Indiana State Militia

[zimzum]

This argument fails on several levels.

First, many of the folk wanting to "uphold and defend" are already veterans. They've done the Guard/Reserve/Active route already.

Second, joining the military/guard/reserve is no guarantee of being "on the side of the angels" when it comes to upholding and defending the Constitution. Consider New Orleans. The order was given to confiscate firearms and they just did it. To the best of my knowledge nobody said to this unconstitutional order (violation of 4--probable cause for warrants for search and seizure, 2 naturally, and 5--due process for deprivation of property or just compensation for confiscation "for the public good") "No, that's an unlawful order." They just did it. While maybe the military would mostly be "the good guys" (I really want to believe that since most of the people I know in the military are definitely on that side of things) but can you be sure that you'll be assigned to a unit that is? It's a lot easier to walk away form a "citizen militia" that oversteps the Constitution than from government run military units.

Third, I dispute that the situation is so binary--that one should either join the military or do nothing. Is there really no room for folk to contribute to Admiral Yamamoto's "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" that falls somewhere between being a gunowner and actually joining the military? Or are we limited to a position reminiscent of Goering's "If anyone wants to own weapons let him join the SA or SS where his use of weapons can serve the state?"

Finally, I would like to point out that the Swamp Fox's irregulars, the ancestors of the Army Rangers, was a citizen militia. And that is just one of the many successful militia units in US history.

I agree.

 

[HICKMAN]

Consider New Orleans. The order was given to confiscate firearms and they just did it.

Can you actually PROVE a single firearm was confiscated by Nat'l Guard troops? Or is this just based around the youtube video showing the troops walking around while cops were going door to door. If you read the comments, you will see several times where troops that were there saying they didn't disarm anyone, they were just moving people out. Those "I'm on TV" cops walking around with M4's pointed as they went into houses all ought to be fired.

I agree, cops violated law by confiscating guns, but we didn't exactly see the "on the side of the angles" Louisiana militia out there fighting the police/guard troops, did we? Where were they when they were needed most?

Louisiana showed their displeasure at the voting booth, which is why they have a new Governor.

I dispute that the situation is so binary--that one should either join the military or do nothing. Is there really no room for folk to contribute to Admiral Yamamoto's "You cannot invade the mainland United States.

The militia is We The People, every gun owning citizen of age.

Not a bunch of dudes running around the woods in BDU's with paintball guns.

What pisses me off the most is the common thought that somehow our military would turn against it's citizens. This kind of ignorance is appalling. The military is comprised of a MAJORITY of right leaning members.

Anyone serving will tell you libs are few and far between in the military, except support units. You'll find a few blue-dogs sprinkled around combat units but most are very much like the people who post here at INGO.

 

[dburkhead]

Can you actually PROVE a single firearm was confiscated by Nat'l Guard troops? Or is this just based around the youtube video showing the troops walking around while cops were going door to door. If you read the comments, you will see several times where troops that were there saying they didn't disarm anyone, they were just moving people out. Those "I'm on TV" cops walking around with M4's pointed as they went into houses all ought to be fired.

I guess the videos I have seen of actual National Guardsmen knocking on doors, asking about weapons and telling people to leave don't count.

Still. It doesn't really matter whether they were the "trigger men" or not. The getaway car driver is just as guilty of capital murder as the person who actually pulls the trigger in a robbery where someone is killed.

I agree, cops violated law by confiscating guns, but we didn't exactly see the "on the side of the angles" Louisiana militia out there fighting the police/guard troops, did we? Where were they when they were needed most?

Maybe in the National Guard because they believed as you support that that's the way to "uphold and defend." Or maybe they didn't organize to resist tyranny because they believed, as you apparently do, that doing so simply makes one some folk playing paintball in the woods. Or maybe they were too busy trying to protect their own homes and families against looters and bandits to deal with government troops as well.

