installed and functional are difficult to find, there are laws preventing the import of such, and the US military no longer transfers them to the public, but, if you can find one, you can own it.

Keith[hr]And it's not a straw man when you bring it up, unasked, and argue in favor of it (under the right conditions), not me.

Sorry. I was brought up to be proactive and the discussion always goes to that.

I'm sorry I didn't wait for you to bring it up.

Keith

[Alonzo]

The questions you should be asking alonzo, are these:

Is the US military trustworthy?

Is the US government to be counted on not to turn its military forces against citizens who have had enough of unconstitutional rule?

The u.s. military may not be the most trustworthy, but the risk of the u.s. government turning its military against the citizens are minimal. Even in the 60's, with all the protests, they never really did anything as blatant as that. Police incidents, fbi surveillance yes, but nothing to out and out crush it.

As much as you hate the indoctrination of kids in the u.s., the basic concepts of the u.s. are so ingrained in every single American that the potential for such a transformation are minimal barring an event that risks destroying the u.s. itself.

They're ingrained in our leaders as much as the rest of us, and considering not any nut gets that high, it's unlikely anyone elected would have the desire, or ability, to take such power.

How far can citizen protest go before the tanks and helicopters are turned against US?

Didn't happen in the 60's. As I said there were police and military incidents, but nothing of the magnitude you suggest.

Why would citizens think that having weapons of their own are worth keeping as a defense against government tyranny?

I'd rather 10,000 tanks be in President Bush's hands than one in Jim Bob the redneck survivalist hands. The latter is simply too unpredictable.


But I can see that your mind can't encompass such questions.

Now the insults. See pat, I may think poorly of your ideology, I may even think you are a little crazy in your views, but that's simply because of the positions you take. It has nothing to do with you, as a person, outside the political realm.

Unlike you I don't resort to actually insulting people or calling them stupid simply because they disagree with me. You seem to be making a lot of snide remarks lately that are as much about me as they are my views.

Like most of America, you are in a state of denial about the tyranny we see developing like a Polaroid photo, right before our eyes.


When have we not been creeping towards that? Seems like there's always someone screaming "the sky is falling".[hr]
I'm talking about the military kind.

It is currently legal to own tanks and military helicopters. If they have weapons on them you have to pay a $200 transfer tax per weapon.

Military equipment like that with weapons installed and functional are difficult to find, there are laws preventing the import of such, and the US military no longer transfers them to the public, but, if you can find one, you can own it.

Keith[hr]

I'd really like some verification on the tank one. Not a WW1 tank mind you, but one that could actually due significant damage and isn't loaded with historical value.

And it's not a straw man when you bring it up, unasked, and argue in favor of it (under the right conditions), not me.

Sorry. I was brought up to be proactive and the discussion always goes to that.

I'm sorry I didn't wait for you to bring it up.

Keith



Keith, believe me when I say nuclear weapons did not even enter my mind. Never in a million years did I think anyone would believe militia's, under any circumstances, should be able to have them.

[Keith Hamburger]

I'd really like some verification on the tank one. Not a WW1 tank mind you, but one that could actually due significant damage and isn't loaded with historical value.

What do you consider being able to "actually do significant damage". I don't think you would ever be able to get an Abrams.

But, if you're talking equipment from the 1960's, 70's and 80's, here's a listing (http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm) of some that are available.

Many of these have non-functional guns, but, with the proper FFL, you could either restore the guns to functionality or purchase guns that are functional.

Keith, believe me when I say nuclear weapons did not even enter my mind. Never in a million years did I think anyone would believe militia's, under any circumstances, should be able to have them.

OK. Maybe not you then. But, all of these discussions eventually turn to nukes. Someone on the side of gun control eventually goes there.

Keith

[underdawg]

For some reason I don't think the U.S. government looks at private militias as something to be tolerated in this country, especially after 9-11. Look at the Branch Davidians at Waco Texas.

[Buck Laser]

Yeah, an artillery piece that could fire tactical nukes would be a great way to protect us from muggers, wouldn't it?:fight:

Are we having problems with the English language?

I did state that I am willing to discuss reasonable restrictions on where you can keep and when you can use crew served weapons. An artillery piece, even a mortar, is a crew served weapon.

And, I said that nuclear weapons are likely not justifiable in any way because they are always a threat as they are always effectively "pointed" at everyone.

