NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, the National Guard is supposed to be the militia today, but we need a trained force that would never be called for war unless we are seriously threatened or invaded. Reading the stories of looters shooting each other, rapes, citizens guarding their buildings with assault weapons. It's gotten me thinking that we need a Citizen's Militia to aid police and other forces in thimes of chaos. It would lower unemployment and crime if used to patrol cities at night.

Any thoughts?

2nd amendment.

I mean a town/city organized force, self funded if possible. It could be volunteer or paid.

I guess a citizens militia would be good, but the problem is convincing people that it may actually be needed in the future. I doubt even one week ago you thought we needed all these resources to go into New Orleans.

I thought that's what the National Guard was for. It was only mobilized during large wars where the men would have been drafted anyway, like WWII. It was during the Clinton administration, with the military downsizing, that it's role changed.

Half of Louisiana's NG are in Iraq, this makes it useful to have at least something to help. They can't cover a whole city.

"...citizens guarding their buildings with assault weapons..."

That part sounds A-OK with me. Sounds to me like it would be a good idea not to screw with them, their belongings or their building. So basically, the only peope who would be hurt by these people are those morons who had an evil intent anyways. Bravo to these folks.

For the record, Assualt is an act, not an Item. "Assualt weapons". If I was trying to beat you to death with a typewriter would that be beater than if I uses a rifle that someone somewhere thought "looked evil"? Or would you start callking it an "assualt typewriter"? The real answer here is that these so-called "assualt" weapons are no more deadly than any other weapon.

Frued said a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexuality. Fear of a weapon or any other item is silly.

Now fear of a RETARD with a weapon is perfectly understandable.

Let's be clear on that.

Citizens Militia? More like troublemakers and would be rebels! It is essiential for a peaceful society that the State have a monopoly on force/violence!

For the record, Assualt is an act, not an Item. "Assualt weapons". If I was trying to beat you to death with a typewriter would that be beater than if I uses a rifle that someone somewhere thought "looked evil"? Or would you start callking it an "assualt typewriter"? The real answer here is that these so-called "assualt" weapons are no more deadly than any other weapon.


for the record, nope. Assualt weapons are a certian class of rifle that facilitate delivery of high firepower with good accuracy in medium range proximity. They are, by their nature, ideally suited to "assualting" or attacking. To compare, Shotguns or large calibre machine guns are better for defence (at short and medium range) while Rifles are more suited to long range/high accuracy. Hand guns are good for look and close proximity.

Id say an assualt rifle that can let off its 30 round magazine with a 3 second squeeze of the trigger is more deadly and dangerous than a semi-auto handgun that even the most able would only be able to fire off 3-4 rounds.

"...citizens guarding their buildings with assault weapons..."

That part sounds A-OK with me. Sounds to me like it would be a good idea not to screw with them, their belongings or their building. So basically, the only peope who would be hurt by these people are those morons who had an evil intent anyways. Bravo to these folks.

For the record, Assualt is an act, not an Item. "Assualt weapons". If I was trying to beat you to death with a typewriter would that be beater than if I uses a rifle that someone somewhere thought "looked evil"? Or would you start callking it an "assualt typewriter"? The real answer here is that these so-called "assualt" weapons are no more deadly than any other weapon.

Frued said a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexuality. Fear of a weapon or any other item is silly.

Now fear of a RETARD with a weapon is perfectly understandable.

Let's be clear on that.

Fear of a weapon is irrational; fear of what a weapon can do is not only rational, it is sensible.

I'd say from the newsreports that there are far too many guns in New Orleans already.

I thought that's what the National Guard was for. It was only mobilized during large wars where the men would have been drafted anyway, like WWII. It was during the Clinton administration, with the military downsizing, that it's role changed.
It was? I wasn't aware that Clinton ordered the National Guard to invade iraq, starting this problem.

Citizens Militia? More like troublemakers and would be rebels! It is essiential for a peaceful society that the State have a monopoly on force/violence!

And it is essential for a free society that such a thing never be allowed to happen.

In fact, the National Guard is the result of the Fed coopting all the state militias back near the turn of the century. Yes, states used to have armed forces, and they were largely civil.

