Revitalizing the state militias

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ATF Consumer

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 23, 2008
    4,628
    36
    South Side Indy
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This article was taken from LewRockwell.com[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Secession, the Second Amendment and Sun Tzu[/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]


    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Russell D. Longcore[/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Russell D. Longcore[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Recently by Russell D. Longcore: Does Secession Without a State Militia Make Any Sense?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [/FONT]​




    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the 6th Century BC, Chinese warrior Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War. It has been the definitive treatise on waging war for 26 centuries now. Only thirteen chapters, it was translated first in 1782 when a French Jesuit priest living in [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]China, Joseph Amiot, acquired a copy of it, and translated it into French. Subsequent translations have honed the text into English. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The book is available for free through The Gutenberg Project at: The Art of War. I strongly recommend this short read, as the truth can be used in many areas of human interaction.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For this article, I shall concentrate on his writings about waging war by deception. Here are some of his thoughts.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Chapter 1:18 All war is based on deception.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Chapter 2:2 Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Chapter 2:18 If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Chapter 6:8 That general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Chapter 6:9 O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Chapter 6:12 If we do not wish to fight, we can prevent the enemy from engaging us even though the lines of our encampment be merely traced out on the ground. All we need do is to throw something odd and unaccountable in his way.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The general concept that I want you to take away from these verses is that in order to win many battles, you must keep your enemy off balance, deceived and confused about your strategies and tactics. If you can attack him at many weak points, he will have to respond, and therefore, you control both the location and the tempo of the battle. This will be important in the thoughts and questions below.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I’ve been writing lately about secession and the well-regulated militia, and how they should be inextricably tied to one another. From the reactions I’m receiving from readers, this concept seems to be somewhat new to them.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Specifically, I and other writers have referred to the truest meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which 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." [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]How many millions of words have been written about the Second Amendment?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Starting with the 1856 Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and up to this day, Americans have seen infringement upon infringement piled upon them. But, do you remember in your lifetime hearing of ANY of those regulations that dealt with the security of a Free State?[/FONT]


    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Could it be that the arguments made over the last 150 years about gun control... the laws and regulations passed by states and the Federal government...and any talk about personal safety, crime prevention, hunting and sport shooting...have been a clever diversion away from the clear intention of the words of the Second Amendment?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Think about it from a purely tactical viewpoint. If you and I are in an argument about a certain topic, and I can get you to engage in a related topic that looks important, but completely diverts you from the real issue, I’ve won. I can drag you around by your nose ring for as long as you want to argue about what matters LEAST. Meanwhile, I can do pretty much what I want in regard to the real issue.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is the same as General Tzu’s admonition to attack the enemy where he is weakest, combined with his recommendations to attack at multiple weak locations simultaneously. The enemy will expend itself defending its weak points while you conquer.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Isn’t this what Washington and most of the states have done? They have enacted gun legislation and regulations that force citizens to challenge them in the very courts that the tyrants control. Meanwhile, the politicians subtly changed our states and our nation.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Second Amendment is the effort of the Founders to guarantee that the sovereign states would protect a mechanism whereby the states might thwart Federal tyranny through armed resistance, if only as a last resort. Now, there is nothing in the Amendment about any "last resort." Common sense dictates that all efforts to settle any difference would proceed peaceably first. And, when a well-regulated state militia is a day-to-day reality, it acts as a deterrent merely by its existence. Thugs seldom attack armed people.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Go ask Switzerland if a militia works. They haven’t been invaded in nearly 500 years.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Washington and the state legislatures have bleached out the reality of the well-regulated state militia from the American fabric. Meanwhile, Americans have been hoodwinked into fighting about whether or not they can carry a gun with or without a permit, or packing heat in a bar or restaurant. While those turf wars raged, Washington absorbed the sovereignty of the states, and made the states into serfdoms.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So, can you now see that because "A well-regulated Militia...is...necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]States need to reclaim their sovereignty by revitalizing their state militias. Through the militia, states will once again gain their true freedom to regulate the Federal Government that once was their servant. And, in the failure of the exertion of state sovereignty to control the actions of Washington, the unhappy states may secede knowing that they are capable of defending their decision from all who would attempt to use force to prevent their exit.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]January 2, 2010[/FONT]​
     
    Last edited:

    edsinger

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Apr 14, 2009
    2,541
    38
    NE Indiana
    Very interesting theory..........interesting.