Or maybe The Big Easy, with its history of voting in the politicians it voted in, isn't really a good venue for judging the effectiveness of a properly run citizen militia system.

Louisiana showed their displeasure at the voting booth, which is why they have a new Governor.

And the guns are still effectively gone. Oh sure, many have been "returned"--as rusted hulks no longer serviceable.

The militia is We The People, every gun owning citizen of age.

And training and organizing historically was a part of that. Do you honestly think the Swamp Fox's raiders were just people who spontaneously grabbed their guns and took to the woods to harass redcoats? Do you think the folk at Lexington and Concord had never trained together?

Not a bunch of dudes running around the woods in BDU's with paintball guns.

And the military is not a bunch of people running around in the woods with laser designators. Yet strangely enough that latter is part of what the military does. It's called "training."

Now, most paintball games these days are pretty much useless as military training because the paintball "rules" don't reflect military reality. That does not mean that training accessible to civilians is always militarily useless. Did you know, for instance, that at least one CQB school used by the military is also available to civilians--same instructors, same curriculum, same standards, just different student. Likewise, at least one sniper school used by the military is also available to civilians in the same way.

You might also consider that folk who might form a citizen militia group can well include a lot of people with experience in military training, experience they can share with others.

Sure, you're not going to see any of that in the news. After all, official Pravda is that citizen militias are either "right wing racist fascists" or "incompetent wannabes" and nothing that disagrees with that will make the 6:00 news.

In fact, any serious "militia" is likely to be something you never hear about at all. It's not going to be made up of people talking about insurrection or the like on an internet forum, but be made of people quietly making connections with others, quietly collecting skills and supplies, having plans on where to go as a common rallying point and so forth all on the "QT."

What pisses me off the most is the common thought that somehow our military would turn against it's citizens. This kind of ignorance is appalling. The military is comprised of a MAJORITY of right leaning members.

Can you please point me to any recent examples of the military disobeying orders and resisting abuses of government power against the American people.

I have to wonder how many of those National Guardsman were of the "I'd never take arms against...." type before they were given orders to (at the least) assist in confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens in New Orleans. What people say, even what they believe, and what they end up doing in reality are often entirely different. See the Stanford Prison experiments and the Millgram experiment for examples.

Anyone serving will tell you libs are few and far between in the military, except support units. You'll find a few blue-dogs sprinkled around combat units but most are very much like the people who post here at INGO.

Shrug. My experience was about 1/3 to 2/3 liberal to conservative. OTOH, I've noticed a number of "conservative" types lately making decisions about leaving vs. staying in based on the policies coming out of the White House--both currently and expected in the future. What the military's makeup is now may not have a lot of bearing on what it will be 2 or 4 or 8 years from now.

One of the most powerful tools of tyranny is disbelief: the thought that "this can't be happening" or "that couldn't happen here." Thoughts that prevent people from taking the actions necessary to prevent it until its too late.

 

[HICKMAN]

The guys in black in those vids were cops. The troops were bringing relief and some were helping evacuating people. If you look around youtube, you'll find a few videos where the troops talked about it. There was one were a LT was saying they were never told to disarm, if he had been, he would have disregarded the order, as it is not a lawful order.

Shouldn't believe everything CBS tells you or puts on youtube.

I will agree, NOPD Police Chief was DEAD WRONG by ordering gun confiscation.

One of the most powerful tools of tyranny is disbelief: the thought that "this can't be happening" or "that couldn't happen here." Thoughts that prevent people from taking the actions necessary to prevent it until its too late.

Yeah, we see the propaganda on the Indiana Militia website...

In fact, any serious "militia" is likely to be something you never hear about at all. It's not going to be made up of people talking about insurrection or the like on an internet forum, but be made of people quietly making connections with others, quietly collecting skills and supplies, having plans on where to go as a common rallying point and so forth all on the "QT."

