Originally posted by Evil Dave
Originally posted by Brimshack
I also think part of that rationale was flawed even at the time (the notion that a militia was sufficient to win a war was very popular even though it had proven faulty in the Revolution). It\'s also very clear that the militia were in many ways viewed as a check against government corruption, which is unrealistic from a modern point of view. If Uncle Sam wants in your home, private guns aren\'t going to keep him out.
I disagree.
Simply put, if this were true, we would\'ve been out of Iraq three years ago.
There would be no governments over thrown at all.
A militia is merely a private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
In essence a non-sanctioned Army.
Now we know that the insurgents in Iraq are being supplied and backed by Iran and Syria. Can you honestly say that at least a dozen countries wouldn\'t support a militia trying to overthrow the US government?
Interesting angle, seriously, but I think there are at least three problems with it:
1) The standard here is whether or not a militia can successfully defend rights, not whether or not it can deny an enemy the fruits of victory and the stability of a promising peace. By that standard even a militia that scores a high body count would not count as a successful instance of the notion that militias protect freedom.
2) It is my understanding that we are showing considerable restraint in Iraq. It\'s not perfect, there have been attrocities, and the Iraqis we are working with may not be too committed to the same ideals that we are, but suffice to say that we are not actually there to oppress people. If the notion is that a militia will stop government corruption, then our occupation of Iraq, flawed as it may be provides no sound test of the theory.
That said, I don\'t know that an occupation force is really the proper grounds on which to test theory. The idea has more to do with protecting people from their own government gone awry (whereas when the Constitution was originally written no such Amendment was of interest, precisely because the framers at that time were looking to strengthen the government\'s ability to put down such insurrection.) Anyway, I still think the most appropriate test would be in American history itself. So...
Did the militias get us through the Revolution? No. They were notoriously undependable. When we finally won the major victory was brought by a standing army of precisely the sort that those favoring militias had been opposed to in the first place.
Where was the citizens army at Sand Creek? They were the ones cutting up women for trophies to display in Denver. ...against the express opposition of U.S. Army officials. In that case it was the troops of the Federal government that risked their lives for peace and worked to expose the excess of a local force. ...and part of a pattern in the history off Indian-white relations going back as far as Bacon\'s rebellion and continuing right on up to the present.
Where were the militias during every lynching of blacks in American history? ...helping to string them up in many instances?
Rosewood? Here a citizen\'s militia gets some credit for stopping the spread of violence, but of course that pales in comparison to the ones doing the slaughtering.
As the freedom riders were being beaten to a bloody pulp? Not presentm except perhaps bat in hand.
During the lunch counter protests? Same.
When workers in Bizbee Arizona were hauled off to the desert for refusing to work extra hours at no extra pay? ...Helping to load them in the trucks.
When the Knights of Labor and the Wobblies were crushed (often violently). Not present or assiting in the attacks.
When orphaned white kids in Arizona were kidnapped and taken away at gun point because their church had the audacity to place them with Mexican parents? Behind the guns.
Did they help the Chinese to secure their rights to even leave Chinatown without fear of attack? Did they help Mexican citizens to keep their lands as promised in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? Did they secure the right of women to vote? Did they help women get access to birth control? Did they stop the rule of thumb or otherwise work to end domestic violence? Did they get black kids into the schools? Stop internment of Japanese? Get women the right to own property or sign contracts? Eliminate antisemetic housing clauses? Stop the persecution of Mormons? Conversely, the Beautiful Mountain Massacre? Protect Jehova\'s Witnesses assaulted over the Pledge of Allegeiance? Did they stop the blacklisting of so-called communists during the McCarthy era? Did they stop the blacklisting of those suspected of cooperating with McCarthy in the years after?
Sorry if that seems heavy handed, but so is the very notion that private citizens with guns are going to keep our liberties safe. Time and again we are told teh 2nd Amendment puts the teeth in the other Amendments, that the 2nd is there to protect our rights, that militias are a sound protection for rights and democracy. But time and again in American history the militias were either not present as rights were userped, or they were the ones on the offensive. Our rights are safeguarded by courts, journalists, lawyers (yep), and common loudmouthed citizens. Militias may have their uses, but as defenders of American liberties they are a dismal failure.
I know you\'re more interested in the feasibility argument, but it\'s two halves of the same coin. If the Fed really wants to take our liberties, local militias are not going to be much help in stopping them. What they can do, is what they have done so often in the past, load up and go take someone else\'s rights, preferably someone small and weak.
