OT: Seriously????

[Schone23666]

At first I thought this was a joke, then discovered....yes, the conspiracy theorists have REALLY lost it this time, and it seems they now have friends...

The Governor of Texas has instructed the Texas State Guard (which I find confusing....don't they already have the National Guard??) to monitor the U.S. Army as they conduct a military training exercise code named Jade Helm 15 involving Special Operations forces to "safeguard civil liberties" and monitor for any signs of a possible "military takeover or invasion".

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/paranoia-catches-abbott-attention-gov-orders-texas-guard-to-monitor-military-exercises-over-fears-of-federal-takeover.html/

It admittedly does have a bit of a "Milgov vs. CivGov" feel to it, but this is real life, not a game.

I really can't wrap my mind around this level of stupidity, ignorance and paranoia some Americans, particularly the conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones among them, have sunk to. I'm sorry, I can't. Can any of our fellow board members in Texas shed some light on this?

[pmulcahy11b]

I heard this and the first thing that came to mind was OMFG...

[Schone23666]

I heard this and the first thing that came to mind was OMFG...

I thought of that quote in your signature, and wonder how it might apply to this.

On another note, my reaction can be best summed as this:

http://blogcdn.uber.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/picard-facepalm7.jpg

[Webstral]

I will try to shed some light on this event, to whatever limited degree I can, without rationalizing anyone’s decisions.

The Texas State Guard is the truncated form of the states’ militia that existed in the state constitutions of the original 13 states and in a number of the states that have come into existence more recently. I can’t guarantee that every state is entitled to a militia because I haven’t gotten to that point in my research. In any event, the National Guard is a federal reserve that the states get to use when the federal government doesn’t need the National Guard. The states and the federal government split the bill down the middle, but the federal government is very much the senior partner.

The Militia Act of 1903 finalized the transition of the National Guard from something that was sort of, kind of, like a states’ militia into the system we know today. In reality, the states’ militia as the Framers of the Constitution knew it in 1787 had been undergoing a slow transformation from a collection of state forces into a federal force since 1792 or 1793. The reality of this situation dawned on the states in WW2, when the National Guard was federalized and deployed overseas, leaving the states with no military forces of their own, state constitutions notwithstanding. The State Guard movement was born at this time. For the most part, the State Guards died of malnutrition once the National Guard came home.

Texas has the country’s most well-developed State Guard by far. This force is organized more-or-less like its federal counterparts but answers solely to the Governor of Texas.

There has been a reasonably large scale exercise happening in the Southwest lately. The exercise is billed as being practice for managing large scale civil unrest overseas. Not everyone believes this version of the story. States’ rights types are inclined to believe that this exercise is a practice run at martial law in the United States. In keeping with the character of Texas, the Governor of Texas is ordering forces loyal to the government in Austin to keep an eye on forces loyal to Washington D.C. while they operate in Texas. Provided one accepts the premise that the federal government is preparing to impose martial law, then having forces loyal to the State of Texas keep an eye on federal forces has a certain logic. If one does not accept the premise, then the logic fails.

[kato13]

Provided one accepts the premise that the federal government is preparing to impose martial law, then having forces loyal to the State of Texas keep an eye on federal forces has a certain logic. If one does not accept the premise, then the logic fails.

Except if you want to train for a potential mission, likely or not.

I am sure someone somewhere in the US Army has had a training exercise which modeled a US invasion of Canada. Do I think that such an invasion is likely no. Do I think it is in the wide realm of possibilities yes (Maybe in response to Quebec Separatists).

Such a training mission's purpose would be flex your leadership and logistical muscles, and to feel confident that should a mission with any small thing in common with this one occur, you would be better prepared for it.

Yes this seems like political gamesmanship and a product of the "Don't mess with Texas" ethos, but training for a potential mission, does not seem illogical to me.

[Cdnwolf]

Except if you want to train for a potential mission, likely or not.

I am sure someone somewhere in the US Army has had a training exercise which modeled a US invasion of Canada. Do I think that such an invasion is likely no. Do I think it is in the wide realm of possibilities yes (Maybe in response to Quebec Separatists).

.


And I don't think most Canadians would even notice lol. Read a book called Exxoneration which featured an invasion by the US into Canada to take over its oil resources written about the time of the Twilight2000 books (maybe late 70's.

But I agree with you Kato.

[stormlion1]

The funny thing is that decades ago military exercises did happen in clear view of the public and were barely commented on. My old man used to tell storys of army troops invading the town and setting up roadblocks for a few hours and then packing up and leaving. Its only in the last few decades that the practice has fallen out of use.

[swaghauler]

I have seen an operation like this conducted before. Before the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh. The military will put out a "threat alert" to local law enforcement and then see if any of their "operators" get caught. This is actually good training for both the operators (evasion training) and local law enforcement (counter terrorist training).
It was (still is?) also a common practice for SF operators to try and "break into" various government facilities like nuclear plants and research facilities in order to test the security subcontractors who guard it.

[Webstral]

Point of order: the federal troops' potential mission of invading and occupying Canada is supported by Jade Helm, whereas having the Texas State Guard monitor the federal troops in Texas only really makes sense if Austin believes Washington is up to no good in Texas. I suppose the Texas State Guard might learn something about federal procedures by observing them, but I would think direct participation would be more practical if the goal were to impart some useful knowledge to the Texas State Guard.

Every so often I do hear the idea of annexing Canada floated. I've even heard a theory that 10th Mountain is based in northern New York so that the division can be in Ottawa before the Canadians can react. It seems to me that millions of liberal Canadians would be a hard mouthful for conservative Americans to digest, all other considerations aside.

[stormlion1]

There is about as much chance of Invading Canada as there is of me being President of the USA. Of course if I was President of the USA I would so totally invade Canada and make it a territory.

Its just a large scale military exercise. There is more chance of the events happening in the North East effecting the country than Jade Helm.

[kato13]

whereas having the Texas State Guard monitor the federal troops in Texas only really makes sense if Austin believes Washington is up to no good in Texas.

Or they believe that Washington, at some point, has the potential to be up to no good (an attitude i expect the Founding Fathers would be proud of). They may look at this as an ounce of prevention reminding DC that Texas would be a hard pill to swallow.

Look I don't fully understand the Texas ethos, but they are different and this ruffles their feathers. I also realize that there is also clearly some political appeasement of some core group of voters, but as long as they are following the rules I have no issue with it.

Heck if the federal forces ever put the techniques of Jade Helm into action internationally (as is the stated overall mission), they might have UN, Russian, Chinese, or other forces monitoring them, so in a way it makes the training more realistic.

Edit.

I should make it clear that I am not a supporter of the Black Helicopter crowd. When I see a flight of helicopters my first thought is "Neat!", not "What are they up to?". Today for example I saw something with a totally different sound from a helicopter over Lake Michigan and was really hoping I might get my first in person glimpse of a M/CV-22. Did not see it long or close enough to identify, but it was certainly more interesting to me than concerning.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The DoJ and federal law enforcement has been pushing a narrative for 7 or 8 years now that "right wingers" are the new enemy of the state; they consider groups that use "constitutional" and "patriot" in their names or charters to be dangers to be watched and prepared against.

I can see why there'd be a push-back against shit like that.

[unkated]

The DoJ and federal law enforcement has been pushing a narrative for 7 or 8 years now that "right wingers" are the new enemy of the state; they consider groups that use "constitutional" and "patriot" in their names or charters to be dangers to be watched and prepared against.

I can see why there'd be a push-back against shit like that.

Let's see what there complaints include...

"Lastoria, in response to some of the questions from the 150 who attended, sought to dispel fears that foreign fighters from the Islamic State were being brought in or that Texans’ guns would be confiscated, according to a report in the Austin American-Statesman."

Nope, sorry, that's ungrounded idiocy.

Everyone's allowed thir opinion, but that level of paranoia mixed with weapons may be dangerous to anyone else.

I suspect Gov. Abbott's stand has more to do with his wishes for the next election than any concerns about Washington.

Uncle Ted

[Cdnwolf]

Every so often I do hear the idea of annexing Canada floated. I've even heard a theory that 10th Mountain is based in northern New York so that the division can be in Ottawa before the Canadians can react. It seems to me that millions of liberal Canadians would be a hard mouthful for conservative Americans to digest, all other considerations aside.

First off... you are welcome to have Ottawa... but leave the hookers of Hull alone...

Do you really think the rest of the world would stand by and let the US invade Canada? You forget it is part of the British Commonwealth (Targan would send in the trained Crocs) and closely allied with some interesting friends (ie China, Russia, France, Germany, the rest of the EU.)

The thought of the US getting its hands on some of the vast natural resources (like the oilfields) would scare the rest of the world.

And besides our perceived niceness... you don't want to get us pissed off. We all have a hockey stick beside our bed (even toddlers) and we know how to use them.

:D

[unkated]

Do you really think the rest of the world would stand by and let the US invade Canada?

Who'd know? Canadians are too polite to say anything loud or rude like "stop that.'

Beside, if we promise to remove the GST, most Canadians would cheer. :D

Uncle Ted

[kato13]

The plan is we take over during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

We just need to wait until two Canadian teams are playing.

[Webstral]

The plan is we take over during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

We just need to wait until two Canadian teams are playing.

My cousin is starting Basic this summer. He'll be a sergeant major before the invasion gets underway.

[Webstral]

Who'd know? Canadians are too polite to say anything loud or rude like "stop that.'

The last thing a number of US soldiers would hear is "Sorry, eh!" over a bullhorn before the sniper's round struck home.

[Cdnwolf]

The plan is we take over during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

We just need to wait until two Canadian teams are playing.

Even better.... when Toronto Maple Leaf's are in the Stanley Cup final...

because Canadians would be too much shock... and hell would have froze over...

You guys would have a long long long wait.


BTW GO HABS GO!!

[NanbanJim]

Texas, Florida, and New York all have State Guard forces. Given that they exist, it is then appropriate for them to monitor military activities in their AOR. What exactly is your problem?

[Webstral]

The State Guard movement appears to be gaining traction nationwide. This link goes to the State Guard Association, which links to State Guard sites:

https://www.sgaus.org/

I think we can credit the Global War on Terror and its associated mobilization of National Guard units for the states' realization that the National Guard is a federal reserve under control of the states only when the feds don't need the National Guard. Now that the immediate need for the National Guard overseas appears to be diminishing, I expect enthusiasm for the State Guards will recede somewhat. It's too bad. We have a need for them.

Anyway, the states are well within their rights to monitor federal military activities in the given states. The militia was mentioned in the Constitution specifically as a strategic counterbalance against a the professional force. Laughable as that idea may be at the present, the fact remains that the states each were intended to have their own military force from the founding of the nation.

Naturally, this doesn't guarantee wise use. Were I the Governor of Texas, I would have had the State Police or the Texas Rangers monitor Jade Helm. Mobilizing the Texas State Guard, or a portion thereof, smacks more of political statement to a portion of the governor's electorate than prudent measure.

[RN7]

Is there any mention of state guard forces in T2K?

The State Guard forces are fairly sizeable...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Surely they would have been used after the National Guard was federalised and most of it was sent overseas, and very useful in emergency relief and law and order duties after the nuclear attacks and the Mexican invasions of the South-West.

[Webstral]

The State Guard has been discussed, though not lately. There's a lot of wiggle room for interpreting what kind of number's we're talking about here, along with efficacy. In short, it seems unlikely that very many states would catch on to the fact that the National Guard is going to be deployed until 1996. Once the first National Guard formations start being called up for training and don't come home in 2 weeks, a few forward-thinking politicians might develop the right idea. There not being very many forward-thinking politicians, I doubt very many states would give the matter careful thought until October 1996, when the first REFORGER units started going to Germany. This does not give much time to build State Guards before the nukes start flying.

An argument could be made that Operations Desert Shield & Storm in the v1 chronology might raise awareness of the National Guard problem. The need to backfill USAEUR formations being deployed to the Persian Gulf with National Guard units earmarked for Germany (or alternatively the need to backfill in CONUS those III Corps units deployed to Europe to take the place of VII Corps) might cause more politicians to wonder what would happen in the event of a general mobilization than might otherwise be the case. In this event, State Guards might be significantly further along than if the states get started in 1996. A year is not very long for a reserve formation to find its footing, but 5-6 years is a fair amount of time.

[Ancestor]

Okay, so we are in Ancestor's wheelhouse.

First, I am familiar with the State Guards in TX and NY. They seem to be pretty squared away, kind of like a Civil Air Patrol on steroids. Many retired plus a minority who want to "serve" but are not able/do not want to raise their hands (not a disparaging comment - they just want to do their duty as Americans without leaving home, which I fully support). For the latter, I remember a guy who was a comedian in New York who joined the NG state guard after 9/11 writing an article about in National Review.

Second, as of 2008 Louisiana had a "state militia". When our state sent an augmentation team down there for Hurricane Gustav OPS my warrant's new BFF was the LA State Militia Historian. (My warrant, let's call him "Indiana Jones", was Vietnam era and this was his last hurrah-my first crack when he introduced the historian to me was "I'm glad Indy found someone who is interested in his recollection of the Battle of New Orleans"). At any rate, Indy, being the awesome guy that he is, traded his "US ARMY" velcro patch for the "LOUISIANA" patch the militiaman was wearing on his ACUs (yes, they wore ACUs). The real problem was the next morning, when Indy showed up to help me get ready to brief the two star but was still wearing his "LOUISIANA" patch. I let hilarity ensure among the staff before I corrected him. He and I have traded enough shots/beers/insults that it was all in good fun.

What does this mean to T2K? My state has a robust WWII era statutory foundation on the books for a state militia. It's about 1/2 actual "let's keep the peace on the home front" and 1/2 "if this whole Axis and Allies thing goes to hell then we need to be ready for Missouri to invade again, just like the stories grandaddy tells."

From a legal standpoint its a decent militia code. However, during the "oh shit, were in this for the long haul" phase of OIF (2004-2006), there was a big grass roots move to reinstate the State Guard due to our propensity to suffer natural events. From where I sat, it seemed very sincere, albeit simple-minded. Nonetheless, it was dispatched with extreme prejudice by state leadership. While practical reasons were cited (and they were indeed legion), I suspect that the real motivation was political.

So, in a T2K world, I suspect that you would have the gamut. States with a well developed and traditional State Guard (SG) may be a robust force for supporting civilian authorities. Conversely, such a force could be politically exploited by a Governor for nefarious political purposes, a mafia or praetorian guard. In a state without an active SG a Governor (or Legislature) could invoke long forgotten police powers under militia statutes dating to WW2 or even the 1918-19 flu pandemic IOT either lawfully restore order or deputize the local bosses friends as law enforcement/tax collectors/henchmen.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the idea of state guards in a Twilight 2000 campaign is a GM's dream.

[RN7]

As a matter of interest Ancestor was your state guard outfit armed and with what were they armed with? Did you use the same rifles etc as the Army and National Guard or just hand me downs?

[.45cultist]

The last thing a number of US soldiers would hear is "Sorry, eh!" over a bullhorn before the sniper's round struck home.

There was a web comic where a sniper shoots an invading U.S. soldier, then "Sorry!" is heard from the woodline.

[Ancestor]

As a matter of interest Ancestor was your state guard outfit armed and with what were they armed with? Did you use the same rifles etc as the Army and National Guard or just hand me downs?

I apologize, I didn't clarify the fact that my experience with state militias was as a traditional Guardsman working in Title 32 status with them during a response, not as a member. I know for a fact that the Louisiana State Militia is not armed, at least not the ones that I met during post-Gustav OPS. As I recall, the NY State Guard is also unarmed. I cannot speak for Texas' State Guard as I was dealing with more of a familiarization type meeting than an operational event and the members that I met were not armed (at least not obviously!)

I can say that in my state (KS) provisions exist in the militia code that officers must supply their own weapons. My old boss (MDay) actually used it to write off the purchase of his civilian M9 as a "business expense". Even though the Army issued him his own M9 for NG purposes both the IRS and KS Dept of Revenue never contested the issue. Without researching the issue for each state, I suspect that most militia codes have similar provisions. Many were written in the 19th century with similar provisions and, when updated immediately prior to or at the outbreak of either WWI or WWII, these were incorporated either by reference or via a specific new statute with the same language. As the Dick Act, which created the modern NG after the Spanish-American war and requires some level of standardization with active Army with respect to training, doctrine, and equipment, applies only to the National Guard and not State Guards, I suspect that in the Twilight world one would see a hodge-podge of both hand me down issued weapons (or, as the Small Arms Guide states, low rent weapons such as the M16 EZ) and personally owned weapons.

Hope that helps and sorry for the confusion!

[RN7]

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?

[Ancestor]

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?

Goodland (if you are ISIS)...JoCo if you are not...

[swaghauler]

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?
There is still legal debate between the Federal Government and the States about the legality of militias. The Federal Government says that the only authorized militias are National Guard units and that all militias should be regulated by the US government as outlined by the Constitution. Their assertion is the clause that states the Government shall not use the Army to police its citizens in the main body of the document prohibits such organizations. The States claim "State's Right's," and say that such militias are authorized for the STATES under the Second Amendment (as a hedge against Federal aggression). I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will eventually have to make a ruling on this. It is only an issue with a handful of states (mostly southern border states) who have used these militias to assist local law enforcement (mainly along the Mexican border). It does set up an interesting political issue for the Milgov/Civgov debate. The power of a local militia could sway control of a region. Could "friction" between militia and US military or LE units create a problem (this is already happening occasionally in Southern Texas) that "devolves" into open warfare?

[RN7]

Goodland (if you are ISIS)...JoCo if you are not...

Keep it a secret but I've yet to meet any Irish Catholic ISIS members in Overland Park yet! ;)

[RN7]

There is still legal debate between the Federal Government and the States about the legality of militias. The Federal Government says that the only authorized militias are National Guard units and that all militias should be regulated by the US government as outlined by the Constitution. Their assertion is the clause that states the Government shall not use the Army to police its citizens in the main body of the document prohibits such organizations. The States claim "State's Right's," and say that such militias are authorized for the STATES under the Second Amendment (as a hedge against Federal aggression). I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will eventually have to make a ruling on this. It is only an issue with a handful of states (mostly southern border states) who have used these militias to assist local law enforcement (mainly along the Mexican border). It does set up an interesting political issue for the Milgov/Civgov debate. The power of a local militia could sway control of a region. Could "friction" between militia and US military or LE units create a problem (this is already happening occasionally in Southern Texas) that "devolves" into open warfare?


The main issue as I can see it arises when the National Guard is federalised for whatever reason and then transferred out of the state. Some National Guard units would be earmarked for transfer to other regular army units, or a National Guard formation of the size of a brigade or division could reach full mobilisation and be deemed ready for redeployment as part of the Federal US Army, but surely not all of the National Guard would leave the state. Training and support staff would remain in the state, and would National Guard regiments and battalions not be regenerated/recreated; example 1, 2 & 3 Kansas National Guard infantry battalions are sent to Texas so Kansas National Guard forms and starts training 4, 5 & 6th infantry battalions to replace them; ?

Also the fact that State Guards (militias) are not armed sort of says a lot for how much trust the US Federal and state's government has in them.

[RN7]

In T2K I could see the State Guard being a very divisive and subversive force for a number of reasons.

In Milgov controlled areas which would constitute about half of the continental United States I could not see any State Guard force being tolerated. Milgov split from the civilian government because it didn't support or trust the way it had handled the war and the reconstruction of the US. Milgov by its nature would not allow any armed body exist outside of its total control. In Milgov controlled areas any surviving State Guard forces would likely be classified as Civgov traitors, criminals or terrorists.

Civgov would be more tolerant of the State Guards due to the fact that it would still have some adherence to pre-war laws, and would hope that State Guard forces would remain lawful. However it also lacks the manpower to intimidate or confront rogue State Guard forces in many areas so I could see the State Guard in Civgov areas being either a force of good or evil.

The State Guard would also be a fertile recruitment ground for New America or other extreme right wing groups in certain areas, due to the fact that the State Guard are going to be drawn in the main from the White ethnic group with conservative or prejudice views. I could see many existent State Guard forces in Civgov areas being influenced or in cahoots with the local New American cell. Regionalism and the realities of the Twilight War would also influence State Guard members. For example the State Guard in the rural North-East and Mid-Western states are not going to be to helpful to refugees escaping New York, Boston, Chicago or any big city, and in New England maybe anti-Canadian too. The State Guard in California and the South-West are going to be hostile to all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) and I'm not even going to talk about how the predominantly white State Guards from rural areas in the southern states are going to treat minorities.

[unkated]

First off, thank you for the instigation of a delightful couple of hours of delving into Massachusetts State Guard, militia laws, and so on.

In Massachusetts, militias are governed by by Title V (Militias), Chapter 33 (Militias - the only chapter in Title V) - originally drawn up in 1893 with periodic amendments, insertions, and deletions.

Effectively, at present, the Mass State Defense Force (current name; in 1994 it was the Mass State Guard) is a supplementary force (supplementary to the National Guard) who may be called out for state emergencies. They are presently unarmed; the current organizational structure includes a brigade staff and three battalions:

1st Battalion (Operational Support),
2nd Battalion (Professional Support), and
3rd Battalion (Medical Response Force).

The Medical Response Force is a versatile unit organized in principal to staff Federal Medical Stations, which are deployable healthcare platforms capable of delivering large-scale primary healthcare services. The latest recruiting information I can find shows the MSDF looking for:


Persons with prior, honorable military service in any Uniformed Service of the United States (especially those with emergency management, logistics, and/or operations experience)
Ordained, ecclesiastically endorsed clergypersons (chaplains)
Health services professionals (Chiropractors, Dentists, Optometrists, Physicians, Podiatrists, Psychologists, and Veterinarians as well as Audiologists, Biomedical Laboratory Technologists, Clinical Mental Health Professionals, Dieticians, Health Service Administrators, Nurse Practitioners, Pharmacists, Physical Therapists, Physician Assistants, Public Health Specialists, Occupational Therapists, Registered Nurses, Respiratory Therapists, and Social Workers)
Licensed attorneys authorized to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


Perhaps in T2K, the Lawyer company can be ordered to charge a machine gun nest armed with subpoenas... :-)

Clearly, at present, the MSDF is not a military-minded organization.

However, at other points in time, such as during WW2 or the Vietnam War when the 26th Yankee Division deployed out of state (and out of country), the MSDF can organize and train militia units to replace the National Guard during times of deployment (which happens by V1 cannon).

There were some interesting bits in the Massachusetts Law, like this one regarding the National Lancers:

Section 4A. The National Lancers shall be organized as the commander-in-chief directs, and may retain its name and the right to wear such distinctive uniform as may be approved by the commander-in-chief, and its ancient privileges, including its method of selecting its officers and conducting its internal affairs, so long as the same are not repugnant to the laws of the commonwealth or of the United States. Said organization may use land and stable facilities belonging to the commonwealth for its activities, equipment and exercises without charge and may receive from the commonwealth, its departments, divisions or bureaus or the federal government, without charge, any surplus equipment, goods, or other materials, as are available, provided that all such equipment, goods and materials remain the property of the commonwealth and are accounted for as such.

The National Lancers were started in 1838 as a local militia organization (two troops, 64 men); they actively served in the American Civil War (part fo the 1st Mass Cavalry) and WW I (dismounted and made part of an MG battalion in the 26th Yankee Division); in WW2, they were again dismounted and made part of a AAA battalion. After WW2, they were officially removed from the National Guard, but were part of the Mass State Guard. They have a 99 year lease on a stable facility on state-owned land; they are allowed by law to state military and stable facilities without charge; they have the right to select their own officers; and to retain their own uniform (designed after Napoleonic Polish Lancer uniforms in flashy red and blue, complete with Czapka). They are used for ceremonial purposes, such as escorting the Governor to Harvard's commencement, escorted JFK to his inauguration, and served as a mounted guard at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

So, I'm picturing a few corrupt fellows seizing the horses and uniforms (plus guns) and parading around a crushed Massachusetts armed with a copy of this section of the law claiming upkeep (at gunpoint if necessary) based on that last sentence. "You're part of the Commonwealth, ain't you? These horses need fodder. So do those troopers. Says right here 'no charge.' Take it up with the Governor. Look, we keep down the bandits - it's tough work. Hey, and is that a real Tommy gun? Yeah, I'll take that, too. Phil, George, shoot him if he moves suddenly. Here, I'll write you out a receipt, and I'll bring it back when the current emergency is over..."

On another note, the recent TV show Dark Skies features a Massachusetts militia unit (formed up in the wake of an alien invasion; the show follows member of the "2nd Mass." The 2nd Mass was formed up last in 1898, and went off to fight in Cuba. (I have no idea if the writer's picked them on purpose because they had really existed...).

As an aside to the aside, in the show, the 2nd Mass is armed as I expect most State Guard units would end up - armed with the tail end of weapons selections from the back of warehouses or collected civilian arms, because the regular toys were already in use. So, various assault rifles, M-16s, M-16EZs, hunting rifles...

Another interesting point of Law was this one about the duties of the militia:

Section 41. In case of a tumult, riot, mob or body of persons acting together by force to violate or resist the laws of the commonwealth, or when such tumult, riot or mob is threatened, or in case of public catastrophe or natural disaster, and the usual police provisions are inadequate to preserve order and afford protection to persons and property, and the fact appears to the commander-in-chief, to the sheriff of a county, to the mayor or city manager of a city or to the selectmen of a town, the commander-in-chief, upon his initiative or at the request of such sheriff, mayor or city manager or selectmen, may issue his order directed to the commander of any organization or unit of the armed forces of the commonwealth directing him to order his command, or any part thereof, to appear at a time and place therein specified to aid the civil authority in suppressing such violations, preserving order, affording such protection and supporting the laws.

