Should the US allow militias?

[Marsisian]

As long as they are accountable to the local authorities, yes...

Relying on militias is like an old man depending on a broken cane, or a soldier depending on a Chauchat.

...but you make an excellent point. Why depend on that which has failed its'task? And what's a chauchat?

A Chauchat is a French machine gun that was extremely unreliable and some call it the "worst machine gun in history."

[Oaledonia]

As long as they are accountable to the local authorities, yes...

...but you make an excellent point. Why depend on that which has failed its'task? And what's a chauchat?

A Chauchat is a French machine gun that was extremely unreliable and some call it the "worst machine gun in history."

That's a bad comparison, unless you consider the F-16 to be the equivalent of a Chauchat.

[The Republic of Llamas]

They already are, and I'm good with it staying that way. Really, forming a militia is an extension of two rights:
1. The right to assemble.
2. The right to bear arms, to a reasonable degree.

As long as they're not using illegal guns or doing illegal activities, they're protected by these two rights.

[Marsisian]

A Chauchat is a French machine gun that was extremely unreliable and some call it the "worst machine gun in history."

That's a bad comparison, unless you consider the F-16 to be the equivalent of a Chauchat.

How is comparing militia to a horribly unreliable machine gun a bad comparison?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Relying on militias is like an old man depending on a broken cane, or a soldier depending on a Chauchat.

Seeing as how militia forces served well for the US in the War of 1812, the Civil War, The Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War One, World War Two, the Korean 'police action', both invasions of Iraq, as well as various peacekeeping missions, I'd say there's not much of an issue on relying on them to a goodly degree.

[Oaledonia]

That's a bad comparison, unless you consider the F-16 to be the equivalent of a Chauchat.

How is comparing militia to a horribly unreliable machine gun a bad comparison?

Because modern US state militia operate them, along side B-2 Spirit bombers.

[Chedastan]

Militias as in unaccountable paramilitary wannabes? This sounds like it would open the door for separatism if someone wanted to get a good head start on it, like an already formed army for them to use that would most likely had been started under the same reason and only use the militia name as a disguise of sorts, with readily available equipment at hand before you officially start it. I mean it's out there.

[Marsisian]

How is comparing militia to a horribly unreliable machine gun a bad comparison?

Because modern US state militia operate them, along side B-2 Spirit bombers.

I was mostly talking about the Revolutionary War-era militia.

[Oaledonia]

Because modern US state militia operate them, along side B-2 Spirit bombers.

I was mostly talking about the Revolutionary War-era militia.

Then how would that be relevant to a thread asking if they should be allowed in modern times?

[Marsisian]

I was mostly talking about the Revolutionary War-era militia.

Then how would that be relevant to a thread asking if they should be allowed in modern times?

He didn't exactly say modern times, but I concede anyway.

[Chervyshka]

We already do.

On The Federal Level, we have the Reserves. Though they're not militiamen, per se, they're part time soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen who can be called upon to defend the US and bolster the standing military if need be.

On the State Level, we have the National Guard. They're closer to a militia than the Reserves because they work directly with their home state in times of emergencies, natural disasters, and they can also be called upon to deploy with the Active Military if need be.

But our MAIN militia is the State Defense Forces.

Besides, I'm certain that the entire population below the Mason-Dixon could be a standing militia if called upon

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

Some states has militias.

[Oaledonia]

Some states has militias.

All states has militias.

[Llamalandia]

Militia's were nearly always attached to some form of Civil government. Like a township or city or state.

I, for one, would not enjoy roving bands of armed men walking through my dwelling.

Not sure how's that's an issue. If you don't want the militia in you home then don't let them in. I fail to see the issue here. Besides i would think the 3rd amendment might apply anyway (though I guess it would depend on how soldier is defined).

[Taber]

Militia's were nearly always attached to some form of Civil government. Like a township or city or state.

I, for one, would not enjoy roving bands of armed men walking through my dwelling.

Not sure how's that's an issue. If you don't want the militia in you home then don't let them in. I fail to see the issue here. Besides i would think the 3rd amendment might apply anyway (though I guess it would depend on how soldier is defined).

What I'm thinking of, purely, is civilians who have zero military training and think they are saviors of the Republic toting assault rifles. Their version of saving the Republic might not be the same as my version. So when push comes to shove, we have roaming street thugs like FreiKorps and Communist Brigades in the 1920s.

[Desmendura]

Sure. The Second Amendment tells it all even if I'm against the idea.

[Big Jim P]

All able bodied males between 17 and 45? Of course, although in the modern era we should change that to all able-bodied adults.

[Norstal]

I'm no expert, but I thought the National Guard, run by the individual states, counts as militias.

But they are still attached to the federal government.

What, like, Blackwater? Which is not?

[Desmendura]

All able bodied males between 17 and 45? Of course, although in the modern era we should change that to all able-bodied adults.

Plus the Second Amendment.

[Big Jim P]

All able bodied males between 17 and 45? Of course, although in the modern era we should change that to all able-bodied adults.

Plus the Second Amendment.

I was providing the definition of militia as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

[Desmendura]

Plus the Second Amendment.

I was providing the definition of militia as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

Nah. You were just talking about able-bodied people. Not all militia guys are able-bodied IMO.

[Big Jim P]

I was providing the definition of militia as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

Nah. You were just talking about able-bodied people. Not all militia guys are able-bodied IMO.

Missed the part about mine being the definition did we?

[Desmendura]

Nah. You were just talking about able-bodied people. Not all militia guys are able-bodied IMO.

Missed the part about mine being the definition did we?

Fair enough. I missed it

[Big Jim P]

Missed the part about mine being the definition did we?

Fair enough. I missed it

At least I was kind enough to expand it to include women.

Who else will fetch the beer and sammiches?

[Stormwind-City]

No, not in any further capacity at least. Because who do you think is likely to form or join a militia? The middle-class man in suburbia or the political/religious extremists who feel that everyone should do what they say. I don't think giving them a legal vector to form armed groups is a good idea.