Agreed, just as the INGO MSG's work together. I'm all for civilians learning and training together. I guess it's the youtube militia morons that give them all a bad name.
http://www.indianamilitia.org/files/1775vs2005_scottbieser.jpg

 

[dburkhead]

The guys in black in those vids were cops. The troops were bringing relief and some were helping evacuating people.

Thank you for telling me what videos I've seen.

I'm not talking about guys in black. I'm talking about guys in military uniforms, with military insignia, carrying military weapons, with military helmets, addressing each other by military titles.

If you look around youtube, you'll find a few videos where the troops talked about it. There was one were a LT was saying they were never told to disarm, if he had been, he would have disregarded the order, as it is not a lawful order.

Oh. After the fact someone denied it. Well, that ends it right there.

Shouldn't believe everything CBS tells you or puts on youtube.

Funny, I was just saying the same thing (although not in so many words) to you (re, "guys in BDU's running around in the woods playing paintball).

I will agree, NOPD Police Chief was DEAD WRONG by ordering gun confiscation.

And the NG was dead wrong by assisting.

Yeah, we see the propaganda on the Indiana Militia website...

Any questions?

Agreed, just as the INGO MSG's work together. I'm all for civilians learning and training together. I guess it's the youtube militia morons that give them all a bad name.

So you retract your call for anyone who wants to "uphold and defend" to join the military (remember, that's what I was replying to). Well, that's progress.

 

[HICKMAN]

So you retract your call for anyone who wants to "uphold and defend" to join the military (remember, that's what I was replying to). Well, that's progress.

Big difference between those working together if SHTF versus some anti-gov morons thinking they are going to take on the Army...

You've said you have seen the military disarming people? Please, share the proof.

What's your association with the militia?

 

[HICKMAN]

I'm talking about guys in military uniforms, with military insignia, carrying military weapons, with military helmets, addressing each other by military titles.

You mean the guys bringing aide, fishing people out of the water, working on levees, providing security and bringing food and water... doing what people say the National Guard is supposed to do.

Like these fine people, who gave up their time and families to go help:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARKSpeP5Yh4]YouTube - Hurricane Katrina Relief[/ame]

 

[jblomenberg16]

 

[dburkhead]

Big difference between those working together if SHTF versus some anti-gov morons thinking they are going to take on the Army...

And once again you cling to the false dilemma fallacy. It's not a one or the other situation.

Let me guess, you also think Timothy McVeigh is a good example of one of those "militia" "anti-gov morons" and completely ignore the fact that he was told to leave and not come back because he was advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

I'd suggest you take your own advice to heart about not believing everything you see on CBS news.

You've said you have seen the military disarming people? Please, share the proof.

You may not trust my eyes. I do. I also trust people I know personally who are in the military and have connections to those who were actually involved. But, today's Pravda is that the National Guard didn't really do it.

But, among military people who were in a position to know, the big topic of dicussion wasn't that "the National Guard didn't really do it" (all after-the-fact denials aside) but trying to explain how, while the NG could do something like that the "real" military never would.

I remain skeptical.

What's your association with the militia?

Is this, perhaps, what you mean by "proof"? Proof by inuendo? Would the appropriate response be to ask you what your association with Napolitano is?

 

[dburkhead]

You mean the guys bringing aide, fishing people out of the water, working on levees, providing security and bringing food and water... doing what people say the National Guard is supposed to do.

No, actually, the guys in military uniforms going into homes, guns drawn, ordering people to leave--but not to take their weapons with them.

But, of course, you think you know what I've seen better than I do.

Like these fine people, who gave up their time and families to go help:

YouTube - Hurricane Katrina Relief

[/quote]

Ah, the appeal to emotion fallacy. Yes, units of the Guard did good things, wonderful things. Nobody has said otherwise. That does not excuse, however, the other things: supporting, if not actively confiscating the weapons themselves, the illegal violations of 2, 3 (taking over a church as a base without the permission of the owners/caretakers), 4, and 5. That's 40% of the Bill of Rights trashed all at one event.