So, a local Board of Selectmen (say of my home town of Medway) could call out a town militia and order them to seize the breakaway region of East Medway (called by its residents the town of Millis since 1885)… I'd say 130 years of separatist rebellion is quite riot and tumult enough!

(And you though we were all staid liberals in the Northeast.)

Then there was this bit about armories:

Section 129. Except as provided in section one hundred and thirty, no body of men shall maintain an armory or associate together as a company or organization for drill or parade with firearms, or so drill or parade, except the armed forces of the United States, the armed forces of the commonwealth, and, the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts;

Other than bringing to mind the interesting quibble about where is the line between "large gun collection" and "armory," this sure sounds like the National Lancers can run around collecting arms and ammunition in private hands. As long as they avoid actual Federal or state military units....

At any rate, if you have some spare time, you can amuse yourself by looking up your state's militia laws. You may even come up with a game idea based on some of your local wrinkles...

Uncle Ted

[Ancestor]

ALCON:

Thanks for the awesome comments. Again, I've stolen so much from this forum and now I'm glad that I've given a small piece back. I'm a little preoccupied right now so I intend to have more detailed answers soon but here are my initial thoughts:

-Swaghauler: Great observation! The real issue is the fact that the PCA (Posse Comitatius Act) does not apply (by law) to anyone other than the US Army (and, by the fact that the USAF came from the Army, the USAF) and by policy the Navy (and their similar "child" the USMC). Thus, state militias fall within the purview of state law regarding law enforcement, not the PCA. So, anything is possible if one is operating under state law unless it violates state or federal law.

-RN7:

a. I will not believe you until you tell me the best Irish bar in JoCo. Otherwise, I will shoot you on sight!

b. with respect to the "who replaces who" in the NG, that depends on what version you are playing. (Round out BDEs and Wartrace vs. Rumsfeld's pick and play vs. "Regionally Aligned Units")

c. Concur 100% that in a V.1 (or, frankly, any T2K universe) state guards would be a fertile recruiting ground for extremists. And, depending on the location and the demographics, it would not just be New America. In the Southwest, it could be a state guard unit who identified more with Mexico or their native tribe than the US (either MIL or CIV GOV).

-Unkated: You're welcome! That was a freaking awesome analysis and anyone who takes the time to research his/her state's militia statues is alright in my book! Especially when it's the state that started it al!

While I loved your legal research, the line about assaulting a position with lawyers really made me laugh. The correct answer is that while the lawyers were trying to show each other how smart they are the gunner in the position would have killed them all.

More later and thanks for the awesome feedback!

[Targan]

The State Guard would also be a fertile recruitment ground for New America or other extreme right wing groups in certain areas, due to the fact that the State Guard are going to be drawn in the main from the White ethnic group with conservative or prejudice views. I could see many existent State Guard forces in Civgov areas being influenced or in cahoots with the local New American cell.

^This seems very likely to me too.

[Webstral]

The issue of the legal standing of the militia is a fascinating one. I think ultimately it may take the judiciary. There’s a corpus of law with contradictory ideas, along with some ideas that make no sense at all but which have standing because challenging said nonsense ideas would mean hurting a number of different interests. The federal government’s argument is in keeping with the first modification to the states’ militia back in the 1790’s. The states’ counterargument also aligns predictably with their perceived interests.


I think an important aspect of the discussion is addressing what the militia were intended to do when the Constitution was ratified. I agree completely, swaghauler, that one of the two original missions of the states’ militia was as a strategic counterbalance against the emergence of a domestic despot controlling the professional military. In my mind, this is beyond question. Of course, the judiciary has final say. If the federal chief executive is at the top of the militia chain of command, as is the case with the National Guard, then the psychological factors that make the professional force susceptible to being the arm of domestic tyranny apply to the National Guard as well. In order to counterbalance the professional force, states’ militia must belong to the states and only the states.


Of course, this is all academic. In order to counterbalance the stupendously powerful professional forces of the federal government, states’ militia would have to have massive manpower. I would think no less than 10 million would suffice. Realistically, it would probably take 15-20 million militiamen with small arms to counterbalance the professional force. I don’t foresee this kind of force ever coming into being.

[RN7]

a. I will not believe you until you tell me the best Irish bar in JoCo. Otherwise, I will shoot you on sight!

Its a secret but mine is Conroy's Public House on W95th Street just down the road from the Islamic Madrasa that masquerades as a golf club between Nall and Roe. I can walk to it and walk home afterwards which is definitely a plus. Don't tell anyone!

[Raellus]

You know that it's a serious, legitimate issue when this guy weighs in.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/07/chuck-norris-warns-that-us-special-forces-is-threat-to-texans/

Wow. Just wow.

:rolleyes:

[pmulcahy11b]

I have an automatic antipathy response when it concerns Fake...er, Fox News.

[Targan]

Of course, this is all academic. In order to counterbalance the stupendously powerful professional forces of the federal government, states’ militia would have to have massive manpower. I would think no less than 10 million would suffice. Realistically, it would probably take 15-20 million militiamen with small arms to counterbalance the professional force. I don’t foresee this kind of force ever coming into being.

I recall being very firmly instructed by another member of this forum that for the purposes of "correctly" interpreting the 2nd Amendment, every adult member of the populace with a firearm is to be automatically considered to be a member of the militia. I think that would give you somewhat more than the 10 million warm bodies you're looking for.

[pmulcahy11b]

I recall being very firmly instructed by another member of this forum that for the purposes of "correctly" interpreting the 2nd Amendment, every adult member of the populace with a firearm is to be automatically considered to be a member of the militia. I think that would give you somewhat more than the 10 million warm bodies you're looking for.

I personally think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, and it became so in 1903 with the formation of the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment itself needs an Amendment that more clearly defines the right to ownership of personal weapons -- as written now, you can't blame people for thinking the militia part doesn't apply anymore, because it doesn't anymore.

And don't flame me. It's a personal opinion. I'm definitely not an anti-gun nut (I consider myself an "Enlightened Democrat"), but I'm definitely not a gun nut either. There are both out there, ranging from those who want to ban all firearms ownership to the NRA.

[.45cultist]

I personally think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, and it became so in 1903 with the formation of the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment itself needs an Amendment that more clearly defines the right to ownership of personal weapons -- as written now, you can't blame people for thinking the militia part doesn't apply anymore, because it doesn't anymore.

And don't flame me. It's a personal opinion. I'm definitely not an anti-gun nut (I consider myself an "Enlightened Democrat"), but I'm definitely not a gun nut either. There are both out there, ranging from those who want to ban all firearms ownership to the NRA.

Militia was a large part of it, but also armed citizens were the "4TH" box, Soapbox, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box. Most countries have the first three(South Korea). Finally, law abiding citizens should own most available weapons, nukes,bioweapons and lethal gas are exceptions. Substances like BZ are illegal drugs and come under other headings. The militia part is a tar pit trap for pro and anti.. Also most states consider their state police as actual paramilitary forces. The state police commander is a state commisioned officer, the commander of the gaurd is regular army. This also allows the states to ignore the local militias. My personal stance domestic-wise is modified libertarian, society has to change to allow drug use, like Switzerland, many an addict is still issued a sig 551 rifle, but there is no rampant violence. In the End the second amendment isn't obsolete, but society's perception of it is.

[Targan]

Just clarify, I wasn't trying to derail this thread with a pro- or anti- gun ownership rights debate, I was seeking discussion on the view that there may be some legal basis in the US to the apparently widely-held assertion that adult-aged firearms owners in the US are basically automatically considered to be part of the militia. Or is that point just for the purposes of justifying unrestricted firearms ownership under the 2nd amendment and not actually backed by any legal substance in terms of the de-facto existence of a massive militia force across the nation?

[Schone23666]

Just for the record:

I'm glad a sarcastic/rhetorical post about a, IMO, rather ridiculous topic (if anyone's interested, look up Jade Helm 15 Bastrop council questions on Youtube, it's quite a hoot to watch) has stimulated some much more interesting discussion and info on state militias.

Invading Texas is SO overrated. Seriously, you want to give Texans more attention when they're already loud and obnoxious enough? Instead, I'd rather go and invade....AUSTRALIA! And weaponize the wildlife. And develop sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads. And use it all to invade and...RULE THE WORLD. <cue evil laugh>

Black Helicopters are COOL. Really. Anyone who ever watched "Airwolf" will agree with that. :p

[Targan]

Weaponise Australian wildlife? Most of it is already weaponised. Even the bloody birds. Look up the cassowary, those angry bastards kill people. That's some seriously angry chicken.

[dragoon500ly]

Weaponise Australian wildlife? Most of it is already weaponised. Even the bloody birds. Look up the cassowary, those angry bastards kill people. That's some seriously angry chicken.

So...we have a bird that charges you, kicks you, and even claws you and is responsible for over 200 attacks on humans per year...and so tough to eat that experts advise cooking the critter with a stone...and when the stone is soft enough to eat, so is the cassowary!?!?!?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

So...we have a bird that charges you, kicks you, and even claws you and is responsible for over 200 attacks on humans per year...and so tough to eat that experts advise cooking the critter with a stone...and when the stone is soft enough to eat, so is the cassowary!?!?!?

Well actually, the original recipe advised throwing away the bird and eating the stone.

:D

[.45cultist]

Just clarify, I wasn't trying to derail this thread with a pro- or anti- gun ownership rights debate, I was seeking discussion on the view that there may be some legal basis in the US to the apparently widely-held assertion that adult-aged firearms owners in the US are basically automatically considered to be part of the militia. Or is that point just for the purposes of justifying unrestricted firearms ownership under the 2nd amendment and not actually backed by any legal substance in terms of the de-facto existence of a massive militia force across the nation?

Actually it also generates adventure ideas. The PC's are to train a militia unit, however a political shift, takeover, power shift occurs and now they must leave before they are interned and thier gear confiscated. Or the only force to aid the PCs against an assault is a company of state militia. BTW, I think even opposing views have behaved well, it can be done on the internet! But alot of people fail......

[RN7]

Concur 100% that in a V.1 (or, frankly, any T2K universe) state guards would be a fertile recruiting ground for extremists. And, depending on the location and the demographics, it would not just be New America. In the Southwest, it could be a state guard unit who identified more with Mexico or their native tribe than the US (either MIL or CIV GOV).

Any state guard in the Southwest who identifies more with Mexico would not likely be in existence in any part of the US under Milgov or Civgoc control due to the fact that US forces are fighting Mexicans occupying US territory. The US military would probably feel more comfortable allowing a state guard of gang bangers from the Cribbs and Bloods or Chinese Tongs than allowing Hispanic dominated militias exist.

Some state guard in areas with large native populations might be likely to identify with their own tribe, but the native American uprising scenario would be more of a myth than a reality. My wife is Navaho-German with family in the Southwest and White-Indian animosity is really only something you would see in cowboy films. But there is plenty of inter-tribal Indian rivalry and a lot more animosity between Indians and Mexicans, they are seen as the intruders now. However in the scarcely populated Northern Great Plains it might happen over resources.

[CDAT]

Any state guard in the Southwest who identifies more with Mexico would not likely be in existence in any part of the US under Milgov or Civgoc control due to the fact that US forces are fighting Mexicans occupying US territory. The US military would probably feel more comfortable allowing a state guard of gang bangers from the Cribbs and Bloods or Chinese Tongs than allowing Hispanic dominated militias exist.

Some state guard in areas with large native populations might be likely to identify with their own tribe, but the native American uprising scenario would be more of a myth than a reality. My wife is Navaho-German with family in the Southwest and White-Indian animosity is really only something you would see in cowboy films. But there is plenty of inter-tribal Indian rivalry and a lot more animosity between Indians and Mexicans, they are seen as the intruders now. However in the scarcely populated Northern Great Plains it might happen over resources.

On my first deployment, our first platoon was about 90% Navaho with most of the rest being white, there was a lot of hazing and picking on the "white man" but when it got dicey we were thick as theives. I have seen this time after time. One part of the unit may pick fun at a second part, but heven help if someone else thinks that they can.

[swaghauler]

I personally think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, and it became so in 1903 with the formation of the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment itself needs an Amendment that more clearly defines the right to ownership of personal weapons -- as written now, you can't blame people for thinking the militia part doesn't apply anymore, because it doesn't anymore.

And don't flame me. It's a personal opinion. I'm definitely not an anti-gun nut (I consider myself an "Enlightened Democrat"), but I'm definitely not a gun nut either. There are both out there, ranging from those who want to ban all firearms ownership to the NRA.

As you're all already aware of; I have very little use for either "President Clinton" or "President G.W. Bush." They both violated the Constitution with both the Assault Weapons Ban and The Patriot Act. In addition; I see both as having committed crimes (perjury, violations of the Geneva Convention). The Patriot Act was by far the most insidious legislation I have ever read.
That being said, I can honestly call myself an independent. I believe in Choice (because we are already taking care of too many unwanted children), Hate Gun Control (because I don't trust my Government), Have no problem with Same Sex Marriage (more money for the government from marriage certificates) and would like to see some version of Universal health Care. I drive my friends nuts because I "Issue Vote" instead of picking a (in our area) Republican or Democrat. I will mostly likely play "The Devil's Advocate" in any debates we have here. I think ALL sides of any argument (most arguments don't have just two sides) should be looked at. I hate BOTH FOX News AND MSNBC. Spin runs BOTH ways.
The one think I REALLY like about this Forum is the depth to which the reasoning runs here. I have seen too many forums where a discussion falls into mutual "name calling" by the posters far too quickly. I am glad you don't do that here.

[.45cultist]

A friend of mine got a manual for Missouri's WWII militia from a neighbor's widow. Published using then current pics and older manual illustrations for M1901 revolvers,M1911/A1 pistols, M50/55 Reising smg's and P17, M1903 rifles. Basic infantry and crowd control formations were taught. The inside cover referenced "Section 61 of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916. State militias were to fill the gap left when NG units deployed in Federal service.
The Twilight War would make this viable again. Probably based around State Police command and greybeards as a cadre.

[CDAT]

As you're all already aware of; I have very little use for either "President Clinton" or "President G.W. Bush." They both violated the Constitution with both the Assault Weapons Ban and The Patriot Act. In addition; I see both as having committed crimes (perjury, violations of the Geneva Convention). The Patriot Act was by far the most insidious legislation I have ever read.
...

Now I have not looked into it, but a friend of mine (2nd LT US JAG) said that he had. He told me that legally the Geneva Convention does not apply to the US, as the President signed it but Congress never ratified it, so by international law it is the same as if we did not sign it.

[.45cultist]

Now I have not looked into it, but a friend of mine (2nd LT US JAG) said that he had. He told me that legally the Geneva Convention does not apply to the US, as the President signed it but Congress never ratified it, so by international law it is the same as if we did not sign it.

Correct, the senate must sign off on all treaties. Most of these we honor, but aren't bound to the conventions, protocals.

[Ancestor]

Any state guard in the Southwest who identifies more with Mexico would not likely be in existence in any part of the US under Milgov or Civgoc control due to the fact that US forces are fighting Mexicans occupying US territory. The US military would probably feel more comfortable allowing a state guard of gang bangers from the Cribbs and Bloods or Chinese Tongs than allowing Hispanic dominated militias exist.

Some state guard in areas with large native populations might be likely to identify with their own tribe, but the native American uprising scenario would be more of a myth than a reality. My wife is Navaho-German with family in the Southwest and White-Indian animosity is really only something you would see in cowboy films. But there is plenty of inter-tribal Indian rivalry and a lot more animosity between Indians and Mexicans, they are seen as the intruders now. However in the scarcely populated Northern Great Plains it might happen over resources.

RN7: Concur on post-Mexican invasion. I was thinking more along the lines of a pre-invasion state militia unit changing sides upon the Mexican Army moving north. The scenario would be a border state whose National Guard is federalized and whose state guard leadership is appointed via political cronyism (as bad as this is in the National Guard, I would think that it would be an order of magnitude worse in a state militia). Some of the subordinate local commanders start packing their unit along ethnic lines using existing social networks (neighborhoods, churches, social clubs, sports clubs, even gangs), and suddenly you have a large group of ethnically unified and like minded individuals able to enforce security at the point of a gun. I could see this type of unit left as an occupying force as the main invasion force moves north. It's a win-win for the invaders as they do not have to tie down forces to occupy conquered territory while the local militia commander essentially becomes a warlord/mafioso.

Great point also about the native Americans. I had no idea about the animosity between them and Mexicans in the southwest until I read "Blood and Thunder", a really great read about Kit Carson and New Mexico. I followed up with a native American friend of mine who confirmed that animosity exists in some areas.

[Ancestor]

The Twilight War would make this viable again. Probably based around State Police command and greybeards as a cadre.

This is most likely how such a thing would be formed. It's been awhile since I looked at the statutes but I recall researching during the first pandemic scare in 2009 that the KS Governor had the authority to recall retired members of the National Guard back into state service. And in most states the State Police/Highway Patrol has the lead for the Law Enforcement Emergency Support Function so it would be a natural C2 for a militia (unless, of course, you had political issues between the SP/HP and the National Guard (who wanted to retain control over the military forces in the state). That scenario would have two rival, armed forces working for the Governor, who would then become a pretty big target for miscreants on both sides seeking to cause trouble.

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse over such an obscure topic but I do think it's a very fertile area for a GM to harvest for adventure ideas.

[Ancestor]

Its a secret but mine is Conroy's Public House on W95th Street just down the road from the Islamic Madrasa that masquerades as a golf club between Nall and Roe. I can walk to it and walk home afterwards which is definitely a plus. Don't tell anyone!

I have never heard of that place (I was thinking about the converted church off of Highway 69 in Stillwell), however, I would love to meet for a pint or three of the black stuff. PM me if you are interested!

[Webstral]

“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.”


I’ve been doing research on the Second Amendment over the past few years. My ideas on the subject have changed somewhat since I started. I’m fairly certain Raellus’ recollection is directed at something I wrote. I don’t remember writing it, but the idea of universal service in the militia for all gun owners sounds like what I used to advocate.


The questions posed here are good ones and deserve thoughtful reply. I will try to reply thoughtfully to the best of my ability without regurgitating the 80,000 words of notes I have taken over the past few years.


I think the place to start is to outline the thought process. The Second Amendment was written in the second half of the 1780’s. We are obliged by mandate of intellectual integrity to develop of thorough understanding of what the Second Amendment meant at the time. This means having an honest look at history—not really our strong suit in modern America, but a necessity. Then we can look at how that original meaning might be applied to modern America.


Based on 150 years of tradition with the militia, their experience in the American Revolution, and the strategic situation at the birth of the United States, the Framers of the Constitution decided to base the security of a free state [State] at least in part on the militia—preferably a well regulated militia. A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the Framers committed the State to a guarantee of access to arms by private citizens. Many questions rise from the turn of phrase used in the Second Amendment. They have been debated exhaustively over the years, almost always by people who knew what outcome they wanted before they started their analysis. The results are tragi-comic. Very few Americans seem very satisfied with the current state of affairs, but we seem tied in a Gordian knot on the subject. My goal has been to help us live within the terms of the law as written and as intended, insofar as such a thing may be possible today.


Definition of terms comes next. It’s impossible to analyze the Second Amendment without having a definition of the terms. This, too, has been undertaken with tragi-comic results. In part, the poor results stem from a paucity of genuine historical knowledge and a lack of military experience on the part of modern Americans. In part, the poor results stem from a predetermined outcome forcing unreasonable and sometimes laughable definitions to be superimposed on the terms. Everyone seems to understand, if only subconsciously, that rigging the definition of terms can fix the analysis favorably. So let’s look at the terms and try to place them in an historical context.


We must start with “militia”. This word has an American context applicable to 1787. How other countries, even England, may have used or currently use the term us not relevant. In its American context, a militia is a reserve formation of citizen-soldiers organized, trained, and equipped along the lines of regular formations. “Reserve” means part-time, non-professional, and drilling [training] according to a specified schedule. An American militia as it existed for the 150 years prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment operated under the command of the colonial (cum state) executive, who delegated his authority to the officers commissioned within the militia and to lesser executives within the colony. Regulation of the militia once assembled for drill or mobilized under the command of the authorized executive was conducted according to the equivalent of a colonial UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which was drafted and ratified by the colonial-cum-state legislature. Among the regulations passed by the legislature were a schedule of drills, pay (as applicable), conditions of mobilization, duration of mobilization in terms of the maximum number of days per annum that a militiamen could be mobilized, and what amounted to a TO&E (table of organization and equipment) for the period. It’s worthwhile to note that among the applicable regulations was the rule that militia could not be compelled to serve on the soil of another colony/state, much less a foreign country. Volunteers could go where they wanted, and militia units were fruitful recruiting grounds for ventures outside a given colony and even foreign ventures. But the militia unit itself could not be compelled to go, nor were its members subject to a draft of any sort. Traditionally, the militia provided its own weapons; however, by the eve of the American Revolution militias often maintained small arms for poorer members of the militia and crew-served weapons held at the local armory.


Having defined the term “militia” in its context in the 1780’s when the Second Amendment was written and ratified, I’ll look at a few things the militia is not.


The militia is not the Regular Army. The Regular Army is a professional force of full-time soldiers. They, along with their predecessor the Continental Army, serve under the command of federal (continental) leadership. They can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve is a force of citizen-soldiers under the command of the federal executive. There is no effective limit on the number of days per year a reservist can be mobilized. They can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not the National Guard. While it is true that the National Guard is descended from the states’ militia, since 1903 the National Guard has been a joint state-federal reserve force of citizen-soldiers. The federal government is the senior partner, which means the federal government is authorized to take command of the National Guard at will. There is no effective limit on the number of days per year a National Guardsman can be mobilized. The National Guard can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not law enforcement. Law enforcement is predominantly full-time professionals enforcing the law. Generally they are not organized along the lines of military units, although a few police units cross the line into paramilitary status. The principal mission of law enforcement is law enforcement. They are authorized to take life on an as-needed basis in the execution of arrests and warrant serving, etc. in a civil setting. The militia is for making war, which means deliberately taking life for the purpose of achieving military objectives. Though there might be some crossover, the roles are distinct. One might argue that police auxiliaries could constitute a militia. I am open to further discussion on this point.


The militia is not any of the so-called “constitutional militias”. “Constitutional militias” are gangs of armed civilians operating on their own recognizance. They are not commanded by the state executive or any of his designees. They are not paid or regulated by the state legislature.


These distinctions are not arbitrary. They are meaningful in that the defining qualities of the militia I listed above reflect a philosophy that was relevant in the 1600’s when the first militia units were formed and remains relevant today. The distinctions between the Regular Army, Army Reserves, and National Guard on the one hand and the militia on the other come down to ownership. The federal government owns the first three groups, though the states pay to use the National Guard when the feds don’t have a job for the Guard. The states own the militia. This distinction plays into the ability of the militia to execute its two primary missions: defense of the state against foreign aggression and defense of the state against domestic tyranny. I’ll come back to this later.


The other important distinction goes to who has authority to kill—particularly, who has the authority to kill agents of the State as required. Self-defense covers some types of homicide, but this is not what the so-called “constitutional militias” have in mind. Taking life outside of a self-defense situation is called murder. This is especially true when the person killed is an agent of the State carrying out his assigned duties, like serving a warrant, keeping the peace, protecting a government facility, etc. The State delegates the right to kill people outside of self-defense situations. Only those serving the State (or state) under the command of civil authority and regulated by the legislature can be delegated the right to employ lethal force outside of a self-defense situation. In short, folks can’t just go running around killing whomever they please under whatever pretext serves—including claiming that they are overthrowing tyranny. The right to overthrow a tyrannical government, including killing police and soldiers, is a natural right. However, the Second Amendment is a binding contract between the State and the citizenry. The State cannot possibly authorize the citizenry to overthrow the republic on their own recognizance. A method has been put in place for the citizenry to overthrow tyranny, though.


The militiaman possesses the authority to take life while mobilized because he is delegated that authority through the chain of command which has the state chief executive (governor) at its apex. The chief executive is an elected official. He is authorized to act in the interests of the electorate. Therefore, his delegation of the authority to kill reflects the will of the electorate. The electorate is the basis of authority in the republic. The authority to kill originates with the electorate, passes through the elected executive, and is passed down to the troops serving under the command of the elected executive. Authority to regulate the militia originates with the electorate and is passed to the elected legislature. Absent the authority originating with the electorate, people may not kill other people (outside of self-defense) legally. For this reason, so-called “constitutional militias” are not militias at all. They are armed mobs. Their internal decision-making mechanisms are irrelevant. Absent authority of command and lethal action delegated by the executive and absent regulation by the legislature, these armed groups cannot possibly be considered militia.


I will come back to the authority to kill agents of the State as required later. For now, suffice to say that the organizations that have it belong to the federal government or law enforcement, while groups that would like to have that authority don’t have it.

In fact, there is no organization in modern America that meets the definition of “militia” as the Framers would have recognized it in the 1780’s. What was the militia became the National Guard over the course of a century-long transformation. The closest entities to militia in modern America are the State Guards, which I will refer to hereafter as State Defense Forces (SDF) for the sake of clarity. The SDF, which belong entirely to the states and which have no federal mission [The legality of this claim is under debate.] basically meet the definition of militia. Where they fall down, though, is that they are so wretchedly and pitifully incapable of executing either militia mission (defense against foreign aggression and/or domestic tyranny) that I shudder to call them the same thing as the 14,000 man force of Massachusetts militia that harried the British all the way back to Boston in April 1775 and established a siege of the city thereafter. Still, the SDF represent a viable kernel for a force that not only technically meets the definition of a militia but also might be able to execute one or both militia missions as well as crack the code on one of our most irritating gun control problems.