Everyone's the militia.

Personally, I'd settle for keeping the National Guard in America. The only circumstances under which they should be sent out is during catastrophes in neighboring countries after a plea for help.

"for the record, nope. Assualt weapons are a certian class of rifle that facilitate delivery of high firepower with good accuracy in medium range proximity. They are, by their nature, ideally suited to "assualting" or attacking. To compare, Shotguns or large calibre machine guns are better for defence (at short and medium range) while Rifles are more suited to long range/high accuracy. Hand guns are good for look and close proximity.

Id say an assualt rifle that can let off its 30 round magazine with a 3 second squeeze of the trigger is more deadly and dangerous than a semi-auto handgun that even the most able would only be able to fire off 3-4 rounds."

With all due respect, you're an idiot.

Teh sake of Full auto weapons is highly restricted to Class II dealers, of which I can tell you there are none currently in NOLA. What we are tlaking about is a semi automatic riflke that LOOKS like a "evil" gun. so, these so called "assualt"rifles would;
NOT empty themselves in seconds
NOT be suitable for an "assualt"
are NOT large caliber [they are all .30 and below, or they would be illegal
and are NOT select fire.

so by YOUR definition, these items you are tlaking about are STILL not "assualt rifles". SO basically, what you hav told me in about 30 seconds is "I don;t own any guns. But I've lstened to a lot of leftest/liberals talk about them,and they simply MUST know what they are talking about because they are politicians. If they say these people haev machine guns, they must, and that must be bad, or else they wouldn;t want to take them away. they look like amchine guns, therefore, they must be macghine guns."

By your logic, you look like a follower. are you?

Stalin, Mao, Jung il, Mussolinni, Hitler... The experts all agree that gun control works!;
It's so much easier to control a population that cannot argue for it's freedom.

"for the record, nope. Assualt weapons are a certian class of rifle that facilitate delivery of high firepower with good accuracy in medium range proximity. They are, by their nature, ideally suited to "assualting" or attacking. To compare, Shotguns or large calibre machine guns are better for defence (at short and medium range) while Rifles are more suited to long range/high accuracy. Hand guns are good for look and close proximity.

Id say an assualt rifle that can let off its 30 round magazine with a 3 second squeeze of the trigger is more deadly and dangerous than a semi-auto handgun that even the most able would only be able to fire off 3-4 rounds."

With all due respect, you're an idiot.

Teh sake of Full auto weapons is highly restricted to Class II dealers, of which I can tell you there are none currently in NOLA. What we are tlaking about is a semi automatic riflke that LOOKS like a "evil" gun. so, these so called "assualt"rifles would;
NOT empty themselves in seconds
NOT be suitable for an "assualt"
are NOT large caliber [they are all .30 and below, or they would be illegal
and are NOT select fire.

so by YOUR definition, these items you are tlaking about are STILL not "assualt rifles". SO basically, what you hav told me in about 30 seconds is "I don;t own any guns. But I've lstened to a lot of leftest/liberals talk about them,and they simply MUST know what they are talking about because they are politicians. If they say these people haev machine guns, they must, and that must be bad, or else they wouldn;t want to take them away. they look like amchine guns, therefore, they must be macghine guns."

By your logic, you look like a follower. are you?

Stalin, Mao, Jung il, Mussolinni, Hitler... The experts all agree that gun control works!;
It's so much easier to control a population that cannot argue for it's freedom.


Yes because here in Britain where we have gun control, the government is totally opressing us all. Fool. Gun control is not always evil. I admit in America it is unpractical, but just because places have gun control does not automatically mean the people of those places will be oppressed or that they cannot argue for their freedom. Thats why we have debate.

It was? I wasn't aware that Clinton ordered the National Guard to invade iraq, starting this problem.

I believe the point was thet he downsized the military. The previous poster said nothing about Clinton send the NG anywhere. :rolleyes:

Stalin, Mao, Jung il, Mussolinni, Hitler... The experts all agree that gun control works!;
It's so much easier to control a population that cannot argue for it's freedom.