Even if we grant everything you've said about the NG, if they didn't participate, even in a support roll, at most they did nothing. Even if the after-the-fact denials, coming after outrage at the gun confiscations becomes pretty common among many of a libertarian to conservative bent, are the gospel truth, tey did not "uphold and defend" the Constitution. Maybe turning a blind eye is a "lesser" crime than actively participating but it does not count as "upholding and defending." And thus your call for folk to join the military (active, guard, or reserve) to "uphold and defend" falls on its face because that isn't what they did.

Maybe that's what they should have done then and there. I'll even go so far as to say they probably shouldn't have acted against civilian groups (and, from a military perspective, law enforcement is civilian) confiscating weapons unconstitutionally. However, the precedent is now set. Next time, it will be that much easier to just let it happen. It will be that much easier to not defend the Constitution when the enemy is domestic rather than foreign.

"The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke.

Is there really any actual evidence that we can expect any better from the military than to simply sit out an attempt by Washington to put the final nails in the coffin of the Constitution? Help me out here. Provide me some examples of the military standing up to the civilian side and saying "no" to Unconstitutional powe grabs. I'd love to find some. I'd feel a lot better if I could.

 

[HICKMAN]

Let me guess, you also think Timothy McVeigh is a good example of one of those "militia" "anti-gov morons" and completely ignore the fact that he was told to leave and not come back because he was advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

Nope, basing my opinion on a moron claiming to be recruiting for the militia. McVeigh was an idiot who made his way around the gun show circuit, yet strangly believe much of the propaganda floating around militia websites.

"The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke.

What's the purpose of that quote? Is our military evil?

Is there really any actual evidence that we can expect any better from the military than to simply sit out an attempt by Washington to put the final nails in the coffin of the Constitution?

Yup, Oath Keepers

Would the appropriate response be to ask you what your association with Napolitano is?

My only association is probably being on her watch list, being that I meet most of her requirements to be a right wing extremist.

Back to the question, since you keep defending the militia with such hyperbole, what is your association? Throwing silly names or questioning my intelligence or integrity isn't selling a real need for these so called militias.

If they wanted to get together for cross training, survival skills and all of the other activities they do, they wouldn't need all of the anti-gov/conspiracy theory tin hatted propaganda to recruit people.

 

[HICKMAN]

And for the record dburkhead, I agree with about 90% of what the militias stand for.

But my love for both the Guard and Active Army doesn't allow me buy some of the propaganda about them.

 

[dburkhead]

Nope, basing my opinion on a moron claiming to be recruiting for the militia. McVeigh was an idiot who made his way around the gun show circuit, yet strangly believe much of the propaganda floating around militia websites.

And you, strangely believe the propaganda about militias as well. So what does that mean?

What's the purpose of that quote? Is our military evil?

Since the quote follows right after pointing out the military doing nothing in response to evil within our shores, precedent now firmly established to do just that--even if we grant everything you say about "they didn't actually do the confiscations." I would think you would be able to figure out what the intent of bringing in the quote.

If folk like the National Guard units in New Orleans continue to do nothing in the face of evils such as the blatant violation of the Constitution after Katrina, they will be the "good men to do nothing" and thus allowing evil to triumph.

Yup, Oath Keepers

Sorry, but people saying that they would act to defend the Constitution against domestic threats, including our own government, is a far cry from actually doing anything. "Talk is cheap" is a cliche because it is so very often true. Again, I wonder how many of the folk in the Guard would have said the same kinds of things before Katrina. And yet, the best that can be said is that they stood aside and let it happen.

My only association is probably being on her watch list, being that I meet most of her requirements to be a right wing extremist.

And yet you defend her characterization of folk who object to the current direction of government so strongly. I have to ask again, what you connection with Napolitano is.

Back to the question, since you keep defending the militia with such hyperbole, what is your association?

Are you really unable to see that you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of?

