Is the 18thC idea of USA citizens forming a citizen militia realistic?

Question

In the modern world of carrier battle groups etc? ('Right to bear arms etc') I mean, in1776 a musket WAS leading-edge, kick ars technology. Should we now allow USA cities their own tank brigades owned and manned by their citizens, in order to deter Federal oppression or foreign menace? Or is this too libertarian an idea?

Answer 1

One of the dirty little secrets about US military history is that the militia system never worked as a means of providing a reserve for the US military.

As a result the 'Army Reserve and National Guard' systems were implemented where the better militia organization were given federal recognition and federal funding in exchange for meeting US Army standards for training and discipline.

Technically it would be legal of a state to equip an man its own military units without any connection to the federal government - but nobody seems interested in spending that kind of money on a boondoggle.

Trivia note: during the time of the US Revolutionary War the musket was the equivalent of an assault rifle (rapid fire weapon capable of mounting a bayonet that is generally unsuitable as a hunting firearm).  Most civilian firearms were rifles (slow to load but highly accurate).  Generally when militiamen armed with rifles faced British troops armed with muskets the militia were badly beaten due to the greater rate of fire from the British muskets - followed by a bayonet charge.

Answer 2

How does a citizen militia deter federal oppression - it is just as open to  manipulation as all of the existing societal / political/ military structures. Surely the less entities with the rights to impose themselves on the people the more open the people are to coalesce as and when required.

Answer 3

I've seen it work.

When there are union defense guards in small towns where there is a strike at the major employer company, those towns  are MUCH safer places.  Street crime goes down to almost nothing, and the company forces are often prevented from carrying out their oppressive behavior.

I personally participated in a defense squad at a women's clinic being threatened by anti-abortion crazies.  Not only did the numbers of crazies outside the clinic decline, but when faced with prospect of people actually doing something about the threat, the police began enforcing the previously ignored rules about minimum distance the antis could come to the clinic.

Militias can be more than just a few right-wing nuts in camo playing soldier out in the woods.

And while militias are not a substitute for state entities, they are a useful supplement.

Sometimes they embarrass the state into doing its job.  And sometimes, when state action would be COUNTERproductive, militia presence discourages state action.

And citizen participation is a good thing in and of itself.

I will, however, grudgingly admit that perhaps I have gone a little too far in advocating that abortion defense patrols and anti-n**i demonstrators be provided with satellite weapons and nuclear missiles.

Maybe.

Answer 4

The answer is 'NO'. With the cost of weapons and weapons systems today, its not realistic or practical to have such things.

Answer 5

Dont you know the United States of America has turn communist

Answer 6

I think it is necessary to still allow, and in responsible hands encourage, civil disobedience.  We cannot be so complacent to think that this country will never experience another civil war.  As a people we need to be WILLING and ABLE to recognize when such drastic measures are necessary.  In my opinion, we are nearly there.  In some ways though, a power greater than any lethal weapon is the power we hold as a united front.  I think we sometimes forget just how much power, as a massive group, we can peacefully exercise.  What if half the nation just outright refused to do what is expected of them - and held to it with iron resolve.  Either the government would come barreling in declaring martial law, to which they would hopefully be met with an armed citizenry, or the government would back down and find another answer.  I suppose my answer boils down to this:  peaceful demonstration and even passive aggressiveness practiced en mass can be just as powerful, if not more so, than an armed militia in today's society.  But that is with the expectation that we would be met with a civilized response.  If push comes to shove, we have to be prepared to defend ourselves in any way necessary.