Keith

Keith, this is what you said in an earlier post in this thread: "Crew served weapon ownership should be allowed but reasonable restrictions on storage and use may be in order." So no, I don't think I'm having any problems with the English language.

I am always amused by the "second amendment fundamentalists" get all wrapped up in trying to distance themselves from hard questions. It really gets funny.

[Keith Hamburger]

Keith, this is what you said in an earlier post in this thread: "Crew served weapon ownership should be allowed but reasonable restrictions on storage and use may be in order." So no, I don't think I'm having any problems with the English language.

I am always amused by the "second amendment fundamentalists" get all wrapped up in trying to distance themselves from hard questions. It really gets funny.

I have not distanced myself in any way. I have stated an absolute opinion of my position on the second amendment.

As far as that goes, since you indicate you fully understood my original post, that obviously indicates your response was a complete non-sequiter and not deserving of even appearing in this space.

Keith

[davo]

As far as I'm concerned, the possession of active military tanks, helicopters, artillery etc by private individuals or corporations outside government control represents a clear and present danger to the peace (e.g Blackwater). The exception to this is when there is a valid reason to grant permission to use heavy artillery (e.g British East India Company).

Here in the Australian colonies in the late 1890's we had similar attitudes toward the Americans with respect to the threat to liberties from standing armies. Troops had been used to break up industrial disputes, which many people felt was an unjust use of force. It was decided the only infantry units would be militia, but there would be regular artillery and support units. There were prohibitions on deploying militia for anything other than national defense (no invasions, martial law or strike busting). This was known as the 'two armies' system. (I guess you could include tanks and helicopters as the modern equivalent of 'artillery'). This system would probably be the best for remaining compatible with the original intent of the US constitution and second amendment, whilst maintaining a realistic military capability for the modern world.

Although I believe in the second amendment, I strongly dislike the attitude that currently exists in certain elements of the United States - that the sole purpose of a militia is to be a citizen army to fight a Federal Government. This is a stupid attitude to have, as an oppressive Federal Government (or even a non-oppressive one) would instantly bust up and arrest such groups if they were genuinely considered a threat to the peace.

The true purpose of a militia is to provide a volunteer force of armed citizens for some form of collective defense. This exists in the US constitution so the Federal Government wouldn't have to tax the citizens to fund a standing army (which it actually has done). The founders knew that standing armies funded by big government taxation are always used to further tax the people to cover their costs, as well as for nation building overseas. These problems are avoided with volunteer militia and 2nd amendment.

[preservanation]

For some reason I don't think the U.S. government looks at private militias as something to be tolerated in this country, especially after 9-11. Look at the Branch Davidians at Waco Texas.

Even a better example is Ruby Ridge.
In August of 1992 Americans tensely watched as events began to unfold on a remote ridge in Northern Idaho, involving a white separatist family and the FBI. Eleven days after it had begun, a 14-year-old boy, a 42-year-old mother, a federal marshal, and one yellow Labrador retriever had all been shot dead.

The incident ultimately led to one of the most intensive and controversial investigations in recent history. The FBI faced widespread resentment and Attorney General Janet Reno established a Justice Department task force to investigate what had happened. National debates on the case were said to have fueled anti-government sentiments, which eventually played a role in the Waco, Oklahoma City, and the Freemen conflict. Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the government building in Oklahoma City is said to be at least partially motivated by revenge for what happened at Ruby Ridge.

Prior to the incident, the Weaver family had moved to the remote mountaintop to escape what they viewed as a sinful world. Randy Weaver lived with his wife and four children in a cabin he himself built on Ruby Ridge, just 40 miles south of the Canadian border. The cabin had no electricity or running water. According to friends, the Weavers simply wanted to be left alone as they awaited Armageddon. While many may have viewed their intent as unusual, it appeared to be quite harmless to most who knew them.

Almost a decade later many questions remain: What went wrong at Ruby Ridge? Why did over 400 members of the FBI, military and local law enforcement converge on the mountain? Why did so many have to die?http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html


The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."

The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility." http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm

[PatrickHenry]

But I can see that your mind can't encompass such questions.

Now the insults. See pat, I may think poorly of your ideology, I may even think you are a little crazy in your views, but that's simply because of the positions you take. It has nothing to do with you, as a person, outside the political realm.

Unlike you I don't resort to actually insulting people or calling them stupid simply because they disagree with me. You seem to be making a lot of snide remarks lately that are as much about me as they are my views.