I hate to disillusion you but if the Government tried to opress you there are three possibilities:

1. The army supports the Government: citizens armed with handguns are not going to be able to beat heavily armed and armoured profesional soldiers with tanks, APCs, artillery and air support.

2. The army opposes the Government: an oppressive state cannot exist without the support of the army so there would be no need for millitia.

3. The army splits: See point one, you wouldn't be able to make much difference.

Please give up your fantasies of fighting soldiers in the streets, you wouldn't win. The only way to give you a chance would be to legalise seriously powerful weapons for public use and that would be plain counterproductive.

I hate to disillusion you but if the Government tried to opress you there are three possibilities:

1. The army supports the Government: citizens armed with handguns are not going to be able to beat heavily armed and armoured profesional soldiers with tanks, APCs, artillery and air support.

Who said we'd just have handguns? We can keep rifles you know, and those .50's are pretty good at blowing stuff up.

2. The army opposes the Government: an oppressive state cannot exist without the support of the army so there would be no need for millitia.

3. The army splits: See point one, you wouldn't be able to make much difference.

Please give up your fantasies of fighting soldiers in the streets, you wouldn't win. The only way to give you a chance would be to legalise seriously powerful weapons for public use and that would be plain counterproductive.

We already own "seriously powerful weapons" in circulation for public use. AR15s, SKSs, AK clones, and pretty much almost any rifle out there can be owned by a US civlian.

the national guard is more than enough for our needs. we dont need a second national guard "just in case"

the national guard is more than enough for our needs. we dont need a second national guard "just in case"

The "second" national guard was there way before the army and NG...it's actually the oldest civil defense..organization if you will

Yes, the National Guard is supposed to be the militia today, but we need a trained force that would never be called for war unless we are seriously threatened or invaded. Reading the stories of looters shooting each other, rapes, citizens guarding their buildings with assault weapons. It's gotten me thinking that we need a Citizen's Militia to aid police and other forces in thimes of chaos. It would lower unemployment and crime if used to patrol cities at night.

Any thoughts?
It can be easily incorporated into a police force, and like the Army, the local police will enlist reserve forces explicitly for tough situations. Firemen could probably be on a militia, too.

Citizens Militia? More like troublemakers and would be rebels! It is essiential for a peaceful society that the State have a monopoly on force/violence!

Why? Do we have that pessimistic a view of human nature that a nation without government would fall into brutality and chaos? Looting happens when people think that they can get away with such things. It doesn't matter if there is a goverment or not; if someone thinks that no one will call them to their injustice, and if that person also refuses to be just themselves, then they will kill, steal, harass, or do other vile things.

For an interesting rejection of the 'state monopoly on power' theory, read Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You".

I hate to disillusion you but if the Government tried to opress you there are three possibilities:

1. The army supports the Government: citizens armed with handguns are not going to be able to beat heavily armed and armoured profesional soldiers with tanks, APCs, artillery and air support.


Assuming not only the army, but all it's effectives are in favor of running over, shooting and bombing other Americans. A bit farfetched.

2. The army opposes the Government: an oppressive state cannot exist without the support of the army so there would be no need for millitia.

Er, what? If the army opposes the government, militia are useless why? You do know a military doesn't operate in a vacuum, right?

3. The army splits: See point one, you wouldn't be able to make much difference.

Fatalism at it's best. I guess if you're part of a largely unarmed society, you might very well believe that it's useless.

Please give up your fantasies of fighting soldiers in the streets, you wouldn't win.

Right, because the 20th century doesn't have any examples of modern soldiers having a hard time in an urban or dense cover environment against lesser trained and organized combatants. :rolleyes:

And by soldiers, you mean those folks who are outnumbered about 560 to 1 right? The ones you're also assuming will gladly pillage, plunder and kill fellow Americans? Somehow I'm not buying it.

The "second" national guard was there way before the army and NG...it's actually the oldest civil defense..organization if you will
yes it was. but now we have the national guard and we have no need of a standby militia. especially one that would be paid and give people the impression that it was their job to take matters into their own hands.

Yes with the caveat that we have some form of governmental involvement to prevent the militia from becoming a white supremist/or other extremist group.