    I would argue that our gun freedoms have actually gotten a bit better in the last 10 or so years. I could be wrong about that, but CC laws are popping up all over the place. What was the law before that?

    Still, interesting.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    Very interesting theory..........interesting.

    I would argue that our gun freedoms have actually gotten a bit better in the last 10 or so years. I could be wrong about that, but CC laws are popping up all over the place. What was the law before that?

    Still, interesting.

    I can agree that, compared to 20 years ago, laws have gotten better. But worse too. Look at California, New York, New Orleans, D.C., Chicago. A lot of states didn't have any laws regarding carry because laws regarding carry are unConstitutional. But in the last 20 or so years, laws started popping up about this and that.

    The article has a good point and it's one most of us, myself included, over look, push aside, or outright ignore. Agreed, very interesting...
     

    ATF Consumer

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 23, 2008
    4,628
    36
    South Side Indy
    I'm sorry, but I gotta ask. How is this close to crossing the line?

    Because someone posted IBTL :dunno:

    Seriously though...the last paragraph states the entire purpose of the post...it's about secession and without guns, that is an impossible ask. This is clearly not an attempt to overthrow the government or any other reason to get this thread locked.

    States need to reclaim their sovereignty by revitalizing their state militias. Through the militia, states will once again gain their true freedom to regulate the Federal Government that once was their servant. And, in the failure of the exertion of state sovereignty to control the actions of Washington, the unhappy states may secede knowing that they are capable of defending their decision from all who would attempt to use force to prevent their exit.
     
    Last edited:

    esrice

    Certified Regular Guy
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    24,095
    48
    Indy
    I'm sorry, but I gotta ask. How is this close to crossing the line?

    Pami said it was "close to the line", not "close to crossing the line"-- there is a difference. :D

    The OP is fine. She was just offering a warning to stay on topic and not cross over that line. :yesway:
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    That's fine. Momma always told me my mouth would always be the one thing that gets me into trouble. So far she's been 90% right on that... :laugh:

    [Adam Sandler Voice] PLEASE.... PROCEEEEEEEED! [/Adam Sandler Voice] :D
     

    slackerisme

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 13, 2009
    814
    18
    Just north of Ft. Wayne
    The way I see the whole state sovereignty argument is this. The 17th amendment put the large end of the stick in the states rights. Now states have absolutely no say in government at the federal level..none. It needs repealed, but we will have to convince millions of idiots that we are better off not voting Senators in ourselves, which is never going to happen.

    This will probably get me banned, but honestly I hope we can institute change peacefully before our generation or the next is forced to make the ultimate sacrifice for this country. However, I would rather it be me then my son.
     

    jedi

    Da PinkFather
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    51   0   0
    Oct 27, 2008
    38,335
    113
    NWI, North of US-30
    v2.gif
    http://www.hoosiergunclub.com/forums/images/smilies/v2.gif
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    The way I see the whole state sovereignty argument is this. The 17th amendment put the large end of the stick in the states rights. Now states have absolutely no say in government at the federal level..none. It needs repealed, but we will have to convince millions of idiots that we are better off not voting Senators in ourselves, which is never going to happen.

    This will probably get me banned, but honestly I hope we can institute change peacefully before our generation or the next is forced to make the ultimate sacrifice for this country. However, I would rather it be me then my son.

    I would rather vote in Senators. How else would you do it?

    I did rep you for the last comment though.
     

    thompal

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 27, 2008
    3,545
    113
    Beech Grove
    I would rather vote in Senators. How else would you do it?

    The way it originally was in the Constitution, where Senators were elected by state legislatures. It gave the states a method to have "a say" in the running of the federal government - something which was completely removed by the 17th.

    The other method that the federal government has quite successfully used is to claim that "the militia," as mentioned in the 2nd, only pertains to the National Guard. Of course, it is not used in the same paragraph as any mention of the nearly constant federalization of the Guard, so that, rather than taking orders from the state's governor, they take orders only from the president (through the usual active-duty chain of command). The is no mention of the distinction between "select militia" and "unorganized militia."

    The individual states have been completely removed from the equation in both issues.
     
    Top Bottom