PA Militia?

[HUHwhat]

This is all very romantic but under what authority would these armed "militias" operate? I see tremendous opportunity for unsanctioned "militias" to abuse their power. History bears this out.

If a group of armed men show up in my neighborhood or community claiming to be the "militia", and try to tell me "what's what", or "how it's going to be", we're gong to have a serious disagreement.

I really need someone to explain to me what constraints or safeguards would be in place to prevent an armed "militia" from imposing their will by force of arms.

I kind of addressed that in my later reply. Such a group should not be. That's why I say they should be small, local, and low-key. And only practice basic things.

[TonyF]

This is all very romantic but under what authority would these armed "militias" operate? I see tremendous opportunity for unsanctioned "militias" to abuse their power. History bears this out.

If a group of armed men show up in my neighborhood or community claiming to be the "militia", and try to tell me "what's what", or "how it's going to be", we're gong to have a serious disagreement.

I really need someone to explain to me what constraints or safeguards would be in place to prevent an armed "militia" from imposing their will by force of arms.

I kind of addressed that in my later reply. Such a group should not be. That's why I say they should be small, local, and low-key. And only practice basic things.

I took note of that but you did include basic military tactics. And even with a small group (half a dozen armed men), the potential for abuse can occur.

I just do not feel comfortable with the role of a self-proclaimed militia, in the context of a severe emergency, without some legal controlling authority in place to govern the actions of groups of armed men.

And without such a mechanism in place, I would view them as a threat.

[GunLawyer001]

I took note of that but you did include basic military tactics. And even with a small group (half a dozen armed men), the potential for abuse can occur.

I just do not feel comfortable with the role of a self-proclaimed militia, in the context of a severe emergency, without some legal controlling authority in place to govern the actions of groups of armed men.

And without such a mechanism in place, I would view them as a threat.

Yes, I could see how unchecked groups of armed men could use an emergency as an excuse to trample the rights of innocent citizens....and why we need Official Government types to make us safe....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLm5kkBgKSM

[TonyF]

I took note of that but you did include basic military tactics. And even with a small group (half a dozen armed men), the potential for abuse can occur.

I just do not feel comfortable with the role of a self-proclaimed militia, in the context of a severe emergency, without some legal controlling authority in place to govern the actions of groups of armed men.

And without such a mechanism in place, I would view them as a threat.

Yes, I could see how unchecked groups of armed men could use an emergency as an excuse to trample the rights of innocent citizens....and why we need Official Government types to make us safe....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLm5kkBgKSM

So you're suggesting that since the .gov can't be trusted that I should blindly trust a band of armed men I may not know as they invade my neighborhood and attempt to disarm me?

Cold day in hell.

[SuperVel]

So you're suggesting that since the .gov can't be trusted that I should blindly trust a band of armed men I may not know as they invade my neighborhood and attempt to disarm me?

Cold day in hell.

Much truth here. Which would be the lesser of two evils?

[GunLawyer001]

So you're suggesting that since the .gov can't be trusted that I should blindly trust a band of armed men I may not know as they invade my neighborhood and attempt to disarm me?

Cold day in hell.

I suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that "official sanction" is not, and never has been, a guarantee of fairness.

Mostly, it's governments who start wars and fill up killing fields. Militias are small and relatively powerless. In the event of a disaster, you'd have much less to fear from a dozen or so armed neighbors than from hundreds of Washington-controlled strangers with their own ideas about what you should be compelled to do. Your neighbors will probably have some MRE's and bottled water to share. The official types will be issuing orders and shooting dogs and disarming old ladies before hastily retreating back to their protected compound outside the disaster area.

You could probably shoot back at a rampaging militia group. Out-of-control cops or Feds, not so much.

[GeneCC]

I took note of that but you did include basic military tactics. And even with a small group (half a dozen armed men), the potential for abuse can occur.

I just do not feel comfortable with the role of a self-proclaimed militia, in the context of a severe emergency, without some legal controlling authority in place to govern the actions of groups of armed men.

And without such a mechanism in place, I would view them as a threat.

A threat? Potential threat maybe. They might be another version of the Rotary Club or Lions Club or they could be a Biker Gang with different bylaws.

We are supposed to trust in the Wisdom of the People including that they are armed and can form voluntary associations. Accepting this is a Price of Freedom.

If we accept that a squad of civilians with small arms is a "threat" in every case we might as well get ourselves licensed to own firearms and keep them in collective vaults under government control.

[GeneCC]

I suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that "official sanction" is not, and never has been, a guarantee of fairness.

Mostly, it's governments who start wars and fill up killing fields. Militias are small and relatively powerless.

In the event of a disaster, you'd have much less to fear from a dozen or so armed neighbors than from hundreds of Washington-controlled strangers with their own ideas about what you should be compelled to do. Your neighbors will probably have some MRE's and bottled water to share. The official types will be issuing orders and shooting dogs and disarming old ladies before hastily retreating back to their protected compound outside the disaster area.

You could probably shoot back at a rampaging militia group. Out-of-control cops or Feds, not so much.

If you shoot back you will get what "insurgents" in Afghanistan and Eastern Ukraine are getting. Our "Counterinsurgency" experts are hard at work pacifying those areas.

Lots of artillery and air support and "targeted" visits by well trained young men who shoot first and ask questions later. They won't just shoot your dog, they shoot everyone, a "head check" for good measure.

Dirty War? Yeah.

[TonyF]

So you're suggesting that since the .gov can't be trusted that I should blindly trust a band of armed men I may not know as they invade my neighborhood and attempt to disarm me?

Cold day in hell.

Much truth here. Which would be the lesser of two evils?

It's complicated.

There are laws and statutes that can suspend certain of our civil rights in the event of extreme emergencies. For example, I believe the state can suspend our LTCF's if martial law or some form of a state of emergency is declared.

I don't like it, but the legislature has the right to enact laws that serve the public interest.

Much has been made lately of ebola cases and forced quarantine. The nurse in Maine seems to have won her argument by decree of the state judiciary but nonetheless there is legal precedent for forced quarantine.

I'm in no way justifying what happened in N.O. during Katrina with respect to gun confiscation but I'll be damned if some "nobody" with a gun, a messianic complex and a bunch of his "militiamen" roll into my neighborhood and try to assert their "authority".

[GunLawyer001]

It's complicated.

There are laws and statutes that can suspend certain of our civil rights in the event of extreme emergencies. For example, I believe the state can suspend our LTCF's if martial law or some form of a state of emergency is declared.

I don't like it, but the legislature has the right to enact laws that serve the public interest.

Much has been made lately of ebola cases and forced quarantine. The nurse in Maine seems to have won her argument by decree of the state judiciary but nonetheless there is legal precedent for forced quarantine.

I'm in no way justifying what happened in N.O. during Katrina with respect to gun confiscation but I'll be damned if some "nobody" with a gun, a messianic complex and a bunch of his "militiamen" roll into my neighborhood and try to assert their "authority".

What examples of American militias are you thinking of? You seem to be using the word "militia" to describe "Somali drug warlord".