The big bad M word

**last one standing** · 03-10-2009, 12:28 AM

Can someone please educate me in what happend to the well regulated militia and why is it such a bad thing to be any way aquinted with anyone in one. Im wondering why if its in the in our great Constitution of The United States of America is it so looked down on or are thought of as gun tot'n rednecks who hate. sorry to any rednecks that took that the wrong way. without getn all political I thought the M word was soposed to be our last line of defence of tyrany for everybody not just the M word. OHHH and what happend to that Republic for which it stands. Looking for someone alot smarter than me to explain what happend did the M word get hijacked like muslims did or the rebel flag.

**last one standing** · 03-10-2009, 12:41 AM

I'm sorry if this has been addressed already some other time let me know were to go to get the info if so thanks

**doug1980** · 03-10-2009, 12:52 AM

It's not the same Country it once was. Times have changed, people are way too dependant on the Government. That's about as much as I can say without getting into politics here. I for one am a gun tot'n redneck with a rebel flag tatoo, and am proud of it. Give me liberty or give me death ya know.

**SARKY** · 03-10-2009, 01:11 AM

Propaganda! The main stream media has been left leaning since Nam maybe before. So anything that smells of selfreliance, independence or true freedom is villefied. Oh I could rant for hours on this topic.... but I won't.

**woodsman86** · 03-10-2009, 02:07 AM

In the Army the regulation states it is against good order and discipline of a unit to be an "Active" member of a militia. They label militias as extremist organizations.

**Rick** · 03-10-2009, 08:16 AM

the Militia existed at a time when the country did not have a standing army. Today we do as well as a state sponsored National Guard. The purpose was for the defense of the fledgling country. The Militia was actually codified in the Articles of Confederation well before the Constitution and became what was then known as the Continental Army (although the militia still augmented the Army during conflicts).

Today, the militia is best exemplified by the jury system; common citizens serving the government in a short term capacity and for a specific cause.

**chiangmaimav** · 03-10-2009, 10:14 AM

The Oklahoma City bombing is, I believe, the number one reason why the word militia is associated with nuts. I don't know much about these organizations. I am sure not all militia members are like Timothy McVeigh, but I think that many Americans believe this to be the case. Here in Thailand they have more militias than you can count.

**wildography** · 03-10-2009, 02:08 PM

In my studies of American history (and I do not even consider myself to even being close to any sort of "authority" on the subject), the "well-regulated" militia (of the Constitution) was composed of private citizens led by "professional" officers (who were quite often private citizens themselves).

Up until the Civil War, and even up to the 1st World War (to a certain extent), the United States was pretty much composed of "militia" members who came together in times of crisis, or in times of danger, or in times of war... and when the crisis/danger/war was over, they went home. After the war of 1812, it became an increasingly "accepted practice" to have "full-time military" who served for, generally, a specified period of time.

From the way I see it - or read history - the "well-regulated militia" was designed to be a counter-balance to the Federal government becoming a power like England had become.

Even before the war of 1812, it was common practice for "politicians" (as well as militia members) to go back home, or to their profession, when not serving in "public office".

(in order to avoid a "political" discussion, I'll leave it at that)

As the world became a "more dangerous" place and as the oceans started becoming less and less of a "border of protection", the need for a "standing military" became greater and the need for a "well-regulated militia" was replaced by the standing military. And, of course, like Rome, the politicians began to have an ever increasing "hold" on the military... hence the "attack" on militias in both word and deed.

So, the more "villefied" militias become, the more "villefied" militias act.

So, a "well-regulated militia" has, over the years, become a threat to the "status quo".

**Rick** · 03-10-2009, 05:14 PM

It might have to do with groups that call themselves a militia then commit acts of sedition. Nawwww. That couldn't be it.

**SARKY** · 03-11-2009, 12:03 AM

The Oklahoma City bombing is, I believe, the number one reason why the word militia is associated with nuts. I don't know much about these organizations. I am sure not all militia members are like Timothy McVeigh, but I think that many Americans believe this to be the case. Here in Thailand they have more militias than you can count.

McVeigh was not a member of any militia, he had tried to join the Montana militia but was kicked out/ denied because he was too radical even for them. The media made the link between McVeigh and a militia group. All you need is one drop of truth in a gallon of lies......that's called propaganda (thank you SERE School for that lesson)

**Nativedude** · 03-11-2009, 01:48 AM

The Gov't. (whom through control and manipulation of the media) has given ANY militia a bad name and reputation. Why? Well, militias are large bodies of people, whom if they got too large, might become powerful and stand up to the Gov't.

Well, the Clinton's and Kennedy's (and left-winded liberals especially) can't have that!

So, that is why militias have become "taboo-like" in this country. Especially after the Okla. City bombing, when they announced 24/7 for weeks on end that Terry ________? (What's his name), belonged to the MI militia! That and the medias portrayal of the "extremist" militias around the country, really set a precedent for giving militias "even the good ones" a bad name and HUGE black-eye!

**bulrush** · 03-11-2009, 03:21 PM

The extremist militias simply got more press than the moderate ones.

I also remember news of more than one militia being associated with very conservative, very "Christian", very white, intolerant views. I mean they were willing to be violent to prove their opinion was more correct than yours. Meaning their interpretation of the bible was the one and only interpretation the world should use.

**Pict** · 03-11-2009, 03:40 PM

The original concept of a the Militia was that the local elected officials could call up the able bodied fighting men in the community for local defense. That concept is still valid even though we have come up with more viable solutions. The National Guard is not the militia, it is more like State organized military forces under the control of the Governor.

It bothers me when local groups band together with an essentially anti-government cause and call themselves the militia. There is no precedent for raising a private army. Political parties have done this in the past, Hilter's Brownshirts are a prime example. The last thing you want is to live in a country where every offshoot political group has its own "military wing" and engages in political violence. We are far from that in the US.

The Second Amendment clearly defines "The People" as the "Well regulated militia" and I think that is a very healthy counterbalance to government that could very easily oppress "The People" or abrogate their contract to preserve the rule of law embodied in the US Constitution. If the government ever decided to scrap the Constitution and started to strip away rights they would have to do that faced with a population that could actually resist and that is a good thing. However, just because you can get 20 - 40 people together to train on a weekend and have a common political view does not mean they are the militia as defined by the Constitution. Keep in mind, radical muslims, communists and every other wacko could say the same thing. Mac

**Alpine_Sapper** · 03-11-2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by bulrush

The extremist militias simply got more press than the moderate ones.

I also remember news of more than one militia being associated with very conservative, very "Christian", very white, intolerant views. I mean they were willing to be violent to prove their opinion was more correct than yours. Meaning their interpretation of the bible was the one and only interpretation the world should use.

A militia should not in any way be associated with any religion.

"In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment"

So anything that claims to uphold the constitution should respect that principle that was one of the main reasons this country was founded and leave religion out of it. If not, then they are as much an extremist organization as the jihadists imho.

**Rick** · 03-11-2009, 04:29 PM

Wouldn't a "religion" with a "militia" be an oxymoron?

"I'm gonna shoot you right between the eyes and God bless you."

Seems a bit wrong to me. But, hey, what do I know?

**Ole WV Coot** · 03-11-2009, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by SARKY

Propaganda! The main stream media has been left leaning since Nam maybe before. So anything that smells of selfreliance, independence or true freedom is villefied. Oh I could rant for hours on this topic.... but I won't.

You got it. I was in DC when it really got bad, wasn't any fun before either. I know what I wanted to do