Like most of America, you are in a state of denial about the tyranny we see developing like a Polaroid photo, right before our eyes.


When have we not been creeping towards that? Seems like there's always someone screaming "the sky is falling".
My, my. I did not use the term stupid and if you found my remarks objectionable, please accept my apology.

What I said was that you, like most Americans, think that such measures are impossible in America. I even used the word denial.

But if you find it worthwhile to mischaracterize my statements so you can find offense, I guess that's up to you.

And there is no doubt that the US is moving ever closer to the edges of what we have known as acceptable government prerogatives.

I won't be surprised if things grow more difficult in days ahead, because I have already faced that probability. Most Americans haven't.

[Keith Hamburger]

Although I believe in the second amendment, I strongly dislike the attitude that currently exists in certain elements of the United States - that the sole purpose of a militia is to be a citizen army to fight a Federal Government. This is a stupid attitude to have, as an oppressive Federal Government (or even a non-oppressive one) would instantly bust up and arrest such groups if they were genuinely considered a threat to the peace.

The true purpose of a militia is to provide a volunteer force of armed citizens for some form of collective defense. This exists in the US constitution so the Federal Government wouldn't have to tax the citizens to fund a standing army (which it actually has done). The founders knew that standing armies funded by big government taxation are always used to further tax the people to cover their costs, as well as for nation building overseas. These problems are avoided with volunteer militia and 2nd amendment.

The existence of the militia, as opposed to a standing army, was for a specific purpose. It was to ensure that the government didn't have the military strength to be able to "bust up and arrest such groups" while at the same time providing for the defense of the nation as necessary.

Also, as you say, a militia cannot be used for foreign adventures while, as we have seen over the past century+, standing armies can readily be used for foreign adventures.

You are at least partially correct that in having strayed from that policy we have put into place a system that could devolve into tyranny and threaten the people who should make up the militia.

Keith

[Tharagor]

Anybody that can afford it can have a helicopter, alonzo.

Or is there a law against helicopters now that I missed?

Who needs a tank anyhow?

C-4...now THERE'S a weapon!


Citizens can purchase military vehicles that have weapon systems, but any weapon system has to be removed/permanently disabled first.

[Questerr]

http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm


Stormfront? Stormfront? You're going to qoute Stormfront as a reliable source?

It's a neonazi, white supremecist, and radical survivalist mouthpiece. Of course its going to have negative information about Ruby Ridge!

[Alonzo]

My, my. I did not use the term stupid and if you found my remarks objectionable, please accept my apology.

What I said was that you, like most Americans, think that such measures are impossible in America. I even used the word denial.

But if you find it worthwhile to mischaracterize my statements so you can find offense, I guess that's up to you.


I'm not sure what the correct way to interpret this is:

But I can see that your mind can't encompass such questions.

[PatrickHenry]

I gave you the interpretation!

Denial...

[micfranklin]

Sure, let militias get copters and tanks. Let 'em get artillery shells.
























As soon as they can afford it all.

[davo]

The existence of the militia, as opposed to a standing army, was for a specific purpose. It was to ensure that the government didn't have the military strength to be able to "bust up and arrest such groups" while at the same time providing for the defense of the nation as necessary.

Also, as you say, a militia cannot be used for foreign adventures while, as we have seen over the past century+, standing armies can readily be used for foreign adventures.

You are at least partially correct that in having strayed from that policy we have put into place a system that could devolve into tyranny and threaten the people who should make up the militia.

Keith


I have no problem with armored vehicles or helicopters being in private hands PROVIDED they do not have active armaments. In Australia there are even some private collectors who maintain antique tanks, APC's etc, but they have their guns welded up. If too much force is allowed to operate in private hands with the government having too little, a situation similar to anarchy arises, where even the most benevolent government is replaced by a superior armed force in private hands, leading directly to tyranny.

The main problem I have with the current militia enthusiasts in the US today is they believe the main reason to keep and bear arms is to someday fight an oppressive federal government. This simply won't work; even the most enthusiastic gun nut could easily be taken down by a well organized SWAT team. Even in 1776, there was a regular continental army fighting the British; farmers with guns provided decisive help in that effort, but they were not the main force, and could not have achieved victory on their own.