Yes, the National Guard is supposed to be the militia today, but we need a trained force that would never be called for war unless we are seriously threatened or invaded. Reading the stories of looters shooting each other, rapes, citizens guarding their buildings with assault weapons. It's gotten me thinking that we need a Citizen's Militia to aid police and other forces in thimes of chaos. It would lower unemployment and crime if used to patrol cities at night.

Any thoughts?

Excellent idea! That way civic but not necessarily military minded folk would participate.


It can be easily incorporated into a police force, and like the Army, the local police will enlist reserve forces explicitly for tough situations. Firemen could probably be on a militia, too.

There's a bit of a weird argument here. Some people have said that owning a gun means that you are more able to resist an oppresive government. This is a rather foolish argument. There are many cases where a non-violent resistance against a government has succeeded where a violent armed struggle would have either done more harm than good (ie, a long-running, damaging war) or been crushed brutally and lead to reprisals against the general population. Gandhi succeeded where an armed struggle would have been more counter-productive than a non-violent one. Civil rights in USA were largely non-violent, as a response to the very violent methods used by the local authorities. An armed citizenry could institute a form of struggle against an oppressive government, but the chances are, if that government is considered oppressive, they wouldn't think twice about sending an armed force into an area where this is happening, and crushing it. I'm not saying that America is a place that has a government. The idea that an armed citizenry is in any way capable of prolonged resistance against a government is fallacy.

The idea that an armed citizenry is in any way capable of prolonged resistance against a government is fallacy.

In your opinion. And the Afghani rebels held the Soviets at bay for how long? ten years w/ mostly rifles and some anti-tank/AA weapons.

The Viet Min defeated the French and the Viet Cong (along w/ mostly infantry NVA) defeated the US.

This is just a few examples.

Excellent idea! That way civic but not necessarily military minded folk would participate.
Thanks. But it's really not my idea. This idea was used at the dawn of the American republic. It's a bit Jeffersonian, and of course, his ideas lost out with the creation of a permanent standing army in America (which must exist). But the nation is far more complex and entangled than in the 1700s, and it is time to look after ourselves.

non violence worked great in China in the 90's and in Eastern Europe in the 60's :rolleyes:


There's a bit of a weird argument here. Some people have said that owning a gun means that you are more able to resist an oppresive government. This is a rather foolish argument. There are many cases where a non-violent resistance against a government has succeeded where a violent armed struggle would have either done more harm than good (ie, a long-running, damaging war) or been crushed brutally and lead to reprisals against the general population. Gandhi succeeded where an armed struggle would have been more counter-productive than a non-violent one. Civil rights in USA were largely non-violent, as a response to the very violent methods used by the local authorities. An armed citizenry could institute a form of struggle against an oppressive government, but the chances are, if that government is considered oppressive, they wouldn't think twice about sending an armed force into an area where this is happening, and crushing it. I'm not saying that America is a place that has a government. The idea that an armed citizenry is in any way capable of prolonged resistance against a government is fallacy.

Yes, the National Guard is supposed to be the militia today, but we need a trained force that would never be called for war unless we are seriously threatened or invaded. Reading the stories of looters shooting each other, rapes, citizens guarding their buildings with assault weapons. It's gotten me thinking that we need a Citizen's Militia to aid police and other forces in thimes of chaos. It would lower unemployment and crime if used to patrol cities at night.

Any thoughts?

I'm almost certain that most states do have a state militia, a civilian/para-military force that is supposed to handle emergency situations in their respective states. How well funded they are, that I could not answer.
Check here for your state. (http://www.constitution.org/mil/link2mil.htm) Remember these are voluntary forces and for the most part unpaid and I don't think there are any restrictions for joining.

In your opinion. And the Afghani rebels held the Soviets at bay for how long? ten years w/ mostly rifles and some anti-tank/AA weapons.

The Viet Min defeated the French and the Viet Cong (along w/ mostly infantry NVA) defeated the US.

This is just a few examples.

Does "Help from the CIA" and "Help from China" mean anything to you?

We can see from NOLA that militia would have been useful in a neighborhood protection role. Assuming remaining behind is something militiamen are willing to commit to.

But most disasters aren't this serious, so a local protection force is still a useful thing in lesser emergencies.