Having defined the term “militia”, I will look at “well regulated”. How do we recognize a well regulated militia from one that is not well regulated? Why would this matter? At the time the Second Amendment was written, “well regulated” meant “well disciplined” or “well functioning”. Any combat unit needs to be disciplined and


I want to examine the two missions of the militia next. Examination of the missions will tie back into the definition of the militia and why none of the organizations mentioned above except the SDF possibly could meet the definition of “well regulated militia”.


The “well regulated militia” had two primary missions in the late 1780’s: defense of the country against foreign aggression and defense of the country against domestic tyranny. These missions survive in the oath of service for all components of the military, which includes defending the Constitution against all threats foreign and domestic. Both of these missions involve the militia taking to the field (going into combat) against professional troops. These missions in turn necessitated ensuring that the citizenry comprising the militia have access to military grade small arms. Even the secondary mission of the militia—namely, support of law enforcement when armed and organized criminals and/or rebels become too powerful for law enforcement to tackle without additional combat power—requires access by the citizenry comprising the militia to military grade small arms.


What leads one to believe that the two primary missions of the militia would be combat against foreign professional troops and domestic tyranny? The Second Amendment points us in this direction: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” In what way, we should ask, is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state? In what way is a disciplined and well functioning body of citizen-soldiers related to the security of a free state? Clearly, violence organized on a large scale must be involved in any threat to the security of a free state such the militia would be necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing security. After all, any military formation exists for the purpose of employing organized violence on behalf of its leadership. If the purpose of the leadership is served merely through a convincing threat of violence, so much the better. Who, then, would be capable of employing organized armed violence that would require a disciplined and well functioning force of citizen-soldiers to oppose it? Professional troops top the list.


At the birth of the United States, the country was in a poor security situation. The population of roughly 3 million was scattered along the Atlantic seaboard between Maine and Georgia. The federal government was destitute. The Regular Army amounted to less than 5,000 troops, and they were widely dispersed. Any of the major European powers could have landed more troops than the Regular Army possessed anywhere along the coast at will. The only hope the United States had of facing such an eventuality was the militia. Given Washington’s experience with the militia during the Revolution, a well regulated militia was vastly preferable to a half-assed militia, which would in turn be vastly preferable to a bunch of anonymous dudes with guns who would be unable to even organize themselves into the firing lines stipulated by the weapons and tactics of the day, much less endure trading volleys with professional troops. The militia was not the ideal choice, but it was the best option available to a State with nearly empty coffers.


Even if the early federal government had possessed the means to field a Regular Army sufficient for the security needs of the young republic, the Founding Fathers probably would not have wanted to maintain such a force. They were deeply suspicious of standing armies. Many of the Founding Fathers were classically educated men. They understood that standing armies can become the tools of tyranny. The Roman Republic began its transition to the Roman Empire when Caesar crossed the Rubicon with troops more loyal to him than to the ideals of the Republic. The King of England attempted to enforce sharing the burden of the French and Indian Wars on the American Colonies through his professional force. The Framers of the Constitution understood that the discipline that makes an army effective in the field can be turned to the purposes of a domestic despot. Thus a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state that might under invasion by professional troops fielded by England, France, Spain, or even the Netherlands.


The same thinking that made the Framers mistrust standing armies meant that they had to accept that whatever professional force the United States might possess could be turned to the purposes of a domestic tyrant. The Framers understood that loyalty might flow from the troops to whomever sat at the apex of command. Therefore, a force of drilled and disciplined professionals would have to be counterbalanced by a much larger force of reservists if the qualitative advantages of the professional troops were to be offset. Loyalty to the chain of command would have to flow someplace besides to the chief executive of the federal government.


The situation set up by having multiple chains of command conforms to the Enlightenment philosophy of regarding separation of powers which is found everywhere in the Constitution. A professional force with standards of quality comparable to that of other professional forces would operate under federal command. A much larger force of reservists would operate under the command of the various state governors. The rise of genuine tyranny could not help but produce a backlash from the various states. Together, the states would field a force far too powerful for a domestic despot controlling only federal territory and only federal troops to overcome. Singly or in small groups, the states would not have the combat power to overcome federal forces. Thus a situation arising from the republican process which favored the majority would not result in a successful military resolution of grievances by the minority. [See: the American Civil War.] The balance of power between a numerically inferior but qualitatively superior professional force and a numerically superior but qualitatively inferior force of citizen-soldiers loyal to their various state chief executives would secure the status quo so long as the federal government didn’t do anything to piss off all or most state governments (such as falling into the hands of a domestic despot).


This ideal regarding an internal balance of power ran afoul of military considerations fairly quickly. I’ll come back to that.


I’ll sum up what I’ve written so far before delving into more of the details. The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the states’ militia had access to military grade small arms with were necessary for the execution of their two principal missions. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment has several defining characteristics which are not met by the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard, professional law enforcement, or any of the so-called “constitutional militias”. The only organization in modern America that could be called a state militia is the conglomerate of State Defense Forces. The missions of the militia when the Second Amendment was written are the defense of a free state [State] against foreign aggression and the defense of a free state against domestic tyranny. Both of these missions require the militia to go into combat against professional troops.


Now I want to look at an idea that many Americans will find heretical: the Second Amendment was not written to protect private ownership of firearms for self-defense or hunting. That’s the bad news. The good news is that guns designed for self-defense don’t need the protection of the Second Amendment. Self-defense is a common law right. Access to a firearm designed for self-defense is part and parcel with that right. The Supreme Court clearly says so in the majority ruling of Heller v DC. They also say that one does not have to be in a militia to own a gun. This means that there is no connection between owning “a gun” and being in the militia. [Nod to Raellus] It’s noteworthy that the Supreme Court doesn’t define “a gun”, even though anyone who knows anything about firearms knows that an M1911, an M1903, and an M4 are drastically different machines operating on similar principles but with such different characteristics in terms of volume of fire and effective range that lumping them together as “guns” is about as serviceable as lumping a Mini Cooper and a commercial tractor trailer together as “automobiles”. I suspect that the author of the majority opinion deliberately avoided more specific terminology.


A right to self-defense means that the defender has the right to use lethal force. Obviously, most of us prefer that the defender not kill the assailant, if for no other reason than killing other human beings scars the psyche of the killer. No matter how much some of us may believe that Slasher the Mad Dog Rapist deserves a timely end to his criminal career at the hands of his intended victim, killing Slasher will affect the defender in ways that stunning him, disabling him, or crippling him will not. This much said, if the choice is between Slasher getting two to the chest and one to the ocular cavity or Slasher carrying through on his intended violation, I think people generally will support the former.


Self-defense has limits. If an armed intruder breaks down the door and refuses to believe that my wife will shoot him even though she has my revolver in hand and my kids crying with fear behind her, then his death can be ruled self-defense. On the other hand, a bunch of private citizens can’t go rolling into the neighborhood of some other private citizens on a shooting spree on the basis that “We know THEY are a threat to us, so we got them first.” Somewhere between these two extremes has to be drawn a line that separates self-defense from other types of homicide. This relates back to the tools used.


For the sake of drawing a line between self-defense and offensive homicide, I’m going to state with confidence that using lethal force against anyone 100 meters cannot be considered self-defense except under very special circumstances. A firearm optimized to service a target at ranges less than this can be considered a weapon optimized for self-defense. A firearm optimized for some other range cannot logically be considered a weapon optimized for self-defense. A firearm optimized for self-defense can and should be safeguarded for access by civilians under the common law right to self-defense.


Now, we all know a guy who can shoot the wings off a mosquito at 200 meters with a .44 revolver with a 4-inch barrel. That’s not what the weapon is engineered to do. Each manufacturer will make a different claim about maximum effective range of its .44 revolver with a 4-inch barrel, but very few of them will claim that the average shooter can get a 3-inch grouping at 100 meters. So the definition of maximum effective range, which plays into whether a firearm can be classified as optimized for self-defense or not, has to based on the machine-determined maximum effective range is modified by the ability of a gun owner who is firing a realistic number of rounds per month and who has little or no professional training.


A number of years ago I read an FBI report saying that 80% of gunfights in the civilian world occur at ranges of 21 feet or less. 40% of gunfights in the civilian world occur at a range of 5 feet or less. I think 100 meters is absurdly generous, but I’m willing to be ridiculous to draw a distinction between self-defense and non-self-defense that cannot be argued against by anyone who hopes to win a court case.


The point of all this fussing about ranges is that some types of firearms are covered by the common law right to self-defense. Some are not.


The guy with the AR-15 at home asks indignantly why his AR-15 shouldn’t be covered. That’s his first choice for home defense, after all. The answer is that use does not define capacity. The AR-15 is designed to deliver a high volume of fire accurately against human targets at ranges to 300 meters. This is inconceivable in a self-defense application. One might as well claim that an 18-wheel tractor trailer should not have to be registered as a commercial truck because the owner pinky promises he’s only going to go down to the corner store for cigarettes in it. Let’s be honest with ourselves: no one with any sense buys an AR-15 buys it because he thinks it’s better suited for home defense than a handgun or a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel. He buys an AR-15 specifically for the high volume of fire and the fact that he can hit a man-sized target 3 football fields away 50% of the time if he’s as good a shot as I am—more frequently if he’s a better shot, which is not that hard to imagine. (I’m not a great rifleman. I’m serviceable. I’d probably have been recycled a half-dozen times if I had gone through Marine Boot.) He buys the AR-15 specifically because it is the [equivalent of the] personal weapon of the infantry.

A firearm optimized for self-defense is not going to help a militiamen provide the security of a free state very much. The professional troops he’s supposed to be fighting, foreign or domestic, will be armed with whatever the standard small arm of the day is. A handgun can make a militiaman dangerous to one or more soldiers of the opposing force under the right conditions. A handgun is a useful backup weapon for CQB. It is not a serviceable primary weapon for a soldier of the infantry. Soldiers who are issued side arms as their primary weapon are not expected to engage in combat personally. They are literally issued side arms for self-defense.


Bringing this all back to the militia and the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Amendment was written so that a well-regulated militia could guarantee the security of a free state. The militia is a combat unit composed of citizen-soldiers. They are expected to go into combat against professional forces. The Second Amendment was written to guarantee the citizen-soldiery access to the primary weapons necessary to fight professional troops. If firearms for self-defense are not useful as a primary weapon for militiamen fighting professional troops, and if access to firearms for self-defense is already guaranteed by the right to self-defense, then what good purpose is to be served by imagining that the Second Amendment secures a right such that the securing is not very useful and redundant? The answer is that there is no good purpose served.


Several important items remain to be addressed.

• What about hunting and firearms optimized for hunting?
• If the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the citizen-soldiers of the militia have access to the appropriate firearms, how do we determine which firearms are covered?
• What happened to the militia?
• The rifles of the infantry are already out there in some numbers. Since there is no militia, now what do we do?

[CDAT]

“
Let’s be honest with ourselves: no one with any sense buys an AR-15 buys it because he thinks it’s better suited for home defense than a handgun or a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel.


It is a well done article, I do however disagree with you on this point. A pistol is a terrible home defense weapon, the only thing that it has going for it is that it is easy to carry and or move with, for home defense that does not really apply if you are not trained to move with a weapon odds are you will not do it right regardless of what you have. If you are staying put in a locked room as lots of police departments recommend now how easy it is to carry and/or move with makes no difference. Now the shotgun has most of the advantages that the rifle has and as most people know the sound alone is enough to scare most bad men away, plus it is much easier to hit with as you only need to be pointing in the general direction. Both of these are wrong and if you are depending on them may get you killed. My background I did 20 years in the Army, and a bit over 8 as a Federal Police officer (firearms instructor among other ting I did), our shotguns (bought in the 1960's) will put all of the shot in the face at 75ft. I have also had the opportunity to shoot different things, the shotgun penetrated the best (Slug) and the buckshot was about as good as the AR, we use .40 sidearms and they were the worst. The shotgun also has the most recoil now if you have a one shot stop that does not matter much, they do happen not much but does happen. What about if there are more than one bad guy? Multiple attackers are happening more and more, last stats I saw had home invasions on the rise, they do not have to worry about you coming home and surprising them. So my choice for a home defense weapon is my M4 with suppressor it is more accurate than the handgun, easier to shoot so I am more likely to hit. If I do miss the bullet has less chance to penetrate multiple walls as there is only one not nine every time I pull the trigger. A saying we have is you own the bullet from the time you fire it tell it comes to a stop and the average cost of a miss is about $1 mil. But the biggest reason I pick the AR is that with all the training I have with it, it has become an extension of my body. Every time I pull the shotgun out of the rack I have to look at it as I do not remember if left is safe or is right, and if the fecal matter hits the oscillating blade and I need more ammo that is much easier with a magazine feed weapon the a tube feed. So in closing I would say what is best for self-defense is what you are best able to use to keep you safe and not put undue danger on those around you.

[Targan]

Wow. That was impressively comprehensive. Thanks Web.

[Targan]

So in closing I would say what is best for self-defense is what you are best able to use to keep you safe and not put undue danger on those around you.

Your logic is hard to argue with but I would point out that the firearm I have put the most rounds through and therefore would be most effective with is the Commonwealth version of the FN-FAL. Let's be honest, as a home defence weapon that would be massive overkill and 7.62N rounds would probably punch through several home invaders, and the front wall of my house, and the front fence, and travel who knows how far through my neighborhood.

Having said that, I'd still love to have one in my possession at home if it was legal. :D

[Webstral]

It is a well done article, I do however disagree with you on this point. A pistol is a terrible home defense weapon, the only thing that it has going for it is that it is easy to carry and or move with, for home defense that does not really apply if you are not trained to move with a weapon odds are you will not do it right regardless of what you have. If you are staying put in a locked room as lots of police departments recommend now how easy it is to carry and/or move with makes no difference. Now the shotgun has most of the advantages that the rifle has and as most people know the sound alone is enough to scare most bad men away, plus it is much easier to hit with as you only need to be pointing in the general direction. Both of these are wrong and if you are depending on them may get you killed. My background I did 20 years in the Army, and a bit over 8 as a Federal Police officer (firearms instructor among other ting I did), our shotguns (bought in the 1960's) will put all of the shot in the face at 75ft. I have also had the opportunity to shoot different things, the shotgun penetrated the best (Slug) and the buckshot was about as good as the AR, we use .40 sidearms and they were the worst. The shotgun also has the most recoil now if you have a one shot stop that does not matter much, they do happen not much but does happen. What about if there are more than one bad guy? Multiple attackers are happening more and more, last stats I saw had home invasions on the rise, they do not have to worry about you coming home and surprising them. So my choice for a home defense weapon is my M4 with suppressor it is more accurate than the handgun, easier to shoot so I am more likely to hit. If I do miss the bullet has less chance to penetrate multiple walls as there is only one not nine every time I pull the trigger. A saying we have is you own the bullet from the time you fire it tell it comes to a stop and the average cost of a miss is about $1 mil. But the biggest reason I pick the AR is that with all the training I have with it, it has become an extension of my body. Every time I pull the shotgun out of the rack I have to look at it as I do not remember if left is safe or is right, and if the fecal matter hits the oscillating blade and I need more ammo that is much easier with a magazine feed weapon the a tube feed. So in closing I would say what is best for self-defense is what you are best able to use to keep you safe and not put undue danger on those around you.

A very good reply, sir. Very reasonable. I almost forget we’re on the Internet.

I must admit that my statement about sense and choosing the AR-15 for home defense is hyperbolic. Point taken on that one. (I’m using you guys as a beta test, so this feedback is very useful.)

That much said, you have a unique comfort with the AR-15 based on your experience. One wonders how many people who might use an AR-15, AK-47, FAL, etc for home defense share your level of training and experience. People who have it and are not well versed in its use indoors are a hazard to themselves and their neighbors. Many who think they are going to be stellar performers in CQB learn otherwise once the real thing comes along. Trigger control under stress requires drill. As you rightfully point out, you own every round that goes downrange. (I wish everyone in Iraq had remembered that.) Based on your observation about the best weapon for self-defense being that which one can use to keep oneself safe without undue danger to those around, I would say that the semi-auto detachable magazine-fed rifle is not the best choice for any but a select few.

I haven't executed CQB with a handgun, so I'm not able to comment on it. I'll readily agree that lack of proper training presents a problem for anyone attempting CQB. I will file your comments about utility for home defense away and think about them some more.

I deliberately left the shotgun out so far because it is so versatile. I think most people would agree with you that the shotgun is far superior to the handgun for almost all purposes. I haven’t gotten to the shotgun in my narrative because this type of weapon defies the easier categorization that marks the handgun v the bolt action rifle v the semi-auto rifle.

I have a tangential question: when the law enforcement types of the world started the switch away from the 9mm, why was the switch made to .40 caliber instead of the M1911? Time and time again I read that people in the know think the M1911 is the best all-around handgun available. Is there a rationale beyond politics and magazine capacity?

[Webstral]

Having said that, I'd still love to have one [FN FAL] in my possession at home if it was legal. :D

So say we all. As I continue to read on the Rhodesian War 80-90% of the commentary about the FAL is positive. One of my room mates in Cork, Ireland was a reservist in the Army of Ireland while we were attending University College Cork. He loved the FAL. He was trained as a sniper, and one of the things he liked about the FAL was that it offered the ability to reach out and touch targets with something approaching the range and power he was accustomed to, compared to the M16 or AK-47, yet with a semi-auto ability. I've never fired one. I've never even held one in my hands. I wouldn't choose it for a primary weapon in the US due to ammunition commonality considerations. But I do hear good things.

It occurs to me that I never addressed your question, Targan, which is whether gun owners in the United States think they are part of a militia by dint of owning a gun. I can’t think of an easy answer to that question, though you’d think there should be one.

Do most Americans think they are part of a militia that would be recognized by their 1780’s counterparts? Goodness, no! Keep the Devil between me and monthly drill.

Do most Americans think they are part of the so-called “unorganized militia”? This is harder to answer. I can say with confidence that many American gun owners believe whole-heartedly in the “unorganized militia”. And why not? Suppressing the cognitive dissonance resulting from using the term “unorganized militia” enables one to believe that one should have access to the weapons of overthrowing tyranny without having any obligations associated with said possession. Blame Title 10 and Alexander Hamilton for this. I rather doubt that very many gun owners who just have handguns believe they are part of a militia, but that’s just speculation on my part.

There’s a fair amount of mythology associated with the “unorganized militia”. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations started the ball rolling on this thing only a few years after the Constitution was ratified. This is the origin of the term “unorganized militia”. Doubtless you will discern my contempt for the term, my friends. I find “unorganized militia” has all the etymological logic of “dehydrated water”. Calling a mass of civilians in possession of firearms an “unorganized militia” is like calling a truckload of lumber and a bucket of nails an “unorganized house”. Suggesting that the republic shall be kept warm and dry by this “unorganized house” is a farce. Yet Title 10 as written has standing.

Belief in the idea of the “unorganized militia” is reinforced by popular mythology about the American Revolution in general and Lexington and Concord in particular. Americans seem to widely believe that farmers ran in from the fields, grabbed their muskets off the wall, and went off to defeat one of the best professional armies in the world as necessary. The expedient of hiding behind trees and rocks, combined with “true patriotism”, is held up as a force equal to organization, training, and discipline on the part of the British and their mercenaries. While this fantasy does not bear up under the slightest scrutiny, it dovetails with the traditional American aversion to militarization. Americans hate the draft. Believing that it is possible to defeat a well-trained, well-equipped, and well-disciplined professional force by employing a few basic tricks and calling on one’s deep love of country helps justify a general refusal to countenance compulsory service.

[CDAT]

Your logic is hard to argue with but I would point out that the firearm I have put the most rounds through and therefore would be most effective with is the Commonwealth version of the FN-FAL. Let's be honest, as a home defence weapon that would be massive overkill and 7.62N rounds would probably punch through several home invaders, and the front wall of my house, and the front fence, and travel who knows how far through my neighborhood.

Having said that, I'd still love to have one in my possession at home if it was legal. :D

Yes the 7.62N is a powerful round but depending on the laws you can select ammo that will penetrate less (a hollow point that opens quick), and by being more accurate less likely to miss. One round that hits the bad guy and then goes through the next wall is better (safer) than six rounds that miss, in my opinion. Also there are exceptions to every rule, I do not care how much experience you have with the M2HB a .50 on tripod is not a good choice.:)

[kato13]

I have a tangential question: when the law enforcement types of the world started the switch away from the 9mm, why was the switch made to .40 caliber instead of the M1911? Time and time again I read that people in the know think the M1911 is the best all-around handgun available. Is there a rationale beyond politics and magazine capacity?

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from higher calibers due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=17999&postcount=10

[kalos72]

My families personal preference for dedicated home defense is the shotgun all the way.

Assuming a pistol backup, nothing like filling a hallway with automatic shotgun fire to deter an enemy. With companies like Saiga and their magazine fed 12ga down to 410ga its down right ugly.

For my wife, muzzle control and aim won't be as much of an issue with the 410, just point it in the right direction and fire. Through in some slugs every couple of rounds and its a done deal.

Now if we are talking about armed organized invaders, a short barreled AR is much better suited. But the average burglar is NOT going to stick around long if they are getting suppressed by automatic shotgun fire...

[.45cultist]

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from the M1911 due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=17999&postcount=10

I've heard a rumor that some departments are going back to 9MM because of recoil complaints. I'm a M1911 guy, but an agency with diverse firearms views should get Glocks or revolvers. Same with planning a shelter for SHTF.

[kalos72]

Supposedly the Gen 4 Glocks have very little recoil, I wonder how 45 feels through one now?

[swaghauler]

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from higher calibers due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=17999&postcount=10

I actually have practical experience here. I was the Range Training Officer for Fidelity Armored and assisted my Department's RTO at the County. It wasn't women who were the problem with high recoil weapons. It was everyone we were getting. America HAD a proud tradition of firearms ownership, but starting around the turn of the century that began to change. We began getting recruits who had never fired a gun at all. Many of these men and women came from urban areas and a large number of them had never even been in a fist fight before they came to us.

The 9mm verses, .40 S&W, verses .45ACP has a couple of issues that cause 9mm dominance. First is the size and weight of the weapon's frame. The 9mm has the smallest frame, lightest weight, and highest capacity (13 to 15) of the three primary police calibers. The .40 falls in the middle with an 11 to 13 round capacity, and the .45 has the largest and heaviest frame for an average round count of just 7 to 8 rounds. Here is the real mindblower in the debate though. The average Energy of a 9mm (no matter the bullet weight) is between 340 ft/lbs and 380 ft/lbs. The average Energy of a 180 grain (but NOT a 165 grain) .40 S&W is just over 400 ft/lbs. The average Energy of a .45ACP in a 230 grain loading is just 360 ft/lbs on average. As you can see from those numbers; There is only about a 50 ft/lb variation between the three calibers. If your getting the same Energy dump from all three calibers; You are better off picking the lightest weapon you can easily shoot. The smaller calibers will cost you less in firearms (initial costs and maintenance) and ammo costs. The fact that 9mmP also recoils less doesn't hurt either. My County adopted the .40 in the 165 grain HP loading because we upped our Energy Dump to 480 ft/lbs out of our Glock 23's and SIG 229's. This round had significant recoil compared to the lighter 180 grain loads though (especially in the Glock). We then upgraded to the .357 SIG round which increased our Energy Dump to well above 500 ft/lbs (depending on whether the 125 or 135 grain bullets were used). There were deputies who had significant issues qualifying with the .357 SIG (especially since we used an older qualification that had a 30 meter target in it). This prompted the sheriff to authorize both the .357 SIG and the .40 S&W.

[swaghauler]

Supposedly the Gen 4 Glocks have very little recoil, I wonder how 45 feels through one now?

They have the same recoil as the previous generations had. The advantage is that you can configure the backstraps to better fit your hand. This reduces muzzle climb and directs the recoil straight back into your hand (for better recoil control). This allows for faster follow up shots. Considering how light most polymer framed guns are; This is a very important upgrade.

Pro tip: You should never "resist" recoil (try to hold down the muzzle during recoil) or "lock" your wrist against recoil. You should hold your weapon as firmly as you would hold a hammer when driving nails. Firm enough to prevent "side to side squirm" but not with a "death grip." You should allow a pistol to "ride up" through it's recoil and concentrate on returning your wrists/hands to their "prefiring position." By not resisting the recoil and focusing on the return of your hands (and the weapon) to your initial "point of aim," you will suffer less "discomfort" in your hands and recover from shot to shot faster.

[kalos72]

Never owning a Glock myself...but I am told that the double springs in the new Glocks make for a reduced felt recoil. Not sure...

[swaghauler]

I have produced an Energy Dump chart for Twilight2000 that uses the caliber's Energy Ratings (determined by bullet weight in grains multiplied by Velocity, then by velocity again, then by the constant 0.000002218) to determine the number of Damage Dice per Range Band in game. I have yet to type it up (It's my trucking co's busy season since we haul pipe). I'll try to post it for your use. All you have to do is look up a round's Energy (both the Shooters Bible and Gun Digest have printed charts in their books for my fellow "Old Schoolers"). You can find these at all of the ammo manufacturers' websites. You then compare the round in question's Energy at a given Range Band to the chart. This tells you the number of damage dice that round does in a given range band. I have ONE set of Energies for pistol and SMG rounds and a second for rifles. Be prepared to be surprised by the chart AND the Energies listed for various rounds. Preparing the chart was an "eye-opener" for me.

[swaghauler]

Never owning a Glock myself...but I am told that the double springs in the new Glocks make for a reduced felt recoil. Not sure...

I does have a small effect on both felt recoil AND also reliability; As Glock can tell you from their recall of the gen 4 models (mostly 9mm's). They put .40 S&W springs in the gen 4 G19 and the guns wouldn't run. There was just too much spring strength for the 9mm. Everyone who had a recalled gun did say it was the "lightest" recoiling pistol they had ever shot. Too bad they wouldn't function properly.