As for hyperbole: "You keep using that word [okay, you've only used it once]. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Throwing silly names or questioning my intelligence or integrity isn't selling a real need for these so called militias.

Exactly where am I supposed to have done either of those?

If they wanted to get together for cross training, survival skills and all of the other activities they do, they wouldn't need all of the anti-gov/conspiracy theory tin hatted propaganda to recruit people.

What was your connection with Napolitano again? That line could have come right from her desk.

 

[dburkhead]

And for the record dburkhead, I agree with about 90% of what the militias stand for.

But my love for both the Guard and Active Army doesn't allow me buy some of the propaganda about them.

Whereas my love for the military doesn't allow me to be blinded to the fact (demonstrated repeatedly throughout history) that even the best of groups can be corrupted for bad ends.

I also love the military too much to not air the "dirty laundry," because otherwise it never gets cleaned.

Right now, the military goes to very great lengths in training on unlawful orders: what constitutes an unlawful order, emphasizing not just the ability but the duty to disobey unlawful orders, and so forth. This is needed because research has shown (the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram experiment I mentioned uptopic) that, in general, people will tend to go right along with orders given by someone in "authority." If the results of those experiments don't scare the tripe out of you, you probably don't understand them. (That is not intended as a slam.)

All it takes is simply ceasing, or altering, the "unlawful order" training combined with one or two rounds of promotions based on a new set of "political" considerations and you've got a whole different kind of military.

It's that possibility, combined with the signals coming from Washington about where the current crop of politicians are taking this country, that have many people quite concerned.

Oh, and I'd never dispute that there aren't froot-loops in the "militia movement." I simply dispute your earlier claim that one should join the military if one wants to "uphold and defend" the constitution. Had you simply said stay away from the froot-loops, I would have had no dispute. It was your implication of One True Way that I disputed, and that I continue to dispute.

I served in the military. Most of my friends are vets or still in the military. And nothing I have said here is anything that I haven't heard them echo. There's a reason why vets are on Napolitano's enemies list (see elsewhere on this forum).

 

[haldir]

From Wayne Lapierre

NRA-ILA :: Standing Guard--Remember New Orleans

Of any news story since New Orleans became the first venue in America to disarm its peaceable citizens house by house--at gunpoint--nothing brought home the sheer terror of it all more than two broadcast video segments: one on ABC News and another on Fox News Channel.

Opening with scenes of police and Oklahoma National Guardsmen entering homes on a block-by-block search, you cannot watch the ABC piece without fear and anger. Everybody I've spoken with who has seen it had the same reaction--the Constitution has been trashed. This was supposed to be a humanitarian effort, not a shoot-to-kill military operation.

If friends might think shoot-to-kill is overblown, tell them to imagine having a locked and loaded M16 or M4 carbine leveled at them by a youthful guardsman with fear in his eyes. Then imagine someone shouting, "He has a gun!"
his is the worst case for honest gun owners come true. But I promise you, when all is said and done by NRA, these scenes will become a nightmare for the gun-ban crowd, because they give lie to their false promises that forced gun confiscation would never happen in America.

With images of police and guardsmen clearing rooms, shouldered M16s at the ready, the ABC reporter explained that they enter homes "with guns drawn with instructions to disarm anyone inside." Then the New Orleans police chief says, "No one will be able to be armed. We're going to take all weapons." Remember, this has always been the endgame of New Orleans politicians who were first in line to take a crack at suing the firearm industry out of existence.

In the ABC broadcast, young men are sitting on a curb with arms handcuffed behind their backs, surrounded by heavily armed police. They could be any of our college-age kids. Their crime as explained by the ABC reporter: "[H]omeowners had armed themselves to protect their mansions. Residents were handcuffed on the ground, and in the end, police took their weapons but let them stay in their homes."

In the close of the ABC footage, a very young guardsman says, "Walking up and down these streets you don't want to have to think about the stuff you are going to have to do. If somebody pops around the corner . . . ." Off camera, the reporter interrupts and says, "You mean shoot an American."