[Keith Hamburger]

The main problem I have with the current militia enthusiasts in the US today is they believe the main reason to keep and bear arms is to someday fight an oppressive federal government. This simply won't work; even the most enthusiastic gun nut could easily be taken down by a well organized SWAT team. Even in 1776, there was a regular continental army fighting the British; farmers with guns provided decisive help in that effort, but they were not the main force, and could not have achieved victory on their own.

The constitution does allow for calling up a military with professional training and funding as necessary. Even after WWI we didn't have a strong army and it pretty much had to be developed from scratch for WWII. It was a fairly successful effort.

While there are many that talk about directly fighting the US miilitary, should the need arise, and given the examples of insurgent efforts against that very military throughout the world such should not be scoffed at, thinking of that as the primary thrust of militia efforts is most likely a misreading of their basic purpose.

The purpose of such a militia is to provide a basic defense in time of need (e.g. invasion of the continental US) while disallowing a permenant, full-time standing army that might be able to abuse the citizenry or engage in foreign adventurism. The purpose of the militia is not to fight the government but to negate the need for the government to be strong enough to create the need that it might have to be fought.

Even as a strict libertarian I do believe that, given today's technology, a purist reading of the constitution may need to be modified, along with a modification of how our military is put together under that constitution. However, that should be done along with an amendment to the constitution and a complete restructuring of our military. I do see the need for a core cadre of trained professional land troops (read "army") prepared to operate and maintain highly technical weapons and to train volunteers and militia in their operation when the need to engage an external threat arises.

The constitution is basically setup such that funding is not allowed for a large professional army and, to completely obey the law, we should amend it to allow for a minimal core of professionals for such operation, maintenance and training. We don't need a standing army of grunts and gun bunnies, though (I can use those terms, I served a time in each position). Those positions can be trained quickly, in a matter of weeks, and a reasonable militia training program would mean there could always be a pool of volunteers that have gone through basic training and can step up fairly quickly.

Perhaps a part of that amendment could include basic training and advanced individual training for volunteers who would rejoin the civilian population immediately after that training and not be subject to frivolous recall to active duty. This is in contrast to our reserves and National Guard who are effectively part-time members of our standing army and would largely be modelled on the Swiss system. With proper rewards to such volunteers, such as free tuition at a state university of their choice for one semester for each month served, or some such, we would probably have a large number of volunteers to undergo such training.

As part of the restructuring we could respect the constitution by placing a large number of our most technical, and least offensive (meaning tactical use, not emotional response) weapons into the Department of the Navy. The constitution has very few restrictions on funding for the navy, for the simple reason that our navy is our greatest defensive weapon. To attack this country, anyone with any real capacity for threat would have to cross oceans. Ships can't be used as an offensive force to hold land, but are very important to the defense of the US. With todays air capabilities, aircraft can serve a similar strategic purpose. You can't invade someone else with an airplane and no ground troops, but they can be very important defensive weapons.

I would say to roll all of our defensive air capacity into the navy and funding for that defense would not be subject to the restrictions on the army and can be funded to the level deemed necessary for true defensive purposes.

So, my solution to the entire defense argument, and the constitutional crisis we currently face (and it is a crisis whether it's admitted or not) ...

Put air and sea defense under the navy and fund as necessary

Amend the constitution to allow for a minimal core cadre of professional military people to operate, maintain and train on the technology necessary for a modern land defense. This amendment would probably have to limit the size of this group by a percentage of population and GDP.

As part of that amendment provide for basic training of volunteers from the civilian population to serve as members of the militia and whatever the equivelent would be to todays Inactive Ready Reserve. This amendment should be clear that these troops cannot be called up to fight an overseas war but only for direct defense of American territory.

With this solution the purpose of our militia and military has been preserved, we have the capacity to defend our shores, while we don't have a standing military capable of presenting a threat to the population. And the rule of law is observed by following the constitution as it was written and intended, while a relatively minor amendment allows our country to keep up with technological advancement.

There are a lot of details to this that would need to be worked out, and I have thought about a lot of them, but this is long enough as is.

Unfortunately, real freedom can't be defended in soundbites, the way that loss of liberty can be justified.

Keith

[preservanation]

http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm


Stormfront? Stormfront? You're going to qoute Stormfront as a reliable source?

It's a neonazi, white supremecist, and radical survivalist mouthpiece. Of course its going to have negative information about Ruby Ridge!
If you have positive info about Ruby Ridge, please post it.
I'm not familiar with any.