[Webstral]

All very interesting. I have no experience with the .40 caliber or the .357 SIG. I have some experience with the M1911, and I find it very manageable. I had a girlfriend who went shooting with me and found the M1911 very manageable once I showed her how to hold it properly. She was a little lady, too. She struggled with .357 Magnum, even though my large frame revolver has a fair amount of inertia. Her feedback was that she felt she could fire an M1911 all day, whereas after 7 rounds of .357 Magnum from a revolver she was done.

In any event, I would not care to try to provide the security of a free state with any handgun as my primary weapon.

[Raellus]

The last decade saw a huge swing away from 9mmP to .40 cal S&W as the prefered "self-defense" caliber here in the U.S.A. There are "scientific" and opinion pieces ad-nauseum online supporting the latter as the better self-defense round. There are probably an equal number championing the 9mmP round. During this time, law enforcement, both federal and state migrated en masse to .40 cal S&W. It appears, however, that a swing back to 9mmP is underway. There are a couple of reasons why but one of them is apparently the stress that the 40mmS&W cartridge places on the working parts of most modern handguns. Slide cracks and other damage occurs in .40 cal S&W handguns much sooner than it does in those firing 9mmP. The U.S. Army has been looking, on and off, at potential replacements for the M9 pistol during this last decade, specifically at larger calibers, but the greater wear and tear exerted by .40 and .45 caliber rounds has, so far, held it back. We shall see.

I've only ever fired 9mm handguns so I can't personally comment as to felt recoil and controlability vis-a-vis other pistol calibers.

[Webstral]

I have an open-ended question for this crew. What would distinguish a shotgun design intended for self-defense or hunting from military applications? I understand that some shotguns can serve in all three roles. More so than with other firearms, a shotgun’s roles are like a Venn diagram. However certain characteristics, like automatic fire, probably distinguish shotguns optimized for combat from shotguns for self-defense or hunting. I’m curious what this crew thinks.

[kalos72]

choke, tube capacity, gauge and stock.

In no particular order...

[swaghauler]

I have an open-ended question for this crew. What would distinguish a shotgun design intended for self-defense or hunting from military applications? I understand that some shotguns can serve in all three roles. More so than with other firearms, a shotgun’s roles are like a Venn diagram. However certain characteristics, like automatic fire, probably distinguish shotguns optimized for combat from shotguns for self-defense or hunting. I’m curious what this crew thinks.

This is an interesting question when you consider the weapon's tactical application. The primary advantage of the shotgun is in its flexibility of payload. The US military has determined that the only effective role for the shotgun is in CQB or breeching operations. The shotgun IS being evaluated as a "specialist weapon" for Marine Corps FAST teams where the scattergunner will have breeching rounds, the new TASER rounds, ILLUM, and beanbag rounds to deal with varying shipboard threats. There's even a small grenade round in development. This is the best role for the shotgun. With an effective range of just 25 to 35 meters with buck (50 meters with flechette) and a range of only about 100 meters with a slug (150m with a Sabot); your going to have a tough time in normal small unit engagements.

The flexibility of the shotgun's ammo package is only effective IF the operator can change ammo types with a minimum of effort. This is why the Army dropped the CAWS (Close Assault Weapons System) program. The applicants could produced a large volume of fire at short range but really didn't provide the "order of magnitude" increase in firepower the US sought.
The Army found magazine fed shotguns too cumbersome to use in CQB and too slow to swap ammo for flexible use.

The "Security" and "Military" shotguns share some common traits that "Operators" consider necessary for flexible CQB employment:

1. Pump or RELIABLE Semi-Auto operation of the weapon. The military is gravitating to Semi-autos because of the faster rate of fire they possess. I prefer the Bennelli M4, the Beretta 1200/1300 series, the Remington 1100 Tactical, or the Mossberg 930. Police and Security agencies tend to gravitate towards pump actions because of Cost and because some commonly used LE rounds like the Beanbag and TASER will not cycle even the best semi-auto. Some common shotguns are the ubiquitous Mossberg M500 and the more robust M590 (the US issues this to all branches in both 18" 7+1 shot and 20" 8+1 shot models), the Remington 870 (a USMC issue too), the Ithaca Model 37 bottom ejector, and the Winchester 1200/1300. Ironicly, the SPAS-12 was rejected because of reliability issues and the fact that the safety would allow the weapon to discharge while activated.

2. Extended magazine capacity in tube magazines. The military is evenly split between 18" to 20" cylinder bored guns with 7 to 8 round tube mags AND 3" Magnum chambers and identically equipped 14 to 15" guns with 4 to 5 round tube mags. These guns are most common with CQB or entry teams.
The Security and LE community is embracing short barreled "entry guns" due to their maneuverability in tight quarters. Both parties prefer tube magazines for one reason. If you have to transition from buck to slugs rapidly; the operator only has to slide a slug into the tube and "rack the action" (which is what the action release is for) to be ready to engage a target beyond the effective range of buckshot. This holds true for specialty ammo too. Since the default load for most users is 00 Buck; You may find yourself doing this often.

3. Simplicity of action. This is the problem with a large number of the mag fed and bullpup pump guns today. The Keltec KSG has reliability issues and requires a very complex "manual of arms" to top off its tube mags. The shell lift tab is in the way when trying to "top off" a magazine. This forces the operator to move the pump handle slightly forward and invert the gun for reloading with a partial tube mag. The UTAS UTS-15 bullpup pump is completely unreliable.

When I took my tactical shotgun course in the 90's; We were told the following about "The Big Dog on the Street."

Rule #1: Run "cruiser ready" (full mag, empty chamber). No modern shotgun is equipped with a "drop safety" and even a 3 foot drop onto concrete can set one off. It also requires "operator's knowledge" of the controls to find the action release and safety in order bring the gun into action.

Rule #2: Leave the tube mag ONE ROUND DOWN upon bringing the weapon into action. This is to facilitate a change of ammo in an emergency. The last round you insert into your mag WILL BE THE FIRST ROUND INTO THE CHAMBER. You can either fire the weapon to advance a round change OR use the action release to eject the unfired round from the chamber and advance the desired round.

Rule#3: "Feed your puppy!" at every opportunity, you should top off all BUT the last round of the magazine. If you are doing one of those "fancy slap a round through the ejection port reloads; Your already in it deep OR just wrong" (this is the instructor's phase). You should NOT have to be reloading a completely empty gun.

Rule#4: Zero your gun to your Slug of choice. Most shotguns will have a different point of aim between buckshot and slugs. Keep any holdoffs for the buckshot which is a short range area effect load. A gun which shoots to point of aim with both buck and slugs is ALWAYS A KEEPER (unless it's unreliable). GhostRings or Rifle sights are a godsend when shooting slugs at range (although Bead sights can get the job done). A good weaponlight like a Surefire is also of benefit.

Rule#5: Segregate Buck and Slugs. I prefer Slugs to go into vertical belt carriers like the ones Midway reloading sells and put my buck into the horizontal carriers sold there. "Ammunition Management" is the one skill that separates the pros from the "wannabes" in Tactical Shotgunning.

Don't discount the 20 gauge versions of these shotguns either. They will provide on average 74% of the stopping power of a 12 gauge with only 66% of the recoil.

[Apache6]

Webstral:
Like you said, most shotguns can serve either function, and on many shotguns you can easily change barrels to make it more effective for other type of work.

Most 'duck' hunting shotguns have fairly long barrels (26 - 28" not being uncommon) and at least in the US are normally limited to 3 rounds (due to laws), though many shotguns can carry 5 rounds but use a 'limiter' (which is just a plastic piece that takes up space and can be removed during normal cleaning.

"modern" Home defense shotguns will likely have short barrels (18 - 20") and be pump or semi auto having five shot magazines.

Depending on who is likely to be defending against what, you might run into other calibers of weapons. I've given 3 female friends/relatives shotguns chambered for .410 shells, since they were both 'slight and relativey unfamiliar with weapons. In two of the three cases, the weapons were far more likley to be used against racoons but gave them peace of mind. In the third instance a friend had an ex who was 'stalking her.' We got her a pump action .410 shotgun and I made her go to the range five or six times over about a year. (We also got her a concealed carry license and a .38 revolver but thats irrelevent to your question.) It was not what I would chose to go into combat with, but it was the right weapon for her, my 12 ga Rem 870 was too big and kicked too much for her.

Most military tactical shotguns will have shorter barrels (18-20") larger magazines, and may be able to accept bayonets or lights. Shotguns are not used all that often by miltary (I think T2K plays makes them seem more effective at long range then they are)

During T2K era the USMC used remington 870s with 18 or 20 inch barrels and bayonet lugs, equipped with magazine extenders that let you carry 8 rounds (7 in tube, 1 in chamber IIRC). Some but not all of them had a collapsable stock. They were not a particularly common weapons, being used primarily for 'less lethal' situations. Combat Engineers and Recon Marines often had them for urban breaching operations (i.e. blowing either the locks or the hinges off of doors). These ones were more likely to have the collapsable stock as they were a mission specific 'secondary' weapon.

[swaghauler]

Shotguns in Twilight are entirely too powerful when compared to real life shotguns (especially when using buckshot). I have made some changes to the rules which I will list here. Use them or ignore them as you choose:

Range of Shotguns:

The Range Bands for Shotguns ADD the base range bands instead of DOUBLING the base range band. A shotgun which has a base (Short) range of 20 meters with a slug will have a 40 meter Medium Range, a 60 meter Long Range and an 80 meter Extreme Range with that slug.
The Exception to this rule is if the shotgun is using a Rifled Barrel. Rifled Slugs fired from a Rifled Barrel double their Base Range Bands just like all of the other weapons in the basic Twilight2000 rules. "Added Range bands" are indicated by brackets like this, [20m], to differentiate them from doubled range bands.

Ghost Ring or Rifle Sights: These add 5 meters to the Base (Short) Range of Slugs and Sabots (both smoothbore & Rifled) and 2 meters to any Buckshot or Flechettes.

Chokes: I only use three chokes in my game. They are;
Cylinder Bore: This is the "base" choke for all shotguns in the game.
Modified Cylinder Choke: This choke adds 1 meter to the shotgun's Short/Base range.
Full Choke: This choke adds 2 meters to the Short/Base Range of the shotgun. Full chokes also make it unsafe to fire slugs through the gun (due to increased pressures from the choke). This choke is unpopular for Military and LE applications because of this.

Shotgun Short Ranges Based on Barrel Length:

For ease of game play; The Short Range of any gauge of shotgun is based on barrel length. The gauge of a shotgun only affects the number of pellets or size of the slug that shotgun shoots. Consult the list below to determine your Base/Short Range and then add any "Range Bonuses" to this Short Range. While this really "oversimplifies" real world shotguns; It is easy to apply in game.

Shotgun BUCKSHOT/SLUG Range By Barrel Length Chart:
8" Barrel or Less: 5 meters/8 meters
9" to 12" Barrel: 6 meters/14 meters
13" to 15" Barrel: 7 meters/18 meters
16" to 18" Barrel: 8 meters/20 meters
19" to 21" Barrel: 9 meters/22 meters
22" to 24" Barrel: 10 meters/24 meters
25" to 27" Barrel: 11 meters/27 meters
28" to 30" Barrel: 12 meters/30 meters

Remember that Rifled Slug barrels are treated like normal rifle barrels.
Add 1 meters to this base range, and 1 to Recoil for a 3" Magnum Shell
Add 2 meters to this base range and 2 to Recoil for a 3 1/2" Magnum Shell

Buckshot in the Game:

Buckshot in the real world expands at a rate of one INCH per YARD (or meter) of travel. Because of this, most buckshot will hit only a single location at ranges out to 10 meters (a 10" spread of the shot). Shorter barrels tend to "open up" the pattern of the buckshot they fire sooner (although this isn't always the case). This is why range is the primary tool I use for demonstrating the difference between barrel lengths. To simulate this behavior; in game Buckshot behaves as follows:
At Short Range: Buckshot is considered a single shot for the listed damage to ONE location.
At Medium Range: Buckshot is rolled like a 9 shot burst from a rifle. Each hit causes 1 Die of damage. *As an optional reality rule you can roll the first hit normally and then roll each additional hit location by rolling either 1D6 for an initial upper body hit or 1D6+4 for an initial lower body hit depending on whether the FIRST hit was upper or lower body oriented. This would represent the "pattern" being either high or low on the target's body. This rule would be implemented at the Gm's discretion.
At Long Range: The Buckshot would now be rolled as a 5 round burst. and the shooter would have a +1 bonus to hit due to the shot spread. Each hit does 1D6 damage.
At Extreme Range: The Buckshot would now be a 3 round burst with a +2 to hit bonus due to shot spread. Damage would be 1D6 per round that hits
Bird Shot:
Bird shot has a very bad reputation for poor penetration in human tissue. Most bird shot won't penetrate 4" of Ballistic Gel. The FBI states that 12" of penetration in Ballistic Gel is needed to reach the vital organs of a human being. That being said; If all you have is Bird shot, then Bird shot IS what you will use. This poor effect can be modeled in game by treating Bird Shot
as Buckshot; BUT each hit does only ONE POINT OF DAMAGE (not one die) to the target. Birdshot would give bonuses of +1 at Medium Range, +2 at Long Range, and +3 at Extreme Range due to the number and density of pellets in the load.

[CDAT]

I have a tangential question: when the law enforcement types of the world started the switch away from the 9mm, why was the switch made to .40 caliber instead of the M1911? Time and time again I read that people in the know think the M1911 is the best all-around handgun available. Is there a rationale beyond politics and magazine capacity?

A little with trying to stay out the politics part too much. The FBI was involved in a shootout that did not go well for them. They were looking and found a pair of bank robbers, who they then got in a shootout with. In the about five minute shootout about 150 rounds were fired. In the end both robbers were killed and two agents. The agents were packing a combination of .357 Mags (shooting .38+P), some 9mm, and a pair of shotguns (with buckshot). The robbers one used a shotgun but he was taken out early so not really in the fight. The other used a Mini-14 rifle and he fired about 40 rounds. In the post investigation it was found that of the about 100 rounds fire by the agents they did not have the take down needed. This is were the FBI came up with there testing that is used today, they also made the 10mm as the "perfect" round. However it had to much recoil for most of their agents, was too large for there smaller stature agents. Smith and Wesson took the 10mm and made the .40 S&W. This started the trend in law enforcement to switch over to the .40. here is a link to the wickipedia page about the shootout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

As for the M1911 this was almost all politics, when law enforcement started switching over from the revolver they wanted to stick with the same basic size round (the .38 special and 9mm are basically the same). Some interesting things that I have read from actual shootings, those who have low capacity magazines ran out in the middle of gunfights less then those who had large capacity, as they keep better track of how many rounds they had.

[ArmySGT.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprGoEpDXJQ

lprGoEpDXJQ

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Swaghauler, your answers to questions about shotguns have been great, very informative.
I'd like to add something about the SPAS-12 from personal experience - it's 0.5kg to 1kg (1.1lbs to 2.2lbs) heavier compared to all the other semi-auto shotguns I've ever seen and that extra weight feels like it's all sitting on your off hand.
For all the "cool" it might have for being Arnie's shotgun in The Terminator, it handles "big & heavy" -- A bit like Arnie I suppose haha :D

[.45cultist]

I have an open-ended question for this crew. What would distinguish a shotgun design intended for self-defense or hunting from military applications? I understand that some shotguns can serve in all three roles. More so than with other firearms, a shotgun’s roles are like a Venn diagram. However certain characteristics, like automatic fire, probably distinguish shotguns optimized for combat from shotguns for self-defense or hunting. I’m curious what this crew thinks.

If Mossbergs survived decades with USMC units, it should work nicely, unlike the Mod 870, one must remove the mag tube to take out the hunting block that limits a sporting shotgun to 3+1 configuration or to convert it to trench or riot version.

[ArmySGT.]

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from higher calibers due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=17999&postcount=10

My first MP unit has M10 .38spl revolvers, M1911A1s, and M16A1s in 1991.

Several females and a few males qualified on M10s because the M1911A1s grips were to large. The 70 round MP quals has stages with one handed firing.

[stormlion1]

When I was a SP in the Air Force in the mid-90's it was primarily M-16A1's and later A2's with the dog handlers getting CAR-15's and everyone having an assigned M9. The Armory had other weapons available but unless you worked in there you never saw them. I know we had a few AK's, some Shotguns, and a locker full of M1911's that no one ever shot.

[ArmySGT.]

When I was a SP in the Air Force in the mid-90's it was primarily M-16A1's and later A2's with the dog handlers getting CAR-15's and everyone having an assigned M9. The Armory had other weapons available but unless you worked in there you never saw them. I know we had a few AK's, some Shotguns, and a locker full of M1911's that no one ever shot.

Your post reminded me of something I had completely forgotten. White Sands Missile Range, NM for whatever reason had a small armory of national match weapons run by post headquarters. The best shooters from the three active duty units would be tried out on some of these in the hopes that a post competitive team could be formed. I know it had M21s, M1Cs, M1 Rifles, M1911A1s (.45acp and .38super), and M10 .38s along with spotting scopes, rifle scopes, and all other competition gear. That was in the early 90's.

[Schone23666]

When I was a SP in the Air Force in the mid-90's it was primarily M-16A1's and later A2's with the dog handlers getting CAR-15's and everyone having an assigned M9. The Armory had other weapons available but unless you worked in there you never saw them. I know we had a few AK's, some Shotguns, and a locker full of M1911's that no one ever shot.

And to think I started this thread as a sarcastic rebuttal to moronic conspiracy theories. I love this forum! :D

I'm curious, what were they doing with AK's in the SP armory? Were they for OPFOR exercises?

[.45cultist]

And to think I started this thread as a sarcastic rebuttal to moronic conspiracy theories. I love this forum! :D

I'm curious, what were they doing with AK's in the SP armory? Were they for OPFOR exercises?

I remember most of those when I was waiting to check out my privately owned pistols, no AK's or 1911's except my own. Alsoremember seeing the M249's in plastic sitting on the bench.

[Askold]

Since this thread is already all over the place...

On the caliber wars, particularly concerning pistol and revolver calibers:

I will be the first one to admit that I am an armchair general on this issue as I have not used pistols in real combat (or been in real combat for that matter. I hope that remains the case in the future as well.) but I have read my share of studies and "studies" on "stopping power."

The fact is that all the studies have to rely on guesswork or make up parameters since it is impossible to study the effectiveness of weapons on humans in laboratory quality experiments. Perhaps if we had Josef Mengele to help things would be different, but as it is we have to use material that is less relevant to real battle.

Still, the impression that I have gotten (and I admit that I may be wrong) is that hit location is the most important factor and honestly the differences in energy between 9mmPara, .40 S&W, .45ACP and the other most common calibers is quite small. With modern hollowpoints most values that can be measured are not that far from each other (with recoil and magazine capacity having some differences but modern pistols do have fairly large magazines for each caliber available.)

In the end, I seem to have the impression that the hit location is the number one deciding factor on the effect on live target and penetration comes in second. Everything else falls far behind (at least with pistols and revolvers.)

There are stories from shootouts where certain "gun" failed to stop a hostile person while another had a "one shot stop" but even then the location and ammo seem to be the factor in these.

If I had to choose one pistol to defend myself with I would pick one in 9mm caliber but that has more to do with the cheap ammo and large capacity magazines available than the actual "stopping power" in the gun. With cheap ammo I could afford to train more and with more training I would be better with the gun. I still wouldn't trust myself to shoot perfectly in a high stress situation so bigger magazine is a bonus and a manageable recoil means better followup shots.

These advantages (in my opinion) outweigh any improvement in stopping power that other cartridges might offer. 10mm hole in the wall beside the attacker is not guaranteed to stop him. (and if a warning shot or merely revealing the gun does the trick the 9mm will work just as well.)

[stormlion1]

And to think I started this thread as a sarcastic rebuttal to moronic conspiracy theories. I love this forum! :D

I'm curious, what were they doing with AK's in the SP armory? Were they for OPFOR exercises?

Not a clue. I remember them showing up in the armory. Stayed there for six months. Then in a rush we were all qualified on them and they then were cleaned up and stocked away and just sat there. Probably had a bright idea and someone got an order, took forever to implement it. All done in a rush just so something could get checked off and they were forgotten about.

For on-base exercises we were using spray painted orange cheap airsoft guns and rubber training aids. Remember because we used them for three months, someone complained and they were all shipped out except the rubber pistols which we still used.

[.45cultist]

Not a clue. I remember them showing up in the armory. Stayed there for six months. Then in a rush we were all qualified on them and they then were cleaned up and stocked away and just sat there. Probably had a bright idea and someone got an order, took forever to implement it. All done in a rush just so something could get checked off and they were forgotten about.

For on-base exercises we were using spray painted orange cheap airsoft guns and rubber training aids. Remember because we used them for three months, someone complained and they were all shipped out except the rubber pistols which we still used.

I remember a pair of guys in civvies wanted to "steal" the vehicle we would leave for the Wing King while we washed his car. We told them we couldn't do that.

[Webstral]

Thanks for that great feedback, swaghauler. Your commentary aligns with my research on the subject and the very little shotgun training I have received.


While I intended to cover my ideas on classifying firearms by type such that firearms optimized for self-defense, hunting, and combat could be separated, I think I will go into a different direction for right now. The 800lb gorilla in the room is rebellion against domestic tyranny. In my experience, this is where arguments about the Second Amendment tend to break down. Would-be patriot revolutionaries (WBPR, or “Whoppers” as I like to call them) insist that they have a right to resort to arms to protect their rights against domestic tyranny. Moreover, they claim, the Second Amendment enshrines their right to have unfettered access to the tools for the job. Going further, Whoppers often maintain that having their names appear on any sort of government list associated with gun ownership would violate their right to resort to armed violence against the State by allowing the State, often denigrated at Big Brother, to round them up at will and/or confiscate their weapons of revolution. Safety and efficacy, the argument goes, are to be found in anonymity. Hidden from the agents of Big Brother during the time leading up to revolution, true patriots will come together like salt crystals in a saturated fluid when the circumstances mandate action by true patriots.


There are two issues that have to be addressed in order to expose the Whopper argument as part logical fallacy and part self-serving myth. The first, the logical fallacy, is the idea that the State can guarantee the citizenry access to the tools needed to behave in a way the State considers a) illegal and b) unjustified. The second item is the myth that the Framers might think masses of anonymous and otherwise unrecognizant armed civilians would be a better guarantee of republican liberties than an organized, trained, and (hopefully) disciplined force of reservists operating under the command of a popularly elected chief executive. In both cases, the question is what the Framers could be expected to believe, not what individual citizens in modern America might prefer to believe.


Whopper ideas about rising up against Big Brother beg the question of conditions. When is it okay for a private citizen to engage in offensive killing of police and soldiers? By “offensive killing”, I mean use of lethal force (whether anybody dies or not) when the citizen’s physical well-being is not under imminent threat. We may argue about the so-called natural right to overthrow a tyrannical government by force of arms. I happen to think that people have a right to overthrow tyranny by force of arms. However, the Second Amendment is part of the US Constitution. Whatever my natural rights might be, the Constitution is a contract between the State and the citizenry. Access to arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, not God or natural law or any other force. This distinction is all-important. Whether God has decreed that any American should have access to an AR-15 is a matter for clergy to decide. The State is bound by the Constitution, which is a contract written by men describing a legally binding arrangement between the State and its citizenry.


The Constitution has established means by which individual citizens may find redress for their grievances. The judiciary interprets law. The legislature, in whose selection a citizen has a voice, creates the laws. The creation of laws or their repealing is accomplished by convincing the legislature of the virtue of said creation or repeal or by simple electoral power at the ballot box. Representative government being what it is, one could argue that the legislature of a republic can become a tyranny of the majority. For this reason, the judiciary exists to rule on challenges to the law or whether charges by the People that an individual has broken the law are valid. In short, there is a process by which individuals or even groups may influence the corpus of law and may seek redress of unjust laws. These means logically preclude the legitimacy of resort to violence by aggrieved individuals or groups. As a practical matter, violence is always an option. As a matter of law, the State is under no obligation to make provision or allowances for citizens to resort to violence when and if their options for legal redress of grievances haven’t panned out for them. At the risk of belaboring the point, the Second Amendment is part of the corpus of law of the United States. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted as making allowances for citizens to take the law into their own hands (such as launching a revolution on whatever scale) on their own initiative and on their own recognizance or to guarantee access to arms designed for the purpose of engaging in combat with professional forces (law enforcement, soldiers) pursuant to taking the law into their own hands or launching a revolution on whatever scale.


Looping this back to what kinds of arms are covered by the Second Amendment, the fact that the State doesn’t protect private ownership for the purposes of executing violent revolution in the name of redress for individuals or groups doesn’t impact free access to arms for the purpose of self-defense. Arms for self-defense certainly may be misused, but they are not designed to make a citizen[-soldier] the equal of a professional soldier.


At this point one could be forgiven for asking whether the issue of revolution has not become a conundrum. I assert that the State isn’t obliged to tolerate either the equipping of civilians for revolution by arms or the act of revolution by whatever means comes to hand. Yet without a doubt the Founding Fathers believed in violent revolution as the vehicle of reform of the last measure. I agree with their position. How are these two ideas to be correlated?