The Americans this young man might shoot are not looters; they are not criminals. They are brave people who simply refused to obey an order by the same local authorities who indefensibly failed to protect them.

Keep in mind, those officials--who ordered every decent citizen of their city to be forcibly disarmed--also sent tens of thousands of residents whose homes were destroyed to endure the living hell of the Superdome and the Convention Center; where people died or were murdered; where bodies rotted; where medical practitioners were frightened away; where gang members killed, robbed and raped at will. All of this with virtually no police presence for a week.

For citizens in neighborhoods spared the flooding and wind damage from the hurricane, the evacuation order made no sense. And arming themselves to protect their persons, families, homes and communities from roving criminal predators made perfect sense. Self-protection is the most basic human right of all.

To see the National Guard troops in this ABC segment is to see them on a war footing. They are edgy. Fearful. But this isn't war. This is a natural disaster involving innocent Americans whom are victims of nature. These are Americans who chose to be armed so that they would not further become victims of criminal violence.

Many of these people who stayed in their relatively unscathed neighborhoods couldn't bring themselves to abandon their pets, their possessions. They feared leaving more than staying. Think of being disarmed at gunpoint by the very people who you thought had come to help.

For any level of government--state, local or federal--to disarm these good people in their own homes using the threat of imminent deadly force is unthinkable.

The Fox broadcast brought that message home with incredible force. Seeing a burly police officer body slam a frail, elderly woman who was showing officers her home protection gun--a little Colt Police Positive--is beyond imagination. (See Marshall Lewin's powerful story on p. 72). Her gun was taken, and she was hauled out of her home.

Law enforcement? No. Tyranny. Clear and simple. And it is a tyranny that must be stopped--never to happen again.

NRA is committed to ensuring that innocent Americans always have the means to defend themselves in their homes and neighborhoods. We will do so by enacting laws to prohibit state and federal authorities from seizing firearms from innocent citizens under a state of emergency due to a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Self-defense is and must remain the bedrock principle of the Second Amendment.


Posted: 9/20/2005 12:00:00 AM

 

[HICKMAN]

And you, strangely believe the propaganda about militias as well. So what does that mean?

Oh, so what they put on their websites isn't representative of their beliefs? Should I not believe what they say they represent.

Right now, the military goes to very great lengths in training on unlawful orders: what constitutes an unlawful order, emphasizing not just the ability but the duty to disobey unlawful orders, and so forth.

As they should.

I have to ask again, what you connection with Napolitano is.

Sweet, now he moves to straw man tactics.

With all you've said, you have provided ZERO proof that troops violated the law.

And you can give me all the "I'm a vet and have friends who serve" speeches you want. My best friend is sitting in Farrah, my cousin is a Blackhawk pilot and another cousin is an 11B getting ready to deploy to Iraq.

Honestly, you sound like you've done a fair amount of research and have a deeper understanding than most, but won't convince anyone with the little shots you take. Let the facts (that you can prove) speak for themselves.

 

[dburkhead]

Oh, so what they put on their websites isn't representative of their beliefs? Should I not believe what they say they represent.

Which websites? And what makes you think that these groups are an exhaustive list, justifying only listing joining the military as an alternative?

As they should.

For now, anyway.

Sweet, now he moves to straw man tactics.

I see. When you do it, it's okay, but when I do it, it's straw man tactics.

Hint: I was reflecting your own argument back at you in the hopes that you'd see the absurdity of it. It seems that you have. Unfortunately, you haven't made the next step and seen the absudity when you used it in the first place.

With all you've said, you have provided ZERO proof that troops violated the law.

I'm pretty sure that the only "proof" you'd accept is a sworn confession by the folk involved. Your counter is that some folk have denied it. Well whoop-de-doo. Even if the denials are true (and if we can assume they are, then maybe we shouldn't bother with the courts--somebody claims they're not guilty, that's good enough), the most that would mean is that the people making the denials were not involved.

