So, you really have no basis for your assumption that God is shedding any Grace on you, is that what you’re saying?
Isn’t an assertion like that one of those that, by definition, one pretty much has to take on faith?
Thank you, Captain.
Just wondering wich comes first.
God sheds his Grace on us, therefore we must be superior.
or
We are superior, therefore God must be shedding his Grace on us.
Ok…so what exactly are our “inalienable rights”? It seems that you don’t believe they are defined in The Constitution or through the legislature. I highly doubt that you have the direct ability to converse with the Allmighty himself. So how are our inalienable rights defined? What if I decide that I have the inalienable right to shoot anyone who looks at me cockeyed?
If a Waco type situation happened in your area, would you mobilize to defend against the Feds? Does your militia have the man/firepower to mount such a defense? Were you disappointed that no militias helped the Branch Davidians? Does your militia keep up to date on advanced weaponry so you can stay on equal footing with state and federal forces? What’s the most powerful weapon in your militia’s arsenal?
A good question with no tidy answer. (People have debated this for centuries.) Certainly the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights qualify. But there are others, e.g. right to own property (assuming you pay for it) and the right to defend yourself against a threat.
How do you decide which rights to defend, then. Do you vote as a group or would you just splinter off into factions to defend whatever rights you see fit?
It depends. If we were 100% sure their inalienable rights were being violated without due process, then yes, we would defend them.
I don’t know.
There’s no definitive answer to this. First of all, it would have been difficult for anyone to obtain factual/unbiased information at the time it was happening. (Much of the damning information came out afterwards.) Secondly, there may not have been a local militia unit in existance at the time. It wasn’t until after Waco that militia units started popping up everywhere.
Not really.
The well-trained rifleman.
It really comes down to each individual’s opinion of the situation. If a situation comes up wherein 80% of our unit is willing to fight, then the effective size of the unit is 80%.
Do you think that you attempt to come up with one…considering that you are preparing to use deadly force to defend those rights?
I ask because without a clear definition, some people may interpret “inalianable rights” to the right to raise arms against anything that pisses me off. You have a right to own property but you don’t have a right to fight the bank if they foreclose on you for not paying your mortgage.
What makes a group a “militia” and not a “gun club”, “hunting club”, or a fraternal organization that plays paintball on the weekend?
Do you have lawyers in your ranks that would determine this, or is it a ‘we know it when we see it’ kind of process? Would your group attempt to arrest key perpetrators and try them in your own militia court to determine the facts, or just convict them in absentia? Do you have different levels of punishment for different constitutional infractions? If so, how are they implemented? Does one need a good knowledge of constitutional law to join the militia, or do you have a hierarchy of duties, where some folks are just soldiers and others are the ‘brains’ of the operation.
Have the libertarians in your group every taken up arms to defend people jailed for drug possession? If so, how did it turn out? If not, why not?
Msmith537 and zwaldd: You are both asking (in essence), “Under what circumstances would you fight?” I can only answer in the most general sense, i.e. we will defend citizens whose inalienable rights are threatened. We’re not talking about your everyday screw-ups, e.g. a rogue cop who violates a person’s rights without due process. We’re talking about an environment where rights are being systematically trampled on by powerful entity. Examples include:
- Incarceration of people practicing their right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, or freedom of religion
- Warrantless house-to-house searches
- Random firearms confiscation
- Mandatory re-education camps
I’m not aware of anyone who has taken up arms to defend a drug user. I suspect this is because, while many are for the decriminalization of drugs, they many not necessarily consider it an inalienable right.
I am more interested in the process. For instance, a member of your group reports random firearm confiscation in some district. How would you go about fact finding? What facts are relevant? Who would you target? Would you make arrests and put the perpetrator on trial? Shoot first and ask questions later? Negotiate first and shoot later?
In addition to these hypothetical questions, perhaps we should first ask: Has there ever been a situation in which your militia seriously considered taking action? Has there been a situation where one or more members reported a rights violation of some type where your intervention might be constructive, which you then debated as a group?
Well if you’re wondering if our group has an ISO-9000 approved plan, the answer is “no.”
I regret to inform that we do not have a formal plan in place. But as far as I know, neither did the patriots of 1776, yet they knew when “a spade was a spade.” We are simply hoping that we are blessed with the same foresight, wisdom and judgment as them.
No. Thank God.
There was an instance a few months ago wherein a gentleman in Eaton was gun downed during a drug-enforcement warrant. The young man was killed and a couple pot plants were confiscated. There were also reports the alphabet boys were “high-fiving” each others afterwards. I was outraged. Some were in agreement. Some were not.
Interesting thread. I’ll opine that if the vast majority of militia members are as well reasoned and articulate as Crafter_Man, I’m personally not very worried about them.
Then again, it’s that 1% or less who spoil it for everyone else.
Crafter_Man:
Has your unit (I’m assuming it’s about squad-sized, give-or-take) put any thought into methods of countering sophisticated battlefield electronics, such as thermal and/or infrared detection/imaging systems, airborne radar, communications security measures and procedures, and other things of that nature?
Or perhaps any thought into countering armored vehicles, or airborne threats (helicopters especially) with legally available means (in other words, methodology over military-grade heavy weaponry)?