The answer, I believe, comes back to the militia. Operating under the command of an elected chief executive and regulated by the elected legislature, formations of citizen-soldiers derive their authority to execute violence from the electorate. The will of the electorate is the basis of authority in the republic. Individuals legally may not take it upon themselves to execute violence against agents of the State except under extraordinary circumstances. They certainly are not authorized to take up arms against the State based on their personal beliefs about violations of their rights. They may do so, but they will be considered common criminals at best and traitors at worst in the eyes of the law. The militia, on the other hand, may take to the field against agents of the State—the federal republic—imbued with the authority delegated them by the electorate of the state republic through the chief executive. In other words, the taking up of arms against the federal government must be an act executed by the state chief executive and state legislature on behalf of the body politic of the state. Presumably, this bold act will signify a systemic violation of the rights of the citizenry by the federal government such that violent overthrow of the federal government by the militia manifests the will of the electorate. Where the electorate of a single state or a few states put their troops into the field against the federal government, the federal government is sure to triumph. Thus the systemic violation of rights causing one electorate to call its troops into action for redress may not be as systematically systemic as the citizens of the state in question believe. See again: the US Civil War.


The matter of efficacy requires a good deal more attention. I’ll come back to it later. Before leaving off, I want to look at why efficacy matters. The question is simply whether one believes the Framers of the Constitution cared about success. Was the next revolution going to work or not? If we believe the Framers cared about success, then we must ask whether they cared about cost. Revolution can take many different paths. I argue that the Framers wanted revolution, when it came, to be quick and decisive. Indeed, moral men and patriots could hardly desire anything else. The Whoppers of the nation believe that the Framers would have been enthusiastic supporters of something along the lines of Red Dawn or what the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan currently. I propose that the Founding Fathers would have seen Red Dawn as a modus operendi of last resort. They would have wanted a coup de main—a swift and decisive blow executed by an overwhelming mass of organized, trained, and disciplined citizen-soldiers rising up more-or-less simultaneously to execute the will of the citizenry to overthrow a despot and his followers among the professional military. It should go without saying that only a real militia can accomplish this, not anonymous gunmen in any number.

[Raellus]

What a lot of people don't understand is that the "Founding Fathers" were, by and large, opposed to the idea of rule by the masses. They were largely patrician in their socio-economic status, education, and outlook. They, by and large, believed in the Enlightenment ideals of natural rights, but they didn't necessarily believe in universal suffrage. To avoid what they called the "Tyranny of the Mob" is why they created a republic instead of an Athenian-style direct democracy. Landless citizens were precluded from voting in most states until the early 1800s (black men didn't get the vote, technically speaking at least, until the passage of the 15th Amendment in the early 1870s and women didn't get the vote until 1920). The idea that the common citizenry should be armed so that it could oppose government tyranny is a bit of modern myth-making. To illustrate this point, consider two early internal rebellions in America's national (post-colonial) history. Shay's Rebellion (a rebellion of farmer-debtors in W. Pennsylvania) put a nail in the coffin of the Articles of Confederation (our first national constitution)/Confederation Congress and prompted the creation of our current U.S. Constitution and a much stronger federal government. The more plausible reason that the Founders created the Second Amendment is that it was a proactive/preemptive response to continued British and Native American agitation on the Northwest Frontier. The earliest use of militias in our national history was in Indian-fighting. A "well-regulated militia" was needed to defend our seminal national borders from hostile Indians and a major foreign power with which we had a history of armed conflict. Instability in that region of the growing country would, in part, lead to the War of 1812 just 20 or so years later.

If one wants to further explore the early Federal government's attitude towards armed citizenry- both rebellious mobs and organized militia- one needn't look much further than the Whiskey Rebellion. The latter case is the only one in our history in which a serving president has led troops in the field. In this case, none other than George Washington led federal troops and state militia to put down a rebellion of frontier farmers who didn't want to pay a federal excise tax on distilled spirits. Now tell me that the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow the common citizenry to oppose governmental tyranny.

Most Americans know at least a bit about the Revolution but they know very little about the formation of our early national government. For example, my high school juniors have never heard of Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. Hence, the perpetuation of self-serving myths regarding the Second Amendment.

[swaghauler]

There are two issues with the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a "states right" by the original framers. The first is that the First Amendment involves a personal right to "Free Speech and the Practice of Religion." The Third Amendment specifically forbids the quartering of soldiers in a citizen's home without their consent. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments also address personal rights with regards to due process and illegal search and seizure. The original framers would not have stuck a "State's Right" in the middle of so many "Personal Rights." I believe the original framers made the Second Amendment such a prominent right because they believed that the Army would be comprised of "Citizen Soldiers" raised from the states. They made it apparent from several of their writings that they did not want a large professional army to exist (except in time of war). This would also be indicated in the limitation on Congress to fund a war for only two years at a time. This was (and I'm guessing not by coincidence) the average length of time the average conflict lasted. I believe that the original framers would be rolling over in their graves at the size of the Modern US Military.

The Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own any firearms but the Framers were not fools. There was a check on both Government misuse of force and Individual misuse of force. This check was the Judiciary. The primary goal of the Judiciary is NOT TO PUNISH OFFENDERS (punishments are laid out by Congress in Laws). The primary job of the Judiciary is to determine whether an Individual's (or the Government's) Actions are "Legal" (within written law) using the "Reasonable Man's Standard." The flip side of this job is to determine if a law (as written by Congress) is "within the bounds of reason" as it sits on the book. The Judiciary is a sort of "double check against tyranny." The first (and most well known)check is the Judiciary's ability to check the power of the Government based on writings in the Constitution. The second check (the one that really makes the US a Republic) is the check on "Mob Rule" (Rome is the Mob and the Mob is Rome). By directing how trials are conducted; The Judiciary keeps "The Mob" in check and protects the rights of the minority. This is the MOST IMPORTANT job of the Judiciary. The fact that a judge "oversees" a jury of your peers is a sure indication that power in the US was supposed to emanate "from the people" but was to be "guided" by educated and therefore "more reasonable heads." This is indicated by the design of Congress as well.

It is important to consider that when the Constitution was written; There was no real modern (existing at that moment) Democracy or Republic for the Framers to examine for inspiration. The Roman Republic and Greek Democracies were long extinct and France had yet to establish it's Republic. The Framers had always been "Subjects of the Crown" and so had every other nation around them. The fact that they wrote a document as far reaching as the Constitution with the proper balance of both depth of powers and enough "openness" for interpretation is simply amazing. Think of how hard it is to balance RPG game rules. Now imagine doing that with a new nation's laws. You really have to respect what the Founding Fathers achieved in the Constitution.

[Raellus]

It is important to consider that when the Constitution was written; There was no real modern (existing at that moment) Democracy or Republic for the Framers to examine for inspiration. The Roman Republic and Greek Democracies were long extinct and France had yet to establish it's Republic. The Framers had always been "Subjects of the Crown" and so had every other nation around them. The fact that they wrote a document as far reaching as the Constitution with the proper balance of both depth of powers and enough "openness" for interpretation is simply amazing. Think of how hard it is to balance RPG game rules. Now imagine doing that with a new nation's laws. You really have to respect what the Founding Fathers achieved in the Constitution.

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.

The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.

Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.

[Targan]

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.

The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.

Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.

I like to think that Australia and New Zealand have a fair and robust system of Parliamentary democracy under our versions of the Westminster System. And we gave women the vote a couple of decades before the US ;)

[.45cultist]

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.

The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.

Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.

Actually, the reigning monarch has one important power, no law is in effect unless they sign it. The down side is that they know a wrathful parliament could abolish their rule over refusal to sign.

[Webstral]

Swaghauler, your comments on the judiciary are well-written. The idea of the well-educated guiding and presiding over the mob fits well with the outlook of many of the Founding Fathers, as outlined above by Raellus. I agree as well that the size and power of the US military would distress those Founding Fathers who were constitutionally opposed (pun intended) to a large professional force. The Constitution is a remarkable document. I wonder if its like could emerge today. It’s always a pleasure to read commentary that is thoughtful and informed from both of you gentlemen.

As an aside, I recommend all thinking Americans read “American Nations” by Colin Woodard. Seen as men of Tidewater, the American “nation” covering eastern Virginia, eastern North Carolina, southern Delaware, and a slice of Maryland, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson make much more sense.

We should bear in mind that many of the Founding Fathers were classically educated men. Greece and Rome were not contemporary, but men like Washington and Jefferson knew the dynamics of Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism as well as anyone of the day reasonably could be expected to know them. Distrust of the masses was part of their Tidewaterish cultural heritage. Knowledge of Athenian democracy would have reinforced their distrust of democracy. At the same time, their understanding of how the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire would have reinforced their mistrust of standing armies based on the conduct of George III.

I must respectfully disagree with the characterization of the Second Amendment as a “state’s right”, based on or independently of my commentary. Clearly, individuals are guaranteed access to military grade small arms. Said guarantee is made with specific limitations and for a stated purpose. Limitations exist for all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. For instance, the definition of “unreasonable search and seizure” is left to the courts. If one were so inclined, one could argue that this is a state’s right to search and/or seize as long as a warrant gets issued first by a friendly judge. I don’t take this view, but I’m aware that a certain persuasion of libertarian sometimes advances this thesis. The First Amendment may guarantee free speech, but it doesn’t protect the right to stand in the town square screaming obscenities at 3:00am, even if the screamer occasionally throws in political commentary. The State may not restrict freedom of worship, but it can intervene when those worshipping freely are on the verge of sacrificing a virgin to Ba’al (for instance) even if all the participants are consenting adults. While some individual liberty advocates may argue that any limitations or conditions imposed on a right represent a tyrannical nullification of that right, the unhappy fact is that every right comes with certain operant conditions. No right in the Bill of Rights translates into “Do what you want, when you want, how you want.” Of course, no one here is going to argue in favor of unlimited license. I raise the point because conditions on an individual right, even when associated with responsibilities to the state as a condition of exercising that right, do not transform said individual liberty into a state’s right.

Again, I have to agree that the US Constitution is a remarkable document. When one reads what kind of wrangling went into producing it, the quality of the finished product becomes even more astonishing. I wonder if this document would not have been produced in its original incarnation without the tensions between the constituent “nations” underlying the representation from the various states.

[Rainbow Six]

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

A minor piece of trivia, but the English Civil War also defined the English Army as being under the control of Parliament not the Crown. That in turn passed onto the British Army following the Act of Union between Scotland and England in 1707 as a result of which whilst we have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force we do not have a Royal Army - the Army is only known as the British Army (although some Regiments and Corps have Royal in their title, e.g. the Royal Artillery).

[Webstral]

In case I don’t say it often enough, gentlemen, your feedback is invaluable. You guys are awesome beta testers. Every disagreement obliges me to find a different way of connecting the dots of my position, which makes me think of saying things in a better way.

The Founding Fathers created a federal republic. They did not create a monarchy, an autocracy, or a democracy. Those among them who participated in combat operations waged war for 8 years to create the opportunity to build a republic. Generally they seem to have believed that they were freeing themselves from tyranny. Generally they seem to have believed that future Americans might also need to free themselves from tyranny. To these men, tyranny could have been Athenian democracy, which would have seemed half-reformed mob rule to the Founding Fathers. Tyranny could have been autocracy under its various forms.


Men who had fought, sacrificed, and risked their futures in order to establish a republic would hardly be expected to equip future would-be rebels (through the Second Amendment) to overthrow the republic. By the same token, the Founding Fathers can’t be imagined as supporters of the idea that in the process of overthrowing tyranny future would-be patriot revolutionaries would establish a new non-republic form of government. They viewed autocracy as tyranny and democracy as tyranny. How can we imagine that they would endorse revolution against tyranny to establish a different type of tyranny? In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, the purpose of a legitimate Second American Revolution, waged to secure the rights and liberties of the people as recognized by the Constitution of the republic established following the First American Revolution, would be reestablishment of a republic recognizing the same rights and liberties with a similar if not identical structure.


It follows then that a new republic, mirroring the old pre-despotic republic, would be an end derived from the means employed to revive it. Unrecognizant gunmen roaming the countryside imposing their will on a hapless citizenry is not a promising seed for the rebirth of a republic. It’s not impossible for a republic to emerge from such origins. Doubtless many advocates of the Red Dawn scenario fancy themselves ardent patriots. Yet their method—deriving their authority from possession of the means of violence and not the will of the body politic—surely would contaminate the end product. While it is possible that a strong and highly principled leader would come to power over a band of gunman operating in opposition to a despotic American State, the commitment of such a warlord to republican principles is far from assured. While we might imagine that a conglomeration of such warlords might yield a supreme leader committed to republican principles, this idea seems more hopeful than sober and pragmatic. The longer a war of popular liberation—for all intents and purposes a guerilla conflict similar to that waged by Mao or Castro—goes on, the greater the likelihood of mantle of republicanism slipping from the shoulders of the guerillas. If this be the only way for the nation to throw off the yoek of tyranny, the Founding Fathers probably would prefer this mode of revolution to no revolution. But their preferred choice would be a revolution that promptly restores American rights, liberties, and governance.


The most promising modality of armed revolution in regards to reestablishing the republic is the militia. Organized, trained, and disciplined citizen-soldiers operating together because the abuses of tyranny have compelled the electorate of the various states to act through their state elected officials en masse are far more likely to deliver a coup de main against the powerful federal forces than masses of anonymous civilians with guns. Without organization, training, discipline, supply, or anything approaching a master plan, a mass of armed civilians is very, very highly unlikely to deal a death blow to a despotic regime in control of the federal government and its military machine. Instead, millions of armed Whoppers will be subject to prompt annihilation wherever the federal government chooses to strike. Just as our politics and petty rivalries divide us today, so Whoppers will be divided into infinite factions—even if they can manage a more-or-less mass spontaneous uprising. Coordination of their activities would be all but impossible. Their mass would be meaningless without unity of command. Prompt efforts at cooption and amnesty by the despotic government would bleed the disorganized Whoppers of their manpower in short order. Without proper organization, training, and discipline, Whoppers would turn to settling local scores as always happens when the social contract breaks abruptly and violently.


Accustomed to operating under the command of the state chief executive through his chain of command, the militia can have its activities coordinated. Its challenges of logistics can be thought through ahead of time and on a scale to be militarily useful. Most importantly, the militia fights as a part of a system whose vitality and authority originate in the electorate. They are the troops of the little republics that are the various states. Armed revolution by these men is so much more likely to yield a restored American republic that it is silly to imagine that the Founding Fathers would have preferred armed revolution in any other way.

[pmulcahy11b]

A minor piece of trivia, but the English Civil War also defined the English Army as being under the control of Parliament not the Crown. That in turn passed onto the British Army following the Act of Union between Scotland and England in 1707 as a result of which whilst we have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force we do not have a Royal Army - the Army is only known as the British Army (although some Regiments and Corps have Royal in their title, e.g. the Royal Artillery).

I've always wondered why it was British Army and not Royal Army -- thanks for the explanation. (And I'm a history BA, no less! Embarrassing...)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

--snip--
It follows then that a new republic, mirroring the old pre-despotic republic, would be an end derived from the means employed to revive it. Unrecognizant gunmen roaming the countryside imposing their will on a hapless citizenry is not a promising seed for the rebirth of a republic. It’s not impossible for a republic to emerge from such origins. Doubtless many advocates of the Red Dawn scenario fancy themselves ardent patriots. Yet their method—deriving their authority from possession of the means of violence and not the will of the body politic—surely would contaminate the end product. While it is possible that a strong and highly principled leader would come to power over a band of gunman operating in opposition to a despotic American State, the commitment of such a warlord to republican principles is far from assured. While we might imagine that a conglomeration of such warlords might yield a supreme leader committed to republican principles, this idea seems more hopeful than sober and pragmatic.
--snip--
The first thing that struck me as I was reading this, is this is probably the way New America was born.

[swaghauler]

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.

The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.

Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.

You do not have a Republic until all of your leaders are elected. This is not an indictment of the British Empire. It simply explains my earlier statement about Republics. The Founding Fathers could not go to "Country X" and ask them; "How's that Republic thing working out for you?" Reading about or imagining something is VERY different from doing it. The British EMPIRE was not yet a "Republic." It was an evolving Oligarchy (which is an unusual and interesting event in and of itself). I agree that the Founding Fathers probably did use British Documents to write the Constitution. There were a couple of big differences between your documents and the Constitution. In your English bill of rights; you secured your rights from the Monarchy like you would with a contract. The Constitution outlines rights which are "The Natural Rights" of all men, and do not "derive" from an agreement with Government. If Government were to violate an individuals right's; the individual can go to the Judiciary for redress. I cannot even envision someone in England suing King George III. This is important in so much as it allowed certain classes of people (African-Americans and Women) to "seek redress" for a violation of those rights later in our country's history (over the VEHEMENT objections of certain people both in and out of Government). English rights did not include certain classes of people (Catholics) and there really was no mechanism in your Bill of Rights for the "affected Parties" to seek redress. In the Constitution, The Judiciary was conceived as a mechanism for individuals to seek "redress" against the Government or each other. It is this aspect (and other mechanisms in the various articles) that make The Constitution a "living document." A living document is one that can be changed or modified over time without changing it's fundamental meaning. Most rule books are living documents. The English documents are not entirely living documents because they include no mechanism for modifying the document without a complete "rewrite" possibly bringing the new document into conflict with existing law. While you could write new documents with more refined rights (thus leaving the older document intact); This newer document could then come into conflict with the older document in accordance with your national laws. This is one of the most important features of the Constitution. When a law comes into conflict with it, the Judiciary hears a case and either rules that law "Unconstitutional," or the Constitution becomes "modified" by the newer law without changing a significant amount of its original intent. A "nonliving document" (a closed or unmodifiable document like a contract) may be rendered "void" if it is found to be "in violation" of a law.

However, a "living document" can only be created by a consensus and can be "undone" by either excessive physical force against the document's founders (the reason Great Britain was not a Republic-King George HAD to sign all laws) or by "apathy" from the governed. Unfortunately, I don't believe that we could write as elegant a document today. To give fair credit where it is in fact due; the English Documents were elegantly written "contracts" between the populace and the monarchy. I just don't see them as "living documents" because they didn't include a proper mechanism for redress against the monarchy in their writings.

My writings about The Second Amendment were general in nature. They were not "aimed" at anyone in this forum and used to illustrate why I believe The Supreme Court ruled it to be an individual right in the recent court cases. This also shows the "power" of the check that the Judiciary wields. Hundreds of laws were rendered "Unconstitutional" with a single ruling. This is also an example of a living document and how it can affect a Government.

Unfortunately; I see our Republic quickly becoming an Oligarchy controlled by individuals who "buy votes" not in the best interest of the Republic from corrupt Government officials. The power of "Public Opinion" which opposed this power is slowly being replaced by public apathy. This could easily come back to haunt us if those individual "power brokers" inadvertently start us down the road to WWIII.

[CDAT]

Since this thread is already all over the place...

On the caliber wars, particularly concerning pistol and revolver calibers:

...
snip

So from my experience (three sand box tours of about a year and half each, bit more than eight years as federal police officer, ten years on fire department) Yes most of is guess work, if you can find it the testing that they did in 1910 on pistol cartridges is interesting read, and not as involved but there is the new standard that the FBI put out. But yes the shot placement is the most important. There are stories of just about every round not having one round stops. For military where you can only use non-expanding bullets it is very different than law enforcement or civilian use, for with of the latter I think that a 9mm with a good hollow point is not a bad choice, but if you can not or will not use a hollow point than I say that larger is better. You may ask why you would not use a hollow point, I had a boss in the past that did not want any of his officer to carry hollow points so that if we were involved with a shooting he thought that it would look like we wanted to kill them, so he made us carry full metal jacket rounds, my next boss did a 180 on that as he was more worried about the rounds over-penetrating (something the 9mm is know for and that was what we carried). The last thing that I would say if you are going to carry a round you need to make sure that it works in your firearm, so yes this may cost some money but put a couple hundred rounds of you carry ammo through the weapon to make sure that it functions with out fail, as some are really set up only for FMJ's.

[Raellus]

You do not have a Republic until all of your leaders are elected. This is not an indictment of the British Empire. It simply explains my earlier statement about Republics. The Founding Fathers could not go to "Country X" and ask them; "How's that Republic thing working out for you?" Reading about or imagining something is VERY different from doing it. The British EMPIRE was not yet a "Republic." It was an evolving Oligarchy (which is an unusual and interesting event in and of itself).

Perhaps not on a national level. I'm afraid we disagree as to the degree to which the British government c. 1776 could be considered a republic. Considering that only landed white males could vote in the new U.S.A., it was closer to an "evolving oligarchy" than most would like to admit. On a local level, the FF had plenty of experience with republican government. Nearly all of the colonies had elected law-making bodies, for example, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in which many of the FF served. They had direct, personal experience in "state-level" republican government, and models in empires both ancient and contemporary. My point is that they were not creating a radically new system of government in a vacuum.

[CDAT]

Perhaps not on a national level. I'm afraid we disagree as to the degree to which the British government c. 1776 could be considered a republic. Considering that only landed white males could vote in the new U.S.A., it was closer to an "evolving oligarchy" than most would like to admit. On a local level, the FF had plenty of experience with republican government. Nearly all of the colonies had elected law-making bodies, for example, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in which many of the FF served. They had direct, personal experience in "state-level" republican government, and models in empires both ancient and contemporary. My point is that they were not creating a radically new system of government in a vacuum.

Now I may be wrong on this but as I understand it you could also look at from a different way, that being only landed white males had to pay taxes. My understanding is that at the start the only (federal) tax was property tax and if you did not pay it, you did not vote.

[swaghauler]

Perhaps not on a national level. I'm afraid we disagree as to the degree to which the British government c. 1776 could be considered a republic. Considering that only landed white males could vote in the new U.S.A., it was closer to an "evolving oligarchy" than most would like to admit. On a local level, the FF had plenty of experience with republican government. Nearly all of the colonies had elected law-making bodies, for example, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in which many of the FF served. They had direct, personal experience in "state-level" republican government, and models in empires both ancient and contemporary. My point is that they were not creating a radically new system of government in a vacuum.

I never said that the Founding Fathers created the Constitution in a vacuum. Nor was that my intention. My point was that there was no true living Republic to examine or ask guidance from. The examples you put forth still cannot be called Republics because there was no method of "Redress" for the Colonists (or they would have taken it and not rebelled). As CDAT pointed out, you had to pay property taxes to vote initially. This was challenged and changed in the Constitution during the early 1800's. You know the history of Black and Women's Suffrage. These were also changed using the "Methods of Redress" originally written into the constitution. This is why I view the Constitution as a living document. My only fear today is that the apathy of the public at large will allow the concepts in the Constitution to be gutted and a great document will die "the death of a thousand cuts." We should remember what we were told at the birth of this nation; (in response to the question "what kind of government did you create for us?") "A Republic sir, If you can keep it."

[Raellus]

There were other forms of taxes besides property and poll taxes in the early U.S. republic. Excise taxes and tariffs were both commonly used to generate federal revenue, and both were unpopular enough to spur rebellion (the Whiskey Rebellion in the case of the former) and talk of secession (South Carolina and the Nullification Crisis).

I wish that one of our British members would chime in regarding "methods of redress" in British government, especially during the time period in question (c. 1754-1776). I suppose I will have to dig in and do the research myself but, IIRC, there were checks and balances in the British government. But then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "methods of redress". Are you referring to the ability to amend the Constitution, or are you referring to the federal judiciary?

I could be misunderstanding what you deem "methods of redress", but at times you seem to be referring to the federal judiciary. Keep in mind that its powers evolved after the ratification of the Constitution. A federal judiciary was established under Washington, by Congress, with the Judiciary Act of 1789, after the ratification of the constitution. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's greatest power, that of judicial review (i.e. the power to declare legislation unconstitutional). That didn't happen until 1803, over a decade after ratification of the USC. Only the Supreme Court, as an entity, is explicitly written into the Constitution. It's powers, and the rest of the federal judiciary, were established by law.

In terms of the franchise/suffrage, acts of Congress (i.e. laws) were the prime mover in enacting change. The judiciary didn't play much of a role in that. In fact, at times, it worked against expanding suffrage, both upholding slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford) and, later, segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson).

So that's what I don't understand. There were checks and balances in the British government, and Parliament, which, in part, was an elected legislative body, with the power to create, annul, and amend laws. To me, that's one major "method of redress".

As I said earlier, perhaps I'm just not understanding your points. I hope that I'm not coming across as oppositional or confrontational.

[swaghauler]

There were other forms of taxes besides property and poll taxes in the early U.S. republic. Excise taxes and tariffs were both commonly used to generate federal revenue, and both were unpopular enough to spur rebellion (the Whiskey Rebellion in the case of the former) and talk of secession (South Carolina and the Nullification Crisis).

I wish that one of our British members would chime in regarding "methods of redress" in British government, especially during the time period in question (c. 1754-1776). I suppose I will have to dig in and do the research myself but, IIRC, there were checks and balances in the British government. But then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "methods of redress". Are you referring to the ability to amend the Constitution, or are you referring to the federal judiciary?

I could be misunderstanding what you deem "methods of redress", but at times you seem to be referring to the federal judiciary. Keep in mind that its powers evolved after the ratification of the Constitution. A federal judiciary was established under Washington, by Congress, with the Judiciary Act of 1789, after the ratification of the constitution. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's greatest power, that of judicial review (i.e. the power to declare legislation unconstitutional). That didn't happen until 1803, over a decade after ratification of the USC. Only the Supreme Court, as an entity, is explicitly written into the Constitution. It's powers, and the rest of the federal judiciary, were established by law.

In terms of the franchise/suffrage, acts of Congress (i.e. laws) were the prime mover in enacting change. The judiciary didn't play much of a role in that. In fact, at times, it worked against expanding suffrage, both upholding slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford) and, later, segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson).

So that's what I don't understand. There were checks and balances in the British government, and Parliament, which, in part, was an elected legislative body, with the power to create, annul, and amend laws. To me, that's one major "method of redress".

As I said earlier, perhaps I'm just not understanding your points. I hope that I'm not coming across as oppositional or confrontational.