And even if they were true, the argument is the same as the getaway car driver saying "I didn't shoot the clerk." perhaps he didn't, but he was still part of the crime and, therefore, just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger.

And you can give me all the "I'm a vet and have friends who serve" speeches you want. My best friend is sitting in Farrah, my cousin is a Blackhawk pilot and another cousin is an 11B getting ready to deploy to Iraq.

And the point of that apparently went right over your head.

Honestly, you sound like you've done a fair amount of research and have a deeper understanding than most, but won't convince anyone with the little shots you take. Let the facts (that you can prove) speak for themselves.

The problem is the standard of "proof." For instance, you said that the people in black going into the houses in videos were police, not National Guard. Well, in the ABC news video (found on Youtube), it's not the "people in black" that I was thinking about, but the people in camoflage pants, OD T-shirts, military issue load bearing vests, military issue boonie hats, etc. It's the people in Military uniforms holding a field briefing on the subject. It's the person in military uniform talking about being bothered by the possiblity of firing on American citizens, but apparently not bothered enough not to do it.

When you add that we've had military folk here, on this forum, who have defended the confiscations, and who have pretty much indicated that they would do it, the after the fact revisionism that the Guard wasn't actually involved in the confiscations rings a little hollow. And yes, it is revisionism. The whole "the guard didn't actually do it" is a recent twist, at least as far as anything I've ever seen.

My points remain threefold:

1) There are more ways to "uphold and defend" the Constitution than joining the military. Despite your attempts to read it that way it has not involved endorsement of any particular groups. In fact, I explicitly said that the "effective" groups are likely to be one's you never even hear about.

2) The military has not had a good track record of actual actions to "uphold and defend" the Constitution in the domestic part of "against all enemies foreign and domestic." Now, I stipulate that there are very good reasons for this: in the situations we've faced to date, military intervention would almost always have been worse than the existing assaults on the Constitution, at least individually (I am of a more mixed opinion when you start adding them up--maybe Ataturk had it right). And even if you are completely right and the National Guard didn't actually take any weapons away from anyone, they were intimitely involved in the forced evacuations where these confiscations took place and therefore aided and abetted in their occurance. That is why I used the "getaway driver" analogy.

3) It actually takes considerable effort to keep people trained to military discipline in the frame of mind where they recognize that their are orders they should not, indeed must not, obey. A mere cessation or alteration of that effort could turn the military we have now into an instrument of tyranny in a time short enough to surprise you. This also mitigates against the "join the military" approach you advocated.

And I repeat, I did not, at any time, endorse any particular group, whether the Indiana Sedantary Militia, or the Michigan Militia, or the Boy Scouts, or the Campfire Girls. I simply pointed out that there was room for more approaches to "upholding and defending" the Constitution than joining the military and used New Orleans as a reason why putting all ones eggs in that basket might be a tad dangerous.

 

[Skoty]

I'm gonna quietly step in on this thread and just say I am curious as well. I have applied for ALL branches of service many many times to stand for this country, yet due to my "LOOKS" a.k.a. Tattoos I cannot serve this country.

I really do love this country, yet the only way I would ever be eligible to fight for this country is if the draft were to be reinstated. Even with my ASVAB scores super high, I can pass all MEPS requirements, due to my looks I cannot serve. So for someone to say to join the military if I want to defend the country or state, I find offensive. There are a lot of people out there with reasons such as mine and other various reasons why we cannot serve this country.

Yes, I know you can get waivers for Tattoo's. Even with family connections in the military I still couldn't get enough waivers.

Yes, I understand some people want to join the Militia for their own reasons and not be a federal employee. But there are also those like me that have tried, and still try to get into the service.

So yea, I am doing what I can to stand my grounds to protect the people I live around if SHTF happens. But I would also like to be able to do more.