No, you don't sound Confrontational. I actually enjoy your posts in this discussion. When I refer to "Redress," I'm referring to an individual's right; not the creation of a law. The original power for "Redress" came from the articles that created The Supreme Court as established by our Constitution. The creation of the Federal courts was an "oversight" of our Constitution that was addressed in the stated act. My point about "Redress" in the US is that if an individual or group feels "slighted" by a law made by our Government; They can "sue" the Government to force a change in the law and/or seek "damages" for the improper law. If a law is found "Unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court, it is immediately rendered void by that ruling. Any similar laws would also be void as well. Could an individual (say a farmer) in the 1700's "sue" The King of England to get compensation from him, or to cause the removal of a law by legal action? That's my point about the Constitution verses the English Bill of Rights. Under the English Bill of rights, The King couldn't interfere with a trial; But there is nothing that enabled a singular individual or an unprotected class (Catholics) from "suing" the King or the Government to change a law or to receive "Redress" for the King's/Government's conduct. This is the difference I have been trying to point out. The Constitution is written to empower individuals, not just a class of people. That is the primary "evolution" of the Constitution verses earlier documents.

[Targan]

I wish that one of our British members would chime in regarding "methods of redress" in British government, especially during the time period in question (c. 1754-1776).

I'm not a Brit, sorry :D But I would point you in the direction of the Magna Carta (the 1215 version and it's many amended versions), that was an important early document in the evolution of English Common Law. Of particular interest in this discussion is the section in the above wiki article titled Use in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States.

Also worth a look is the Bill of Rights 1689.

[stormlion1]

There were a few attempts on the part of parliament to address issues in the American Colonys, most of which were window dressing on huge bleeding sores and actually would of done nothing so were shot down by the representatives sent. Other representatives that were sent (The Colonys had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.) actually had orders to shoot down any concessions Parliament made because they wanted to paint the Brits in a bad light.

Just so you know, most of these representatives were from New England.

[swaghauler]

There were a few attempts on the part of parliament to address issues in the American Colonys, most of which were window dressing on huge bleeding sores and actually would of done nothing so were shot down by the representatives sent. Other representatives that were sent (The Colonys had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.) actually had orders to shoot down any concessions Parliament made because they wanted to paint the Brits in a bad light.

Just so you know, most of these representatives were from New England.

This wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure we did our fair share of "agitating."

[unkated]

Here you hit upon a main problem about redress:

The Colonies had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.

This is the center of that "no taxation without representation" stuff. There was no seat for the "Borough of Boston", Massachusetts Bay colony, New York, Virginia, etc.

There was no one who could stand in the midst of legislative body (Parliament) and speak for and VOTE for the interests of those British citizens living in the colonies.

So, at least from the view of those living in the colonies, they certainly were not served by a British republic.

I will remind our readership that particularly at the time, who actually got to vote for their Member of Parliament varied widely across England; in many (non-urban) districts, a few wealthy landholders selected among themselves; in more urban settings, the vote was still rather limited.

I'll suggest that at the time, England considered herself a Monarchy, with the King wielding some actual power, and the Prime Minister performing the bulk of the heavy lifting.

However, the American Revolution gets sticky for other reasons. Recall that initially, it was a confederation of states (the former colonies) with only weak
central ties. The problems with that led to the Constitution; it's initial shortcomings led to the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment...

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - W. Churchill, House of Commons, 1947

Uncle Ted

[stormlion1]

One of the biggest loyalist for the crown had been Benjamin Franklin. He had also been a good friend to many in parliament who did speak up on occasion for the colony's. The issue is the King (who Franklin expected to be given a reward for his service) had no interest in the Colony's as anything other than a tax base and Parliament only wanted the minimal effort in the colony's so they could be a tax base. Ben Franklin hadn't been to thrilled about his lack of reward from the Crown and did a one-eighty on his views. To the detriment of the British. Because the French loved him.

[Raellus]

The issue is the King (who Franklin expected to be given a reward for his service) had no interest in the Colony's as anything other than a tax base and Parliament only wanted the minimal effort in the colony's so they could be a tax base.

And for all of the other reasons European powers wanted overseas colonies- cheap/free raw materials, mercantilism, and to counter the imperial expansion of continental rivals. That's quite a long list.

-

[simonmark6]

Hoping not to offend our American posters, please dial irony meters up as far as they go.

I haven't weighed in on this so far as I am really no expert whatsoever but I have always been of the opinion that the American Revolution was totally and utterly legal and justified by British Law. I know that probably makes you feel less guilty about it all so I'm happy to say that...Like you needed permission to take your own country.

However, I'm referring to Article 61 of the Magna Carta. The article refers to the right of redress enshrined in our Laws since that time. I'm paraphrasing horribly here: it refers to the fact that any person who feels that the authority of the King or Government is infringing on their personal right to freedom of liberty, property, religious freedom or freedom of thought has the right to redress: an effective sueing of the state for said redress. It also enshrines the right to rebel against the Crown or said authority if the individual deems that their request for redress have been ignored. This includes seizing the Crown's property and armed rebellion. The only thing proscribed is physical harm to the Monarch or their immediate family.

This seems similar to the Fifth ? Amendment and indeed may be a lift from the original article in the Magna Carta.

Therefore, the Founding Fathers exercised their right to redress by declaring "No taxation without representation" and when these concerns were ignored or insufficiently redressed, they were practically required by law to revolt against the tyranny and establish a state where they were allowed to be free in the way they considered right.

Most of the time though, it never gets this far because Common Law relies on precedence and interpretation of an independent Judiciary which whilst it isn't perfect, tends to work on the principal that it is better to let an unlimited number of guilty people free rather than oppress a single innocent one. Most of the time this muddling along seems to work, and for those times when they aren't, Article 61 is whipped out.

Whether this works or not is a matter of opinion. I think it does but it is only as strong as the people in the system. There again, show me a system, even the American one, that isn't.

As to the Question if anyone ever sued King George for redress I'd give you this example: A group of colonists sought redress for taxation that they felt was unfair and believed that they were not given this redress, they therefore took up their right enshrined in English Law to rebel against the Crown until that redress either came or they freed themselves from tyranny. These people were rebels but rebellion is enshrined in English Law so the system was working as planned.
Hope that this helps somewhat and that it isn't too controversial.

[Webstral]

The first thing that struck me as I was reading this, is this is probably the way New America was born.

How interesting that New America came up! New America was in the back of my mind, too. They are the penultimate so-called Constitutional militia. (Going forward, I’m going to abbreviate “so-called Constitutional militia” as CONMIL.) Although New America is fictional, they provide us with a window on the problem of CONMIL in particular and the idea that the government is obliged to guarantee access to military grade small arms so that citizenry can make up their own minds how to employ violence without any reference to the body politic.


New America uses their Second Amendment rights (as commonly interpreted) to purchase military grade small arms. Once things fall apart, they use their firearms to rebuild the United States in their own image. And there’s the problem. New America deliberately does not recreate the Constitution-based federal republic within their own sphere. If they conquer the whole country, the previous republic is a dead letter. Racism run amok will be the order of the day. The law will serve an elite handful. Slavery will return, albeit in the form of the Elsies.

So one has to ask if the Second Amendment is serving its intended purpose if the Amendment is equipping a private army which exists to create a racist autocracy. New America is fictional, but CONMIL are not. Whatever ideas the CONMIL may have about the republic or individual liberties, they are contrary to the spirit of the republic if the CONMIL operates independently of the electorate.

[swaghauler]

Hoping not to offend our American posters, please dial irony meters up as far as they go.

I haven't weighed in on this so far as I am really no expert whatsoever but I have always been of the opinion that the American Revolution was totally and utterly legal and justified by British Law. I know that probably makes you feel less guilty about it all so I'm happy to say that...Like you needed permission to take your own country.

However, I'm referring to Article 61 of the Magna Carta. The article refers to the right of redress enshrined in our Laws since that time. I'm paraphrasing horribly here: it refers to the fact that any person who feels that the authority of the King or Government is infringing on their personal right to freedom of liberty, property, religious freedom or freedom of thought has the right to redress: an effective sueing of the state for said redress. It also enshrines the right to rebel against the Crown or said authority if the individual deems that their request for redress have been ignored. This includes seizing the Crown's property and armed rebellion. The only thing proscribed is physical harm to the Monarch or their immediate family.

This seems similar to the Fifth ? Amendment and indeed may be a lift from the original article in the Magna Carta.

Therefore, the Founding Fathers exercised their right to redress by declaring "No taxation without representation" and when these concerns were ignored or insufficiently redressed, they were practically required by law to revolt against the tyranny and establish a state where they were allowed to be free in the way they considered right.

Most of the time though, it never gets this far because Common Law relies on precedence and interpretation of an independent Judiciary which whilst it isn't perfect, tends to work on the principal that it is better to let an unlimited number of guilty people free rather than oppress a single innocent one. Most of the time this muddling along seems to work, and for those times when they aren't, Article 61 is whipped out.

Whether this works or not is a matter of opinion. I think it does but it is only as strong as the people in the system. There again, show me a system, even the American one, that isn't.

As to the Question if anyone ever sued King George for redress I'd give you this example: A group of colonists sought redress for taxation that they felt was unfair and believed that they were not given this redress, they therefore took up their right enshrined in English Law to rebel against the Crown until that redress either came or they freed themselves from tyranny. These people were rebels but rebellion is enshrined in English Law so the system was working as planned.
Hope that this helps somewhat and that it isn't too controversial.

Very nice post. I have learned more than a couple of things during this "swerve" in the basic thread. This History lesson has pushed my Political Science (law/civics) education to the limits. My professors would "touch on some of these arguments" but most were fairly loose with history. They tended to focus more on modern law (probably because most of us were also attending the Police Academy at that time).

[swaghauler]

How interesting that New America came up! New America was in the back of my mind, too. They are the penultimate so-called Constitutional militia. (Going forward, I’m going to abbreviate “so-called Constitutional militia” as CONMIL.) Although New America is fictional, they provide us with a window on the problem of CONMIL in particular and the idea that the government is obliged to guarantee access to military grade small arms so that citizenry can make up their own minds how to employ violence without any reference to the body politic.


New America uses their Second Amendment rights (as commonly interpreted) to purchase military grade small arms. Once things fall apart, they use their firearms to rebuild the United States in their own image. And there’s the problem. New America deliberately does not recreate the Constitution-based federal republic within their own sphere. If they conquer the whole country, the previous republic is a dead letter. Racism run amok will be the order of the day. The law will serve an elite handful. Slavery will return, albeit in the form of the Elsies.

So one has to ask if the Second Amendment is serving its intended purpose if the Amendment is equipping a private army which exists to create a racist autocracy. New America is fictional, but CONMIL are not. Whatever ideas the CONMIL may have about the republic or individual liberties, they are contrary to the spirit of the republic if the CONMIL operates independently of the electorate.

The singularly most dangerous group I personally ever dealt with during my career were a group known as The Sovereign Citizens. They were known for attacking members of Law Enforcement at the drop of a hat. The problem was that they "invited" interaction with us by putting HAND WRITTEN license plates on their vehicles, driving without licenses, and doing other things to "demonstrate" their status as a "Sovereign State unto themselves." If these guys were the basis for New America; The post war future would be bloody indeed.

[unkated]

It also enshrines the right to rebel against the Crown or said authority if the individual deems that their request for redress have been ignored. This includes seizing the Crown's property and armed rebellion. The only thing proscribed is physical harm to the Monarch or their immediate family.

<snip>

As to the Question if anyone ever sued King George for redress I'd give you this example: A group of colonists sought redress for taxation that they felt was unfair and believed that they were not given this redress, they therefore took up their right enshrined in English Law to rebel against the Crown until that redress either came or they freed themselves from tyranny. These people were rebels but rebellion is enshrined in English Law so the system was working as planned.


The problem, of course, is that while English Law may grant the right to rebel as a form of redress (and the philosophy of using a 'well-ordered' militia as a counter-weight to the military might of a tyrannical central government in the United States), it does not preclude punishment for those who rebel, rightly or wrongly.

From Watt Tyler forward, rebels against the Crown, once caught, are treated as criminals - imprisoned, transported, and/or executed, with their goods and property forfeit to the Crown (or to Parliament during the Interregnum).

So, rebellion against the Crown, or against the US Government (or any sovereign governing body I have heard of, from Pharaoh forward), is only unpunished if you win. :-)

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Magna Carta Article 61 (http://www.veronicachapman.com/vlinks/MagnaCartaArticle61.htm)

Hmmm. Actually, (and please correct me if I am wrong), it seems to say that you need to take your complaint to a body of some 25 Barons, and if they say your reasons are legitimate, and the Crown or its Justiciary has not offered redress within 40 days, then you may rebel - but only under the leadership of these Barons, or a subset of at least 4 of them.

Hmm But if you don't convince these Barons that your cause is just enough to require redress, you appear to be scrod (a New England past tense form).

Oh, and you have to give all crown property back after the rebellion, once the grievances have been redressed.

It could make for an interesting alt-fiction 18th century court-room drama:

Peoples of the United Colonies vs. King George & Prime Minister Lord North, tried before the House of Lords (at least 25 Barons attending...)


subplots involving trying to remove some of the Barons from London on one pretext or another by the Crown
the colonists are trying various offerings moral or immoral on various barons ('this is called "corn whiskey"...'; 'well, this stuff grows like tobacco, but tastes a bit different. has a remarkable effect on one's mind...'; 'how about 10,000 acres of land granted in Kentucky?')
months of argument about the various other titles vs "Baron"
John Adams as an extremely combative attorney representing the United Colonies (Franklin: "No, John, I don't think you should deliver our closing statement. You're obnoxious and disliked at this juncture. Perhaps Mr. Lee of Virginia could read it out to them...")


Hmmm. Perhaps I should not stay up to watch 1776 at 1 in the morning... :D

Uncle Ted

[simonmark6]

By the time of the Revolution, the Barons had been replaced by the Courts. That didn't preclude the Courts from being corrupt of course and much of the development of civil liberties in the UK came from principled men and women who refused to bend to said corruption.

In this way, the Magna Carta has become a series of guiding principles rather than specific laws. gain, that doesn't mean that English Law id right and American wrong or that I have an opinion that one is intrinsically better than another. There was however a specific method of gaining redress through the courts and Parliament. Whether it worked or not was another matter but that would be the same in any country where the method of redress is held in the hands of the power brokers.

[Raellus]

Hmm But if you don't convince these Barons that your cause is just enough to require redress, you appear to be scrod (a New England past tense form).

But the same holds true of the United States' federal court system. Just ask Dred Scott and Homer Plessy. In the case of the former, the Supreme Court ruled that he couldn't sue or even testify in court because he wasn't a citizen (by virtue of his status as a slave). They compounded this by declaring him to be the personal property of his owner, thereby upholding slavery, on principle and in practice, not only in the states, but in the territories as well. Yeah, so just having a system of redress doesn't guarantee that justice will be done.

[simonmark6]

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. When researching my post I read teh following leture. It is dated and for me too self-congratulatory, but one of its conclusions I thinks sums British Justice up (or what it used to be, don't get me started on what it is today)

https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/schoolofhumanitiesandsocialsciences/law/pdfs/Freedom_Under_the_Law_1.pdf

In making these comparisons, we no doubt think
our system is better but we ought always to remember
that it is the system which suits the temperament of
our people. It would not necessarily be the best
system for other peoples. Remember that the jury
system has proved a failure in France. But one thing
is quite clear.
The system which has been built up
by our forefathers over the last 1000 years suits our
people because it is the best guarantee of our freedoms.
The fundamental safeguards have been established,
not so much by lawyers as by the common people of
England, by the unknown juryman who in 1367 said
he would rather die in prison than give a verdict
against his conscience, by Richard Chambers who in
1629 declared that never till death would he
acknowledge the sentence of the Star Chamber, by
Edmund Bushell and his eleven fellow-jurors who in
1670 went to prison rather than find the Quakers
guilty, by the jurors who acquitted the printer of the
Letters of Junius, and by a host of others. These
are the men who have bequeathed to us the heritage
of freedom. It is their spirit which William
Wordsworth interpreted so finely when he wrote :—
' We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake ; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held : In everything we are sprung
of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.'

[unkated]

Yeah, so just having a system of redress doesn't guarantee that justice will be done.

That wasn't the point. The question was the legality of rebellion against the English Crown in the event of the failure of redress from the Crown.

Simon held up Article 61, that said you could seize Crown property and hold it until the King or his bailiffs provide redress. However, you cannot seize Crown property unless (and only under the leadership of) a body of Barons.

Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) said that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Political systems that allow the population to own weapons are those that trust that they are creating a happy enough society that the population that they will not rebel, and well-off (or policed) enough that banditry will not flourish.

Attempts in the United States to impose controls on weaponry - usually in an attempt to control banditry (armed crime) - are pushed back by political movements from the population decrying it as an attempt at tighter political control. Whether these are legitimate efforts against tighter political controls or disguised efforts to increase access to arms for criminal purposes is another question.

With a disorganized but armed population, it is in the interest of a government to satisfy the population that it has no need to from an organized opposition.

Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence? There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone?). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not? More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis-à-vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny? Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

Compare these two lists. I know that it's Wikipedia, but it was the first hit and looks pretty reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The list above is for civilian-owned firearms. Considering the nebulous nature of various African "armies", "militias", etc., I reckon their ratios of guns to people would be a lot higher on the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_trade

As an exception that proves the rule, in Mexico, gun ownership is strictly limited by law, but look at what goes on there. If every Mexican citizen was constitutionally permitted to bear arms, would the violence likely be any less? I don't know. I'm looking forward to watching this doc. Perhaps it will change my mind.

http://www.vice.com/read/watch-the-trailer-for-the-sundance-award-winning-doc-cartel-land-115

[swaghauler]

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence? There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone?). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not? More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis-à-vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny? Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

Compare these two lists. I know that it's Wikipedia, but it was the first hit and looks pretty reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The list above is for civilian-owned firearms. Considering the nebulous nature of various African "armies", "militias", etc., I reckon their ratios of guns to people would be a lot higher on the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_trade

As an exception that proves the rule, in Mexico, gun ownership is strictly limited by law, but look at what goes on there. If every Mexican citizen was constitutionally permitted to bear arms, would the violence likely be any less? I don't know.

I served in Somalia (RESTORE HOPE) and I can tell you that most African Nations are not "republics." They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful enough to assume control. Before and during the collapse; the populace were generally not armed as was the tradition in all Italian colonies. The primary perpetrators of the violence were former soldiers and policemen who "took their toys with them" when the country imploded. The arms that came into the country later were provided "en mass" to the clans by Al Qaeda working in Yemen in exchange for drugs like "chault" (the pronounced "shalk" or "caulk" depending on what region your in).

Your example of the Whiskey Rebellion is a poor example because it involved a small number of PA farmers WITHOUT the support of the local populace. It should be viewed more like the incident at the Bundy Ranch a couple of years ago than an actual rebellion. Guns do prevent Tyranny because a government has to ask itself if it could survive frequent and possibly "long term" attack on it's infrastructure from well hidden "rebels/insurgents" within the population base. The US did not technically "win" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban were "dispersed," but immediately "reformed" as soon as the US troop withdrawls began. This is the one "Truth" of The War on Terror; IT CAN NEVER BE WON. Like the War On Drugs, and The War On Crime; There is now way to win without completely suspending ALL RIGHTS and engaging in a genocide against anyone you even SUSPECT of being involved. There is no other way to win the war. If just one or two individuals begin to perform the activities that you were trying to eradicate; Those individuals will find someone who is sympathetic to their cause.
Without trying to sound too harsh; Your assumptions about the North during the Civil War are wrong. The North OUTGUNNED THE SOUTH in both cannon and manpower in EVERY major battle of the war. What caused the North to lose so many battles was, in two words, poor leadership. The Northern commanders would "hesitate" and give the South time to take the "high ground." The North would then be forced into making an attack on well defended positions with good "interior lines of communication and supply."
The one time the North was lucky enough to take the "high ground" and hold it until the main body of the Army could arrive (Gettysburg); The North won and the South was put on the defensive from then on. It wasn't until strong commanders like Sherman arrived on the scene that the South had truly lost the war. This does highlight a point of war. Without GOOD leadership, victory will be elusive, no matter how well equipped you are.

[simonmark6]

They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful

Hm...

[Raellus]

I don't think that it really matters that much how the guns got there, Swag. Once they're there in great quantities, they're almost impossible to get rid off. The cycle of violence in many parts of Africa has been repeating itself for the last 50-60 years; in some cases the very same weapons used in the seminal post-colonial independence movements are still being used today.

Guns do prevent Tyranny because a government has to ask itself if it could survive frequent and possibly "long term" attack on it's infrastructure from well hidden "rebels/insurgents" within the population base.

I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa? There are plenty of guns there.

Without trying to sound too harsh; Your assumptions about the North during the Civil War are wrong. The North OUTGUNNED THE SOUTH in both cannon and manpower in EVERY major battle of the war.

How am I wrong when that's exactly what I said? "Correlation of forces" means manpower and war-making material (existing and capacity). I clearly stated that the North enjoyed superiority in the correlation of forces. It's a perfect example. At least 1/3 of the national population, much of which was already armed (thanks, directly, to the 2nd Amendment), rebelled against, and was defeated by, the Federal Government (in only four years). The idea that 100% of the civilian population would actively support any armed rebellion is simply not realistic. If that was indeed the case, then yeah, governments wouldn't ever behave tyrannically.

[Damocles]

They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful

Hm...

For the record, I'd assume you guys would still have better queuing and ale.

:p

[swaghauler]

"I don't think that it really matters that much how the guns got there, Swag. Once they're there in great quantities, they're almost impossible to get rid off. The cycle of violence in many parts of Africa has been repeating itself for the last 50-60 years; in some cases the very same weapons used in the seminal post-colonial independence movements are still being used today."

It matters because who supplies the guns determines which party (not political, just a reference) has the upper hand in the violence. Several Muslim sects got very powerful very quickly thanks to Al Qaeda. This is also important elsewhere in Africa. Boka Haram can match the new Nigerian government gun for gun. Christian's in the Central African Republic are better armed; Muslims are dying in droves there.

"I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa? There are plenty of guns there."

Because there has been no clear winner. The evolution of politics in Africa works like this. Party one is very strong and takes over the country. Parties Two and Three decide, "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend" in order to prevent defeat and subsequent extinction. They defeat party one and form a new government. Someone decides the time is right for a change, and parties two and three begin fighting each other again or another party altogether. This continues because (pick one) 1). Outside forces such as Al Qaeda or The US begin/continue to meddle with the country for political reasons of their own. 2). The now ruling faction is too weak to hold the country together. 3). The now ruling faction in the country is oppressive to other factions within the country. Guns have nothing to do with the violence in Africa, politics does. In 1994 the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda by Hutu tribesmen was carried out mostly with machetes. The country was under a UN Arms Embargo and those Tutsis still died only because they were Tutsis.

"How am I wrong when that's exactly what I said? "Correlation of forces" means manpower and war-making material (existing and capacity). I clearly stated that the North enjoyed superiority in the correlation of forces. It's a perfect example. At least 1/3 of the national population, much of which was already armed (thanks, directly, to the 2nd Amendment), rebelled against, and was defeated by, the Federal Government (in only four years). The idea that 100% of the civilian population would actively support any armed rebellion is simply not realistic. If that was indeed the case, then yeah, governments wouldn't ever behave tyrannically."

I'm sorry for not being clearer here. I was in a hurry as I was next to unload. You state that the Northern Army was comprised of mostly "urban dwellers with a lesser amount of firearms experience." Most of the units in the Civil War were composed of units from Maine and PA. The bulk of these soldiers were farmers who had extensive shooting experience. The New York units were at least half comprised of farmers from Western New York until later in the war. the riots in New York City really did happen just about as they were depicted in the movie The Gangs of New York.
The South was "Outgunned" (artillery), and "Outmanned" (soldiers) from day one of the war; Yet, THEY WON EVERY MAJOR ENGAGEMENT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE WAR. It was only when the Union brought in commanders like Sherman that the Union began to defeat the outnumbered South. They fought a larger and better equipped army to a standstill until the Battle of Gettysburg. If General Lee had listened to General Longstreet instead of "believing his own press" (Lee's), The Confederate States of America might still exist today. This was a very effective demonstration of a military force being outmatched but still prevailing anyway. The Union performance (at least early on) shows us that even if you have superiority in numbers and firepower; Poor leadership will often result in defeat on the battlefield. Strong Leaders often act as a "force multiplier" for military forces in the field.

[swaghauler]

For the record, I'd assume you guys would still have better queuing and ale.

:p

LOL. This would be true until the supplies run out. What I meant by "it could happen in England and Europe" was; What would your civilian population do if your military was broken into factions and released upon the population with no government control, weapons, and a need to eat. I could see a 28 Days Later scenario occuring. How would your civilian populace stop it? Most of the fighting in Africa and the Middle East is based on the need for resources. In Somalia, the warlords would force cooperation from the populace by denying them access to food and water if they didn't "tow the line" for the warlord. I remember watching members of the 2nd MEU and the 24th Mechanized Division disarming land mines that the local clan fighters would put around the wells in the Moge. they would then leave a singular path to the well unmined and collect "Tribute" from the local population for water.

[Raellus]

Guns have nothing to do with the violence in Africa, politics does.

OK, I see that we're done here. Seriously, I really enjoy an intellectually honest, thoughtful, well-informed debate. I am willing to concede when I am wrong and not argue every single point. I trust my opponents to hold to the same standards. However, I can't think of any way to respond to the above quote that isn't dismissive, snarky, or preachy, so I'll just stop right here.

Or here:

The South was "Outgunned" (artillery), and "Outmanned" (soldiers) from day one of the war; Yet, THEY WON EVERY MAJOR ENGAGEMENT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE WAR.

Dude, how do you define "MAJOR ENGAGEMENT"?

Shiloh (1861) was a MAJOR ENGAGEMENT, and a Union victory. Find me a legit historian who disagrees.

http://www.americancivilwarstory.com/list-of-civil-war-battles.html

There are others as well.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa? There are plenty of guns there.
I think this question is looking at the wrong reasons. The reason there are so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa has more to do with the makeup of their societies and their living standards than it does with guns (because if it wasn't guns, it would be spears, machetes and clubs and if not them, then it would be knives and rocks).
Guns certainly make the killing easier but they are not the cause of the violence, the violence is already inherent in their society. For example, when the Hutu majority decided to slaughter Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda, they were more than happy to use machetes even though they could have used their military firearms. Why were they more than content to use a more physical, personal method of killing when they could have kept some personal distance by using the range of a firearm? --- hypothetical question.

I understand where you're coming from with the question but I believe the bigger question is about the society and not so much about their means of redress (i.e. resorting to firearms). And while I generally agree with your point about how well (or not) a citizenry armed with only the basic weapons could stand up to a modern federal military, I can think of four examples where they did enough hurt to a federal military: -
Hungarian militias vs. Hungarian State Protection Authority and Soviet troops (Hungarian Revolution of 1956)
Viet Minh vs. French colonial forces in Indochina,
Mujahideen vs. Soviet forces in Afghanistan,
The militia of Mohamed Farrah Aidid vs. US forces in Somalia.

Even though the first ended in a loss for the citizens (although that did require a full scale invasion by Soviet forces) and the next two examples did involve outside support of those armed citizens, those examples also illustrate the effectiveness of good leadership or a strong common cause to unite the citizens to stand against the government.
I'm not trying to go off on a tangent here, hopefully I'm showing that the makeup of a society and the mentality of its citizens has more influence on how those citizens will act and if/how they unite to seek redress, than their possession of guns does.

[swaghauler]

OK, I see that we're done here. Seriously, I really enjoy an intellectually honest, thoughtful, well-informed debate. I am willing to concede when I am wrong and not argue every single point. However, I can't think of any way to respond to the above that isn't dismissive, snarky, or preachy, so I'll just stop right here.

Or here:



Dude, how do you define "MAJOR ENGAGEMENT"?

Shiloh (1861) was a MAJOR ENGAGEMENT, and a Union victory.

http://www.americancivilwarstory.com/list-of-civil-war-battles.html

There are others as well.

I actually enjoy your posts. I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. That's not my intention. I just feel that too many people place too much "faith" in the "power" of government. Guns make the populace safer ONLY AS LONG AS THE POPULACE DOES ITS PART. I can see The US breaking down under the stress of trying to provide for everyone and everything the government has promised aid to. Guns alone don't make you safe. Like every tool, they can't use themselves (yet). In the end, it is the population which will "allow" a Tyranny to occur, or prevent it. I believe that we shouldn't rule out the ingenuity of the human animal when he feels the need to commit harm for any reason. I have seen people murdered by cars, knives, bricks, boots, baseball bats, electricity, poison, bombs, and a microwave. You don't need guns to create mayhem; All you need is the determination.

You are correct sir. Shiloh was a victory. Why? Look who was commanding the Union Army. Ulysses S. Grant, another strong and innovative leader like Sherman. Imagine if he had been in charge of The Grand Army of The Republic at the beginning of the Civil War. I believe the war would have been MUCH shorter (with a lot less "General sacking" by Lincoln). This is what I was referring to when I talked about strong leaders being force multipliers.

[swaghauler]

I think this question is looking at the wrong reasons. The reason there are so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa has more to do with the makeup of their societies and their living standards than it does with guns (because if it wasn't guns, it would be spears, machetes and clubs and if not them, then it would be knives and rocks).
Guns certainly make the killing easier but they are not the cause of the violence, the violence is already inherent in their society. For example, when the Hutu majority decided to slaughter Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda, they were more than happy to use machetes even though they could have used their military firearms. Why were they more than content to use a more physical, personal method of killing when they could have kept some personal distance by using the range of a firearm? --- hypothetical question.

I understand where you're coming from with the question but I believe the bigger question is about the society and not so much about their means of redress (i.e. resorting to firearms). And while I generally agree with your point about how well (or not) a citizenry armed with only the basic weapons could stand up to a modern federal military, I can think of four examples where they did enough hurt to a federal military: -
Hungarian militias vs. Hungarian State Protection Authority and Soviet troops (Hungarian Revolution of 1956)
Viet Minh vs. French colonial forces in Indochina,
Mujahideen vs. Soviet forces in Afghanistan,
The militia of Mohamed Farrah Aidid vs. US forces in Somalia.

Even though the first ended in a loss for the citizens (although that did require a full scale invasion by Soviet forces) and the next two examples did involve outside support of those armed citizens, those examples also illustrate the effectiveness of good leadership or a strong common cause to unite the citizens to stand against the government.
I'm not trying to go off on a tangent here, hopefully I'm showing that the makeup of a society and the mentality of its citizens has more influence on how those citizens will act and if/how they unite to seek redress, than their possession of guns does.

Well said sir!

[Raellus]

I wonder if my attempts at providing evidence for my original point has confused people. It seems that the forest is being missed for all of the trees. My point- and I stand by it- is simply this: a well-armed population is not a guarantee against tyranny. Insurance policy? Possibly, but warrantee, no.

There are, of course, many other factors at play, especially in Africa. I agree with you both there. This reality, however, supports my main point regarding the United States. One can't simply assume that the Constitutional right of personal firearm ownership means that tyranny can't arise here. I don't even think that firearm ownership even guarantees the right to redress. Are you saying that enlightened western society with democratic, capitalistic values, is immune from tyranny? Surely, not. What about Nazi Germany? And please don't trot out the "if personal firearm ownership had been legal in Germany c. 1933, there wouldn't have been a holocaust" argument because it's simply a counterfactual, Reductio ad Hilterlium logical fallacy.

If you're arguing that a western, democratic, capitalistic society with constitutionally guaranteed personal firearm ownership is immune to tyranny, then I suppose you're right. What's the historical sample size of the just-described nation(s)? Two? Three? Does that prove the theory?

Indeed, there are many examples of relatively poorly equipped guerillas defeating better equipped forces. It certainly can be done. That said, many of the rebellions you cited lasted for decades. Did they fix things? Is Afghanistan today a better place to live than Afghanistan under the Soviets, or under the Taliban? Maybe that's a bad example. How about Iraq? Its tyrant is dead and gone, right? It's a republic now, correct? Would any of us move there today? Hell no. Those places live under what I call the tyranny of the gun.

Yes, other factors besides the proliferation of military grade firearms are at play. I don't know... maybe we agree more than I think we do. To be quite honest, I myself am losing sight of how this debate got started. Perhaps I should stand down and wait for a reset.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I wonder if my attempts at providing evidence for my original point has confused people. It seems that the forest is being missed for all of the trees. My point- and I stand by it- is simply this: a well-armed population is not a guarantee against tyranny. Insurance policy? Possibly, but warrantee, no.
I agree with you on this and I think perhaps I could have expressed my idea in a better way so as something of an attempt at that - weapons alone will not stop a tyranny, the desires & motivations of the people are more of a factor.

There are, of course, many other factors at play, especially in Africa. I agree with you both there. This reality, however, supports my main point regarding the United States. One can't simply assume that the Constitutional right of personal firearm ownership means that tyranny can't arise here. I don't even think that firearm ownership even guarantees the right to redress. Are you saying that enlightened western society with democratic, capitalistic values, is immune from tyranny? Surely, not. What about Nazi Germany? And please don't trot out the "if personal firearm ownership had been legal in Germany c. 1933, there wouldn't have been a holocaust" argument because it's simply a counterfactual, Reductio ad Hilterlium logical fallacy.
Absolutely not, my argument is that the mentality of the people, their desire to condone or condemn or to simply not think about it at all and just accept it, is what makes or breaks a tyranny.

If you're arguing that a western, democratic, capitalistic society with constitutionally guaranteed personal firearm ownership is immune to tyranny, then I suppose you're right. What's the historical sample size of the just-described nation(s)? Two? Three? Does that prove the theory?
No I am not arguing this notion. In fact I would point out Australia as being a prime example of a western, democratic, capitalistic society with a long standing privilege of firearms ownership being open to the tyranny of government. In this case, when a minority enforced their views on the majority via the government.
Specifically, the Franklin River dam project that would have reduced Tasmania's reliance on coal powered electricity (with all the environmental impact from pollution and mining that it entails) by providing a hydro-electric source instead. Environmental activists coerced the federal government to over-rule the Tasmanian state government and the project was abandoned thereby saving a few forest valleys from being flooded -- and so they kept the environmentally "dirtier" coal-fired power stations. It was a short term win for a small sector of the environment but the overall affects of coal-powered stations renders the victory hollow in the long term. It is an example of a minority forcing their views on society irrespective of what might have been better for that society. I label it tyrannical because that minority used the federal government against the desires of the people (i.e. the majority of Tasmania's population). The federal government acted against the majority by forcing the Tasmanian state government to halt work on what should have been a state government matter.

Indeed, there are many examples of relatively poorly equipped guerillas defeating better equipped forces. It certainly can be done. That said, many of the rebellions you cited lasted for decades. Did they fix things? Is Afghanistan today a better place to live than Afghanistan under the Soviets, or under the Taliban? Maybe that's a bad example. How about Iraq? Its tyrant is dead and gone, right? It's a republic now, correct? Would any of us move there today? Hell no. Those places live under what I call the tyranny of the gun.
My point wasn't about whether they are republics, tyrant-free or even free societies, it was that a sufficiently motivated group can make a change - for good or for bad - and that the motivation, not the gun, makes that change.

Yes, other factors besides the proliferation of military grade firearms are at play. I don't know... maybe we agree more than I think we do. To be quite honest, I myself am losing sight of how this debate got started. Perhaps I should stand down and wait for a reset.
I believe we do agree and my point was I believe, in line with your overall view. I was attempting to show that motivation makes the change. For example, the majority view of some Westerners that firearms ownership in the USA causes crime, is not just simplistic but probably dangerous as well. It is only a small part of the equation but the reason there is crime in the US is not because of such a simplistic answer.
I would ask, why do some people in western societies feel violence is an acceptable answer to their problems, what caused those problems in the first place and so on?
Again, I come back to the motivations of the people in causing (or not) change in their societies.

[simonmark6]

In the situation you describe, Swag, we'd be lucky if we had armed factions running around to extort food and terrorise people. We aren't a Third World country used to scrapping along on the bottom of the barrel and subsisting on what we can grow. We are a nation of nearly seventy million people in a country that you can walk across in less than ten days and walk the length of in two to three weeks. No area apart from a very few are more than a week's walk from a population concentration of ten million people or so.
Add to that the fact that we have about three weeks' of food in storage and the capacity to feed at best a tenth of our population off our farmland then any situation that led to a breakdown of our armed forces into warring factions is going to mean that we have seventy million starving people swarming the country in search of food.
I doubt that any amount of guns is going to be able to stop that. If you are positing a situation where society breaks down militarily yet we are still able to feed the population for long enough to be oppressed and terrorised by factions then I can't see what circumstances would lead to that.
The 28 Days later scenario needs some sort of major disaster hat kills off large numbers of the population before they can use up all the supplies. That means a disaster that kill 99% of the population in less than two weeks. If we have faced a problem of that magnitude, we're going to be more worried about the sixty million rotting bodies spreading disease amongst the survivors than a few squaddie survivors with guns terrorising a population of survivors.
That said, I have no problem with Americans bearing arms: it is the will of the people that the population can go armed and I support that with every fibre of my body.
I also respect your right to express your opinions about the political system that I live under and support. It is the will of the majority of our population that guns are regulated. There is no right or wrong in either system just different although I am a little fed up with the attitude of some American pro-gun supporters (Not anybody on these pages I hasten to add) who state that the British are some sort of sheep who are terrorised by an oppressive government who deny us our God-given right to carry weaponry around wherever we wish. I am a proud participant in our democratic process and whilst I disapprove of many of the policies of the governments that represent me I fully support the rule of law presented to us by our democratically elected representatives, just as I would support the same establishments in America and as I support your right to bear arms and engage in democratic lobbying ad discussion should you feel those rights are being eroded.
In short, I am not criticising the American ways and I would appreciate it if such courtesies were reciprocated.
As for my earlier posts, people from America expressed an interest in a UK resident's take on whether there was a right of redress established in English law before the American Revolution. There was, it may not have been ideal or easy for the common person to access, but it was there. That does not suggest that I feel it was better than the American alternative, it merely means that it existed.
Personally, I feel the American system was fairer from the start but part of that stems from the fact that the drafters of the Constitution were able o build upon precedent and correct the perceived injustices rather than try to work within a system that had been evolving through the use of interpretation and precedence over several hundred years.
I have nothing more to contribute to this debate and I'm worried that I'm getting combative therefore I'll bow out. This isn't because I have been offended by anything anyone has said, the quality of debate is, as always, excellent but I can feel my passions rising and I try to never post angry.
I will continue to watch the posts with interest.

[Targan]

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence? There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone?). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not? More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis-à-vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny? Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

I've recently been reading about the armed conflicts that arose in West Virginia from 1912 right through the 1920s, as a result (from my interpretation of events) of the free market capitalism system running completely amok. The Battle of Blair Mountain is one example. Coal miners were being treated EXTREMELY poorly by the coal companies of the time, and when they tried to seek redress they first had quasi-legal hired thugs set on them, then at one stage an armored train being driven past tent cities with machine gun fire pouring out indiscriminately, and eventually when thousands of miners armed themselves and tried to fight back, the Federal Army was sent in and suppressed all dissent.

In those events the US State-Federal system, the judiciary, the police and eventually the professional military were all used to back the tyranny of powerful business interests, and the hard-working working folk were brutalised into submission. Any opportunity for redress under those circumstances were slim at best, utter fantasy at worst.

Dark days in the history of American industrial relations I'd say.

[stormlion1]

There was a time after World War 2 it went another way. Some Veterans went against the established family controlled police and government due to there rampant abuse of power and when that established government seized the voting ballots and boxes to keep them from being counted the veterans fought back. And won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[.45cultist]

I've recently been reading about the armed conflicts that arose in West Virginia from 1912 right through the 1920s, as a result (from my interpretation of events) of the free market capitalism system running completely amok. The Battle of Blair Mountain is one example. Coal miners were being treated EXTREMELY poorly by the coal companies of the time, and when they tried to seek redress they first had quasi-legal hired thugs set on them, then at one stage an armored train being driven past tent cities with machine gun fire pouring out indiscriminately, and eventually when thousands of miners armed themselves and tried to fight back, the Federal Army was sent in and suppressed all dissent.

In those events the US State-Federal system, the judiciary, the police and eventually the professional military were all used to back the tyranny of powerful business interests, and the hard-working working folk were brutalised into submission. Any opportunity for redress under those circumstances were slim at best, utter fantasy at worst.

Dark days in the history of American industrial relations I'd say.

Robber Barons bought the U. S. Govt at one point during that era, thier influence soiled policies and politics even today.

[.45cultist]

Well said sir!

Don't forget tires and gasoline necklaces, man alays finds a means to an end. BTW, long, strong and CIVIL thread in an age where internet facelessness breeds horrid conduct. BRAVO to all involved!!!

[Webstral]

The Battle of Athens is a unique circumstance in which the veterans in question outbluffed a crooked law enforcement establishment. I realize that “outbluff” seems an odd word to apply to a pitched battle involving firearms. I use the term in that each side faced the prospect of state and federal reprisal. The veterans ran the risk of being rounded up and charged for the crime of using deadly force against law enforcement. The law enforcement agency in question had the option of calling in reinforcements from higher up the chain. They didn’t call in reinforcements or undertake to arrest the offenders because any counteraction by the law enforcement body in question would have led directly to an investigation of their illegal activity regarding the ballot box. In this instance, the cure (involving sufficient manpower and firepower to overcome the veterans in question) would have been infinitely worse than the disease (losing control of a ballot box they had no legal claim to control in the first place). This the veterans turned the usual threat of reprisal for breaking the law around on local law enforcement. Were the law enforcement establishment in question to have had greater faith in the positive outcome of bringing in help from higher authority, the outcome for the veterans would have been quite different.

[.45cultist]

I actually enjoy your posts. I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. That's not my intention. I just feel that too many people place too much "faith" in the "power" of government. Guns make the populace safer ONLY AS LONG AS THE POPULACE DOES ITS PART. I can see The US breaking down under the stress of trying to provide for everyone and everything the government has promised aid to. Guns alone don't make you safe. Like every tool, they can't use themselves (yet). In the end, it is the population which will "allow" a Tyranny to occur, or prevent it. I believe that we shouldn't rule out the ingenuity of the human animal when he feels the need to commit harm for any reason. I have seen people murdered by cars, knives, bricks, boots, baseball bats, electricity, poison, bombs, and a microwave. You don't need guns to create mayhem; All you need is the determination.

You are correct sir. Shiloh was a victory. Why? Look who was commanding the Union Army. Ulysses S. Grant, another strong and innovative leader like Sherman. Imagine if he had been in charge of The Grand Army of The Republic at the beginning of the Civil War. I believe the war would have been MUCH shorter (with a lot less "General sacking" by Lincoln). This is what I was referring to when I talked about strong leaders being force multipliers.

Lack of participation, and a desire that someone else be bothered with the work of managing things is a wide spread problem.

[Webstral]

I echo the sentiments of others that the debate here has retained a gentlemanly character. I expect that here, but my expectation should not diminish credit due.


I think we can generally agree that capacity is no guarantee of delivery. Mere possession of arms does not necessarily lead to a commitment to republican values by those possessing arms any more than mere possession of wealth leads to thrift or good investment habits. Possession of arms without responsibility of service is a[n Alexander] Hamiltonian idea that gained traction in the early 1800’s. The logic given at the time was that the yeomanry couldn’t be bothered with something so unprofitable as reserve service.


As with all things dependent on human psychology, the Framers worked with likelihoods. There’s no guarantee, for instance, that a given man will be able to stand his ground on the battlefield or execute his orders under fire. However, the United States Marine Corps has concluded that three months of Boot Camp executed in a certain fashion will yield a very high proportion of disciplined and cohesive new Marines. On balance, a regimen of discipline and training will yield troops superior to those who have not undergone such a regimen.


By the same token, a body of troops accustomed to taking orders from a popularly elected chief executive through the officers delegated his authority is more likely to retain a commitment to this republican modality than a body of troops who authority is derived from their own capacity for violence. Training and experience powerfully influence behavior on the battlefield.


The Civil War illustrates my point about the checks and balances built into a states’ militia and its potential for armed rebellion against the federal government. I’ll back up a bit and reiterate a couple of my earlier points. What follows is rather a rough draft and so will be a bit disjointed. I’ll try to close the loop by the end.


The State cannot guarantee the citizenry the right to access arms optimized for military operations against the State. It’s inconceivable. Individuals have the opportunity to seek redress through the courts. Larger groups have the opportunity to seek redress through the courts or through the legislature and executive by voting. These means of redress are adequate, according to the premises upon which the republic is based. Equipping individuals for alternative means of redress implies that the Framers did not believe in the ability of the republic to function as intended. Moreover, equipping individuals or small groups to seek redress of ills by means of arms makes a farce of the entire idea of representative government and the social contract associated with republicanism.


This much said, the State—in this case, the constitutional federal republic of the United States of America—can equip its citizenry to overthrow a successor state in the event the republic is transformed into a tyranny. In other words, the State cannot logically equip its citizens to overthrow it. The State may, however, equip its citizens to overthrow a successor State which may have replaced the republic. The logic for this is that the State exists, in part, to secure the rights of its citizenry. Those rights presumably exist whether the State is in effect or not. The State therefore is within its purview to equip its citizens to restore the republic for the purpose of defending their rights in the event that the republic ceases to function as a consequence of becoming a Tyranny.


How do we determine whether a successor state, which I will call a Tyranny, has replaced the State? That is up to the electorate through their legislature. If a majority of the legislature of the State of Franklin pass a bill declaring that the federal government has become a Tyranny and that Franklin shall no longer be bound to the federal government in its Tyrannical form, that bill becomes law in Franklin. The same is true of each and every other state.


This goes back to the militia in that the militia as defined in 1787 takes to the field on the orders of the state chief executive. The militia is funded a regulated by the legislature. The militia is the primary arm of the military of a small republic, many of which comprise the federal republic. While there is no ironclad guarantee that under every circumstance the militia will execute their orders from the governor, training, discipline, and habit are powerful forces.


A logic of probability applies. A force of reservists who are equipped with military grade small arms and who are properly drilled in their use is more likely to successfully combat opposing professionals than a force of non-regulars with military grade small arms or a force of reservists lacking military grade small arms. A militia organized and trained to fight under the command of an elected chief executive is more likely to continue taking orders under stress and confusion than a force of non-regulars unaccustomed to operating under the command of an elected chief executive. Militiamen fighting as the military arm of a small republic (a state) are more likely to fight to reinstate a fallen federal republic than armed citizens fighting for their perceived rights as distinct from the will of the electorate. Troops with unit cohesion and discipline derived from long experience together are more likely to prevail on the battlefield than troops without such unit cohesion and discipline. The same body is troops is more likely to retain its integrity following a reversal on the battlefield than troops lacking in unit cohesion and discipline. Trained and disciplined reservists are more likely to behave in a fashion befitting citizen-soldiers than any other body of non-regular troops; thus militiamen are less likely to turn to settling old scores in the event of a seismic shift in political or social stability than other types of armed civilians. While none of what I have written can be called certain, warfare offers no certainties. One deals in likelihoods.


Getting back to the issue of the militia versus the professional force, a rather elegant set of checks and balances exists. The federal government of the early United States possessed the means to combat one state but not the means to defeat a majority of states acting in concert. Within each state, the militia can be put into the field against federal forces under the command of the chief executive (using the authority derived from the electorate) based on a declaration by the legislature (using their authority derived from the electorate) that the State in its incarnation of a republic had become a Tyranny. A majority of legislators, presumably representing the will of a majority of the electorate, would be required to create the legal basis for the forces of the state to be used against the forces of the Tyranny.


Beyond the actions of a single state would be the decisions of a plurality of states. Systemic abuses of the rights of the citizenry might be perceived by the citizens of Franklin to be sufficient evidence that the republic had become a Tyranny. However, the citizens of Jefferson or Baja Arizona might not agree. In order for the various states to amass the combat power to overcome the professional forces of the federal government, the abuses by the Tyranny would have to be sufficiently systemic and widespread to arouse the citizens of a critical mass of states for enough militia combat power to take to the field successfully.


All of this goes back to the Civil War. As we all know, a number of states seceded from the Union. Their legislatures went through the necessary proceedings. Their militia took to the field. They captured federal troops and facilities within their borders. So far, so good.


It should be noted, however, that the goal of the Confederacy never was to replace the federal government. Secession serves as a frank admission that what the Confederates perceived as systemic abuses of the rights of the citizens (or, more precisely, the interests of the people who controlled the state legislatures in the Deep South) was not perceived the same way by the majority of the citizenry of the United States. The war that followed was the outcome of the failure of the Deep South to carry majority opinion regarding the abuses of their rights. Had the Northern states been in agreement with the Confederacy, the federal government would have been swept away. In a very real sense, then, the Civil War conformed precisely to the balance of power built into the states’ militia establishment. The superior industrialization of the North reinforced the decision of the majority that the federal government was not trampling on the rights of the citizenry.

[Webstral]

Indeed, there are many examples of relatively poorly equipped guerillas defeating better equipped forces. It certainly can be done. That said, many of the rebellions you cited lasted for decades.

This is a critical idea in the rebellion-against-tyranny interpretation of the Second Amendment. Just as rebellion by Whoppers [WOuld-Be Patriot Revolutionaries, or WOBPR] is the 800lb gorilla in any discussion of why the average American has the right to own an AR-15, the type of war to be fought is the 800lb gorilla in the room of the war of popular liberation. The question is not what the Whoppers would like to believe. The question is what the Founding Fathers believed.

Let us engage in an exercise of compare-and-contrast. I will use two examples to set the right and left margins of a spectrum. The first example will be a revolution executed by a well-established militia movement—a well-regulated militia, if one will. The second will be a revolution executed by Whoppers in possession of firearms but no other military qualities.

A well-regulated militia established in all 50 states and disposing manpower equal to 10% of the population with suitable personal equipment would field some 31 million combatants. In reality, the number of militiamen is never likely to approach 30 million. I’m setting boundaries, though. As the emergence of a Tyranny became more apparent, and assuming that the massive ballot box power of 31 million men under arms was insufficient to prevent the rise of a domestic despot, the militia would drill at lesser intervals. Plans for seizing federal assets and otherwise neutralizing federal advantages in combat power by sheer, raw numbers of light infantry attacking 100,000 targets in rapid succession need not be especially sophisticated. Coordination would be a problem, of course. However, the logic of throttling federal bases by shutting down all the roads in and out of federal facilities ought to be self-evident. Execution would be highly uneven. However, the overwhelming weight of adequately equipped, adequately disciplined, and adequately trained light infantry units operating in their own states would serve to offset the advantages that otherwise would accrue to the professional forces.

At the other extreme would be Whoppers with guns but no organization, training, or discipline. Control of many locales—even important locales—would be imparted to them initially. However, without planning, organization, or discipline, masses of armed civilians would be completely incapable of securing any given area against the overwhelming combat power of federal forces capable of concentrating virtually at will. In full possession of the initiative and operating against lightly-equipped forces will all of the coordination and cohesiveness of grains of sand, federal forces would soon inflict massive losses on the Whoppers wherever the logic of circumstances dictated. Without cohesion, discipline, or any sort of operational plan, the Whoppers would quickly fragment.

In short order, a relative handful of survivors would flee to the woods to act out their “Red Dawn” fantasies. Even if their guerilla war ultimately were successful, it would take years—perhaps decades. Loss of life would be enormous. Loss of property and productivity would be staggering. The nation would be in tatters by the end.

So we must ask ourselves what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Would they prefer the rapid application of superior numbers to achieve a coup de main resulting in the prompt restoration of the republic, or would they prefer an agonizing guerilla war like the one waged successfully by Mao or the Zimbabwean communists? We should bear in mind that the second option would always remain open if the first option failed, but the first option cannot present itself if the assumption is that the Founding Fathers preferred Mao’s solution. I think the answer is obvious. No one who calls himself a patriot can possibly believe that a drawn-out war of liberation by Red Dawners is preferable to a coup de main by a massive militia establishment.

None of what I have written in favor of a robust states’ militia establishment should be interpreted as lack of awareness of the obstacles involved. Even assuming 31 million men and women could be put under arms as modern militiamen, the ability of such a force to execute a coup de main against the United States military is very much in doubt. No one in 1787 could have foreseen the stupendous growth in combat power that would accrue to professional forces. Federal forces would possess huge advantages in firepower, mobility, survivability, flexibility, communications, logistical support, training, and discipline. Regular infantry and armored units of the Army and Marines would eradicate their militia counterparts. However, the support people who would have to get out on the road to keep the maneuver units fighting would be highly vulnerable. The rules of guerilla fighting would take on a whole new meaning as federal support columns attempted to navigate a virtual sea of militia infantry operating with some measure of organization, discipline, and training. Losses on both sides would be terrible, but the militia would get the worst of it by far. The militia objective would be to bleed the federal forces through a thousand cuts, all delivered over a short period of time.

None of the above is particularly original. What can separate states’ militia from the standard guerilla experience is their pre-existence. Whereas the usual guerilla movement builds slowly, enabling the opposition to adapt as well, a coup de main by a massive militia movement would have the advantage of striking at multiple critical points. Ammunition factories could be seized, sabotaged, even destroyed while federal forces are busy securing other important facilities. Bridges can be blown, etc. Federal forces might find themselves without ammunition in one place, without fuel in another, and without the means to connect the islands under their control in a sufficiently systematic way to keep their efforts from winding down across the theater.

What I’m proposing is a tall order. One can raise a myriad of objections to the idea that a massive militia establishment might ever build to the point at which such action is possible. I freely acknowledge as much. What I will assert, though, is that the Whopper-Red Dawn vision cannot possibly deliver a coup de main. An extended an agonizing war of liberation is the only option they can deliver, whether such an effort ends in success or failure. Would the Founding Fathers have preferred at least to have the option of a coup de main with its limited duration and cost in lives and treasure? I believe the answer is a resounding yes.

[Anna Elizabeth]

I think that there is a tendency anymore for groups of people to withdraw into self-made bubbles of thought and talk. Right-wing, Left-Wing, or whatevers, if all the data you absorb and conversations you have re-enforce your worldview, you can get locked into very negative thinking.

I think that is a big part of these conspiracy theories about Jade Helm, FEMA, and the like.

I'm not meaning to insult people, more to just say I think we all owe it to ourselves to question what we know, look at alternate viewpoints, and ask ourselves if we are wrong. I used to know a guy that thought GW Bush would refuse to step down after 2008, but later went on *epic* rants if you criticized Obama in the slightest way.

My .02 cents, anyway. :)

~Anna

[rcaf_777]

Magna Carta Article 61

The Canadian Army View on the Magna Carta

[Targan]

I think that there is a tendency anymore for groups of people to withdraw into self-made bubbles of thought and talk. Right-wing, Left-Wing, or whatevers, if all the data you absorb and conversations you have re-enforce your worldview, you can get locked into very negative thinking.

I think that is a big part of these conspiracy theories about Jade Helm, FEMA, and the like.

I'm not meaning to insult people, more to just say I think we all owe it to ourselves to question what we know, look at alternate viewpoints, and ask ourselves if we are wrong. I used to know a guy that thought GW Bush would refuse to step down after 2008, but later went on *epic* rants if you criticized Obama in the slightest way.

So very true. I have entrenched attitudes on many things, but from time to time I try really hard to step back and take an objective look at my opinions and views just to make sure I'm not lying to myself or ignoring facts to try and protect my cherished beliefs.

[Anna Elizabeth]

Targan - exactly. I think every person owes it to themselves to take a look at what we believe once in a while, put ourselves to the test.

[swaghauler]

Lack of participation, and a desire that someone else be bothered with the work of managing things is a wide spread problem.

Agreed. This will be a "prime contributer" to any US downfall.

[Raellus]

The media- and the internet, in particular- have made it very easy for people with any POV to only see/hear/read "news" that only supports that very same POV. The right has media outlets that cater to right-wing views and the left has its own left-leaning ones. Those that try to occupy the space between get shouted out by the increasingly extreme elements at the far end of both sides. It seems like nowadays people have to actively seek out POVs that don't readily coincide with their own. Unfortunately, this takes too much work for many, so they tend to gravitate back to the mouthpieces that exclusively spout what they already believe. A lot of people don't want their beliefs to be challenged. It's easier to dismiss information that challenges one's belief system than it is to alter one's belief system to account for information that challenges it.

Click one time on a new article from a particular internet news source and the algorithms used by Google, Yahoo, IE, etc. will, in the future, show you more and more articles from that particular source and those like it. Over time, you'll more or less only see news from a handful of sources that share the same affinity/bias.

For example, those who believed that Jade Helm was a nefarious government plot likely clicked on links articles about said with more alarmist titles. These directed them to more extreme "news" outlets which only reinforced these folks' beliefs. The more of these they clicked on, the more they were shown. After a while, it would be easy to think that that one point of view was the only one.

Look up CONFIRMATION BIAS. Media increasingly plays to this psychological phenomenon, especially the digital variety.

IMHO, this is a MAJOR reason, if not the reason, why politics are becoming so polarizing (here in the U.S.A., at least- I can't speak for others' nations).

[kato13]

Another suggestion is to always check sources and verify ANY fact you see. (I increased the timeout on the site recently because I often spend more than an hour verifying before I post something)

No site is perfect. Snopes.com which is considered to be the best site for debunking Urban legends, but they purposely have put at least 8 false stories on their site (one of which tricked me for years). The reason they did this is that they ALWAYS want a person to check multiple sources before they consider something to be fact.

Numbers presented should also not be trusted at first glance. If I put my mind to it I could probably list over 100 gross manipulations of numbers that I have found over the last 30 years (and have probably been exposed to hundreds more). Check sources, check methodology, check sample size, check biases, check modeling rules. This can be hard but if a subject is worth your attention, it is worth having as many of the the facts as possible.

[Anna Elizabeth]

Raellus makes a good point that people aren't necessarily acting out of malice when they are in their bubble. I think you'll all be unsurprised that my politics are very liberal. But liberals are very prone to confirmation bias, and what irks me more is a kind of self-congratulatory circle-jerk behavior. I really try to seek out alternate points of view. Part of it is I'm kind of naturally contrary and distrusting of "authority". XD

Even some of the wilder things you find on the web, the UFOs, the weird Fortean things, I like to look at them because it reminds me we don't have all the answers.

I like what kato is saying about looking it up, too. I believe a lot of what is called "news" is deliberate propaganda, which is another reason I look at a lot of different things.

[swaghauler]

In the situation you describe, Swag, we'd be lucky if we had armed factions running around to extort food and terrorise people. We aren't a Third World country used to scrapping along on the bottom of the barrel and subsisting on what we can grow. We are a nation of nearly seventy million people in a country that you can walk across in less than ten days and walk the length of in two to three weeks. No area apart from a very few are more than a week's walk from a population concentration of ten million people or so.
Add to that the fact that we have about three weeks' of food in storage and the capacity to feed at best a tenth of our population off our farmland then any situation that led to a breakdown of our armed forces into warring factions is going to mean that we have seventy million starving people swarming the country in search of food.
I doubt that any amount of guns is going to be able to stop that. If you are positing a situation where society breaks down militarily yet we are still able to feed the population for long enough to be oppressed and terrorised by factions then I can't see what circumstances would lead to that.
The 28 Days later scenario needs some sort of major disaster hat kills off large numbers of the population before they can use up all the supplies. That means a disaster that kill 99% of the population in less than two weeks. If we have faced a problem of that magnitude, we're going to be more worried about the sixty million rotting bodies spreading disease amongst the survivors than a few squaddie survivors with guns terrorising a population of survivors.
That said, I have no problem with Americans bearing arms: it is the will of the people that the population can go armed and I support that with every fibre of my body.
I also respect your right to express your opinions about the political system that I live under and support. It is the will of the majority of our population that guns are regulated. There is no right or wrong in either system just different although I am a little fed up with the attitude of some American pro-gun supporters (Not anybody on these pages I hasten to add) who state that the British are some sort of sheep who are terrorised by an oppressive government who deny us our God-given right to carry weaponry around wherever we wish. I am a proud participant in our democratic process and whilst I disapprove of many of the policies of the governments that represent me I fully support the rule of law presented to us by our democratically elected representatives, just as I would support the same establishments in America and as I support your right to bear arms and engage in democratic lobbying ad discussion should you feel those rights are being eroded.
In short, I am not criticising the American ways and I would appreciate it if such courtesies were reciprocated.
As for my earlier posts, people from America expressed an interest in a UK resident's take on whether there was a right of redress established in English law before the American Revolution. There was, it may not have been ideal or easy for the common person to access, but it was there. That does not suggest that I feel it was better than the American alternative, it merely means that it existed.
Personally, I feel the American system was fairer from the start but part of that stems from the fact that the drafters of the Constitution were able o build upon precedent and correct the perceived injustices rather than try to work within a system that had been evolving through the use of interpretation and precedence over several hundred years.
I have nothing more to contribute to this debate and I'm worried that I'm getting combative therefore I'll bow out. This isn't because I have been offended by anything anyone has said, the quality of debate is, as always, excellent but I can feel my passions rising and I try to never post angry.
I will continue to watch the posts with interest.

My point was not to criticize Great Britain but to point out the conditions there in game. When you look at the Version 2.2 list of British Nuclear Targets; You have exactly that mass extinction event I was talking about. Assuming the "Best Case Scenario" of 10 km surrounding the airburst being totally uninhabitable due to fallout and secondary disasters (industrial explosions, natural gas explosions, toxic or human waste release, etc) you are looking at the loss of nearly 1000 km of habitable land after plotting the strikes on a map. Chernobyl and Fukushima both have taught us the dangers of radioactive releases into the atmosphere. While the more deadly remnants of an airburst will decline to a temporarily safe level (without remediation) in about 2 years; Chernobyl has shown us that poisonous Caesium 137 (a byproduct of Nuclear weapons and liquid metal cooled reactors, but not found in atomic bombs or water cooled reactors) still needed remediation TEN YEARS after the accident to avoid poisoning humans with food or water from the contaminated soil. These nuclear attacks would claim at least half of the British population directly or indirectly. The remaining population would be forced into a much smaller physical region in order to avoid the ongoing environmental disasters. This "population pressure" combined with only a small portion of the populace being armed would create the situation I'm talking about. That very same situation was created right here in America during the Katrina disaster. After Katrina hit; the local authorities confiscated the resident's firearms and then left. Local gang members and people who entered the disaster area looking for "salvage" (the words of those who were prosecuted for looting) did not surrender their firearms. A trend of wholesale robbery began as the gang members took precious resources from the unarmed inhabitants. only when federally contracted security officers from Blackwater and Securitas showed up did the looting stop. It can happen ANYWHERE. It even happened here.
It would be worse in both Poland and Germany. I could see as much as 25% to 30% of their territory being essentially uninhabitable after "The Exchange" has subsided.
Russia, The US, Canada, and Australia would fare much better. Why? The US would be severely damaged at the coastline but much of her interior would be untouched. Looking at GDW's map; I would estimate The US has about 10% of her coastal landmass listed as uninhabitable. The people who were subject to the attacks not only have the ability to defend themselves but also the ability to "migrate" from the affected areas. The Australians, Canadians, and Russians may not have the same level of personal armament as US citizens; But they too have a very large geographic area to flee into.

This does bring up a couple of flaws in GDW's line of thinking. I don't believe that either side would risk even "limited nuclear war." First; Is there really such a thing? I don't think so. How do you know what your enemy's intention really is? Even a limited "strike" could trigger a "total retaliation" by the enemy. That's why I envision The Exchange occuring much later in the timeline. I think it would occur in 1999 with both NATO and Chinese forces knocking on Russia's doorstep. The ideological push would be a launch with a ground offensive in followup. The Russians would then "sue for peace" right at the tail end of the offensive. This is where I place my 5th Division crew. Ten months after The Exchange, and at the tail end of a fitful nine month offensive that sees EVERYONE essentially destroyed and incapable of any large organised action.

[Raellus]

This does bring up a couple of flaws in GDW's line of thinking. I don't believe that either side would risk even "limited nuclear war." First; Is there really such a thing? I don't think so. How do you know what your enemy's intention really is? Even a limited "strike" could trigger a "total retaliation" by the enemy. That's why I envision The Exchange occuring much later in the timeline. I think it would occur in 1999 with both NATO and Chinese forces knocking on Russia's doorstep. The ideological push would be a launch with a ground offensive in followup. The Russians would then "sue for peace" right at the tail end of the offensive. This is where I place my 5th Division crew. Ten months after The Exchange, and at the tail end of a fitful nine month offensive that sees EVERYONE essentially destroyed and incapable of any large organised action.

I think that "limited nuclear war" isn't entirely implausible. As long as both parties stuck to tactical/battlefield nukes, judiciously applied in small batches, a general exchange could, I think, be avoided. It's simply a chess-game of tit-for-tat strikes. "You hit my Army Group's most important regional transportation hub", I hit yours. You hit my reserve troop concentration, I hit yours, etc." This could go on for some time without tipping the balance enough to force a general, strategic nuclear strike.

It's once ICBMs are employed that it gets really iffy. Both sides were poised for massive retaliation (MAD, if you will). An ICBM or SLBM launch would trigger all kinds of warnings and since one couldn't be sure what the target/s was/were (MRVs meant that a single ICBM could strike multiple targets), it would be much more difficult to simply match force without leaving oneself at a strategic disadvantage. I doubt that either side would say, "let's just see where these land before we retaliate". Maybe once, but after that? I think that once detections systems picked up the launch of an ICBM, all bets would be off. Land, air, and sea-launched nuclear-armed cruise missiles could also be used to avoid this event horizon.

[Targan]

Russia, The US, Canada, and Australia would fare much better. Why? The US would be severely damaged at the coastline but much of her interior would be untouched. Looking at GDW's map; I would estimate The US has about 10% of her coastal landmass listed as uninhabitable. The people who were subject to the attacks not only have the ability to defend themselves but also the ability to "migrate" from the affected areas. The Australians, Canadians, and Russians may not have the same level of personal armament as US citizens; But they too have a very large geographic area to flee into.

It's a nice thought, but the majority of Australia is somewhere between marginally habitable and uninhabitable, at least for modern Australians. There's a reason there are so few big cities in Australia and the vast bulk of the population is clustered along the east coast and on the south west coast - most of the rest of the continent is badlands, desert or tropical wilderness filled with crocodiles and mosquitoes.

[Schone23666]

It's a nice thought, but the majority of Australia is somewhere between marginally habitable and uninhabitable, at least for modern Australians. There's a reason there are so few big cities in Australia and the vast bulk of the population is clustered along the east coast and on the south west coast - most of the rest of the continent is badlands, desert or tropical wilderness filled with crocodiles and mosquitoes.

I sometimes think that whatever created the Earth, specifically created the land mass that would come to be known as Australia as A: a mad alien scientist's breeding ground, and/or B: an experimental playpen when the humans showed up. No offense. :p

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Schone, I think you missed a C. option
C. Breeding/testing ground for WETKY** Snakes.


** WETKY -- We Exist To Kill You.


Targan didn't mention that when it comes to dangerous wildlife, quite a bit of it can be found in towns and cities and even on beaches regularly attended by people.
I live in the same city as Targan and at my old workplace, we would get juvenile Dugite snakes coming into the building through the warehouse area and we'd sometime discover adult Dugites sleeping under pallets or hiding under cars in the carpark.

Now Dugites are quite dangerous but they're on the lower end of the scale, the adults prefer to avoid humans so while they're potentially lethal, they tend to get out of your way and while the juveniles are very aggressive much of the time, their venom isn't concentrated enough to kill. But just in case you think they aren't something to worry about, in 2011 a primary school aged boy was bitten by a Dugite that found its way into his bedroom and snuggled up to him while he slept. The boy made a full recovery.

Unfortunately, our towns are also home sometimes to the Tiger Snake. Tiger Snakes also generally prefer to avoid humans and generally prefer to be in the rural areas but you should just keep the hell away from them anyway because even if they aren't cornered, they may decide to chase you just because they can... I know from personal experience and the damned snake followed my friend and I for a good 50 metres before we managed to kill it (we were in a horse paddock, so it was either us, the horses or the snake, we chose the snake after the bastard chose us).

Then we start going up the scale a quite a bit with a snake that's both deadly and an urban dweller, the Eastern Brown Snake. Even juveniles can kill an adult human and while the Eastern Brown is mostly located on the east coast or in the north, it has a relative, the Gwardar AKA the Western Brown Snake. This little charmer is often more aggressive than the Eastern Brown, it's probably pissed that its venom isn't as deadly as the Eastern Brown so it makes up for it by delivering a larger quantity of venom and also by trying to bite you several times.

Now to put that into some perspective, I've encountered all three of these snakes (most often the Dugite but a Western Brown in the backyard killed one of our cats) at least once every three or four years in this city.

There's a few others that fortunately live away from urban areas that are more dangerous such as the Inland Taipan and the Belcher's Sea Snake.

[Targan]

Unfortunately, our towns are also home sometimes to the Tiger Snake. Tiger Snakes also generally prefer to avoid humans and generally prefer to be in the rural areas but you should just keep the hell away from them anyway because even if they aren't cornered, they may decide to chase you just because they can... I know from personal experience and the damned snake followed my friend and I for a good 50 metres before we managed to kill it (we were in a horse paddock, so it was either us, the horses or the snake, we chose the snake after the bastard chose us).

I was chased by a tiger snake when I was a teenager. Those are some bloody angry snakes.

I couldn't count the number of stories from friends and family about dogs being killed by snakes. Nearly lost a cat to a snake bite once too, but amazingly she recovered. Tough little thing. Dunno what kind of snake bit her.

I lived on an island off Dampier when I was a kid and we caught several sea snakes by accident when we were out fishing. Many sea snake species are incredibly venomous but luckily their fangs aren't well-suited to biting humans.

As you'd well know, Stainless, Australian children are taught from an early age to check under the seats of outdoor toilets for redback spiders. They've killed many a kid with a bite on the arse. :(

[swaghauler]

I'm not sure if I own enough "snake shot" (birdshot in pistol rounds) to live in Australia....

[.45cultist]

I'm not sure if I own enough "snake shot" (birdshot in pistol rounds) to live in Australia....

That reminds me, need to look for CCI..... and I second that!

[Legbreaker]

I'm not sure if I own enough "snake shot" (birdshot in pistol rounds) to live in Australia....

You really think that's heavy enough? This is Australia where even the "tiny" mosquitoes are a serious threat to life and limb.

[LT. Ox]

You really think that's heavy enough? This is Australia where even the "tiny" mosquitoes are a serious threat to life and limb.
"how do you tell Australian Mosquitoes apart?"
" By their tattoos"

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Up north, the mosquitoes are so big they have to register all flights with Air Traffic Control...

[Legbreaker]

I remember one exercise next to a swamp where the mosquitoes were so big they were biting through our webbing straps!
And the numbers! At least a dozen per square inch!
Needless to say we didn't get much sleep, and I'm not sure if it was the lack of sleep or blood loss that made us so tired.

[Targan]

You was lucky. When I were a lad, there were mosquitoes so big they'd carry children away to drink them dry of all blood later.

[Legbreaker]

Pfft! Is that all?
When we woke up (those who managed to sleep) we'd been moved several metres from where we'd started. Good thing we were fully grown adults or...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Pfft! When I were lad, we 'ad it really tough. We 'ad to catch our own mosquitoes, in the dark, drain our own blood and then forcefeed it to them.
All before supper!

[Legbreaker]

Now you're just taking the piss. ;)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Now you're just taking the piss. ;)

:D

[swaghauler]

You really think that's heavy enough? This is Australia where even the "tiny" mosquitoes are a serious threat to life and limb.

I can always use buckshot. It's the standard "anti-varmint" load around here.

[swaghauler]

Pfft! Is that all?
When we woke up (those who managed to sleep) we'd been moved several metres from where we'd started. Good thing we were fully grown adults or...

Just came back from a long run to New Orleans. The mosquitoes down there have "Boeing" printed on their wings.

[LT. Ox]

Just came back from a long run to New Orleans. The mosquitoes down there have "Boeing" printed on their wings.

Yeah and the tail number and location of origin.

At Fort Polk La. We had a built in loss for troops due to Mosquitos.
Really!! Just look at the records for 1966 and '67.
What do you mean they are listed as deserters on the day report, they were taken from bed and barracks by them damn rebel flying bugs?

I hear the Confederate Air Force has two of them back into flying condition but the Government will not let them get tagged because of possible loss of life and property.

[pmulcahy11b]

Just came back from a long run to New Orleans. The mosquitoes down there have "Boeing" printed on their wings.

We used to say that the mosquitoes at Ft. Riley needed AAA to bring down.

[Legbreaker]

I think you Americans are confusing what you've got
3474

With what we here in Australia have
3475

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think you Americans are confusing what you've got
3474

With what we here in Australia have
3475

Shitstirrer! :p
:D

[Legbreaker]

Shitstirrer! :p
:D

But am I wrong? ;)

[Schone23666]

I think you Americans are confusing what you've got
3474

With what we here in Australia have
3475

As a side note, there is an airworthy De Havilland Mosquito that's been rebuilt and currently flying at the Military Aviation Museum in Virginia Beach, VA. It's one of only two currently known Mosquitoes that are still flying as far as I know, Canada's got the other one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Aviation_Museum

[Panther Al]

As a side note, there is an airworthy De Havilland Mosquito that's been rebuilt and currently flying at the Military Aviation Museum in Virginia Beach, VA. It's one of only two currently known Mosquitoes that are still flying as far as I know, Canada's got the other one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Aviation_Museum

One of my first trips when I move to Virginia Beach is to check that place out: My company is moving its US HQ to there at the end of September.

[Legbreaker]

In my opinion, the Mosquito has to be about the sexiest looking WWII era aircraft in existence. Shame there's not more of them still flying.

[Schone23666]

In my opinion, the Mosquito has to be about the sexiest looking WWII era aircraft in existence. Shame there's not more of them still flying.

Well, part of the problem, ironically, would appear to be in the wooden airframe construction, which was utilized by the Brits due to steel shortages, and was in itself a genius feat of engineering.

As far as long-term storage is concerned, steel-framed planes are fairly forgiving as long as they're sheltered from most of the elements. Something with a wooden frame tends to require more delicate maintenance as time goes on along with better shelter, one reason there's very few surviving WW1 biplanes and triplanes today. :(

[Schone23666]

One of my first trips when I move to Virginia Beach is to check that place out: My company is moving its US HQ to there at the end of September.

Let me know when you arrive and I'll show you around. :)

That museum continues to grow as they add more stuff. They even had an airworthy B-17 at one point, but it got sold off to pay some bills. :( They do have a rebuilt ME-262 jet fighter along with a V-1 buzz bomb that still has a working engine, that's always a hoot to watch.

[Sanjuro]

How do they get the pulse-jet to work without actually launching the thing?

[Schone23666]

How do they get the pulse-jet to work without actually launching the thing?

You can see a demonstration here. This is at the "Warbirds over the Beach" event they hold each year in May. They have a LOT of reenactors that regularly show up for this representing the various Axis and Allies of WWII, along with sit-downs with a lot of veterans that show up at this too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE594pwumIM

[Sanjuro]

You can see a demonstration here. This is at the "Warbirds over the Beach" event they hold each year in May. They have a LOT of reenactors that regularly show up for this representing the various Axis and Allies of WWII, along with sit-downs with a lot of veterans that show up at this too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE594pwumIM
I would like to see how they started it- without a compressor stage the V1 needed the launch rail, and an initial impetus, to get enough airflow through it to develop thrust.
Interesting that the crowd cheer when it stops. My dad heard a few of them, but only heard one stop. No one cheered...

[WallShadow]

As a side note, there is an airworthy De Havilland Mosquito that's been rebuilt and currently flying at the Military Aviation Museum in Virginia Beach, VA. It's one of only two currently known Mosquitoes that are still flying as far as I know, Canada's got the other one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Aviation_Museum

Considering the quality of Laser-cut kits nowadays, d'ya think they'd make a 1:1 scale model?
Of course, shipping'd be a beyotch.

[WallShadow]

"4. Licensed attorneys authorized to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


Perhaps in T2K, the Lawyer company can be ordered to charge a machine gun nest armed with subpoenas... :-)"

Hence the term "boilerplate"....:cool:

[Bullet Magnet]

We'll need to get it on tape. Survivors of the war will want some entertainment.


Perhaps in T2K, the Lawyer company can be ordered to charge a machine gun nest armed with subpoenas... :-)"