Constitutional Convention

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
141

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I don’t think a comparison between colonial “rebels” and their “betters” from the 18th century, which happened to be located across the Atlantic ocean is very comparable to the current US military and the typical prepper. Apples and oranges Nick.[/quote]

Indeed. Our happy romantics seem to think that in the 21st century, China is going to show up with the same class of weapons as can be found in their cousin’s garage down the street and that our plucky citizen soldiers are going to hold their own against a Chengdu J-10 by hiding behind trees.

142

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Under the proposed alternative constitution, a foreign nation would be unfurling it a flag over the capitol before these romantic libertarian militiamen could even organized in their boots laced up.
[/quote]

Why?

143

[quote] NickViar:

There’s also that. In TB’s defense, he was probably just repeating something that he learned in the public indoctrucation system.[/quote]

When attempting a gratuitous insult at someone’s intelligence or education to try and show you’re smarter, correct spelling is kind of required. Just FYI.

144

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] NickViar:

There’s also that. In TB’s defense, he was probably just repeating something that he learned in the public indoctrucation system.[/quote]

When attempting a gratuitous insult at someone’s intelligence or education to try and show you’re smarter, correct spelling is kind of required. Just FYI.[/quote]

I believe you are referring to the portmanteau word in my post. I combined the words “indoctrination” and “education.” Just FYI.

145

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Under the proposed alternative constitution, a foreign nation would be unfurling it a flag over the capitol before these romantic libertarian militiamen could even organized in their boots laced up.
[/quote]

A most outstanding sentence, especially coming from someone who feels the need to nitpick the spelling in posts by others. “…a foreign nation would be unfurling it a flag over the capitol…could even organized in their boots laced up.”

146

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Yes, because I didn’t assert that to be true, and it’s a non-sequitur - in the 21st century, if you were to create a nation with a new constitution that provided for national defense, it would strategic malpractice to establish a militia system composed of civilians and their secondary market AR-15s expecting them to prevail against professional armies, modern aircraft, aircraft carriers, tanks, drones, and professional soldiers all because this one time, insurgents stuck it to a bigger army once and it was so cool.

[/quote]

The insurgents that stuck it to a bigger army “once” “this one time”…

Are you referring to the Vietnamese or the Afghanis? Hard to tell.

147

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I don’t think a comparison between colonial “rebels” and their “betters” from the 18th century, which happened to be located across the Atlantic ocean is very comparable to the current US military and the typical prepper. Apples and oranges Nick.[/quote]

Considering that many a typical prepper is a former combat veteran, I’d suggest it isn’t quite as different as you propose. Also, with the more intricate logistical requirements of the modern military, the tighter kinship amongst veterans as those that bear arms in their nation’s defense is of an increasingly small percentage, and the fact that the modern military is no less doctrinally constrained today than it was 200 years ago, I’m confident a domestic insurgency is not nearly as hopeless as you suggest.

148

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Under the proposed alternative constitution, a foreign nation would be unfurling it a flag over the capitol before these romantic libertarian militiamen could even organized in their boots laced up.
[/quote]

Bolt, I cannot suppose you’re suggesting my alternative constitution, with an entire military branch dedicated to what the less enlightened would consider foreign adventurism would be reliant upon libertarian militiamen to defend it. Add that to the fact that citizens can be drafted.

To assume that a foreign flag would fly over such a nation is to suggest that we should currently be occupied. Last I looked it’s been a very long time since men didn’t volunteer for military service. Do you think that selective service card a guy fills out on his 18th birthday is what’s keeping Putin from our shores tovarish? Right now men are volunteering for military service even when the benefits of citizenship are granted just by eating cheetos and playing MarioKart.

There are a lot of flaws I expect to correct in the Constitution. That we’ll be subject to Sharia Law isn’t one of them.

149

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

The insurgents that stuck it to a bigger army “once” “this one time”…

Are you referring to the Vietnamese or the Afghanis? Hard to tell.
[/quote]

No. I think he was talking about Cortes and the Aztecs.

Wait Varq, are you talking about the Afghanis fighting the United States or the Soviet Union? Surely one of those must have been a success.

Or was it Greeks defeating the empire of Persia?

Maybe it was the when the Romans couldn’t quite get that last tip of England and put up Hadrian’s Wall.

But hey, now warfare is like, totally different dude. For realsies.

150

Actually, I was talking about the Afghans fighting practically anybody. I have great respect for anyone who can shoot down Soviet Hind gunships with rope guns.

151

[[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Yes, because I didn’t assert that to be true, and it’s a non-sequitur - in the 21st century, if you were to create a nation with a new constitution that provided for national defense, it would strategic malpractice to establish a militia system composed of civilians and their secondary market AR-15s expecting them to prevail against professional armies, modern aircraft, aircraft carriers, tanks, drones, and professional soldiers all because this one time, insurgents stuck it to a bigger army once and it was so cool.

[/quote]

The insurgents that stuck it to a bigger army “once” “this one time”…

Are you referring to the Vietnamese or the Afghanis? Hard to tell.
[/quote]

There are a number of instances, of course, as you know - but naive romanticism about those events doesn’t form a coherent national security strategy.

You seem content to reminisce about the historical exceptions to the rule. Sure, no problem, it’s all very interesting - I don’t disagree (one of my favorites is the Battle of San Jacinto). But that isn’t the issue, and exceptions don’t make the rule, certainly not in the 21st century.

152

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

The insurgents that stuck it to a bigger army “once” “this one time”…

Are you referring to the Vietnamese or the Afghanis? Hard to tell.
[/quote]

No. I think he was talking about Cortes and the Aztecs.

Wait Varq, are you talking about the Afghanis fighting the United States or the Soviet Union? Surely one of those must have been a success.

Or was it Greeks defeating the empire of Persia?

Maybe it was the when the Romans couldn’t quite get that last tip of England and put up Hadrian’s Wall.

But hey, now warfare is like, totally different dude. For realsies.
[/quote]

The reason these stories survive history is because they are exceptional - they are exceptions to the rule.

Would you really base your national security strategy on a hope that the exception will be the norm if something happens?

(By the way, good to see back around, Jefferson, and good to see you out doing your thing in Moscow.)

153

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I don’t think a comparison between colonial “rebels” and their “betters” from the 18th century, which happened to be located across the Atlantic ocean is very comparable to the current US military and the typical prepper. Apples and oranges Nick.[/quote]

Considering that many a typical prepper is a former combat veteran, I’d suggest it isn’t quite as different as you propose. Also, with the more intricate logistical requirements of the modern military, the tighter kinship amongst veterans as those that bear arms in their nation’s defense is of an increasingly small percentage, and the fact that the modern military is no less doctrinally constrained today than it was 200 years ago, I’m confident a domestic insurgency is not nearly as hopeless as you suggest.[/quote]

The average citizen doesn’t have tanks, APCs, attack choppers, fighter jets, supercarriers, smart bombs, cluster bombs and every other bomb. So I’ll stand my by points.
I think the real issue would come down to whether American soldiers would follow through on killing their own, without question. If the pot gets stirred up enough, then neither side will be thinking, and may act of emotion rather than reason. But then you also have situations like Waco, and Ruby Ridge, where the people being given the orders didn’t seem to give a shit.

James Wesley Rawles has written a few good books on the collapse of the US. The government ends up bringing in soldiers from other countries to avoid such conflicts of the conscience.

154

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

They could try a sticky bomb.

[/quote]

Trading some 10 people for every tank sounds like a good trade =D

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Yes, because professional armies with military grade weapons always prevail against civilian insurgents and guerrillas.[/quote]

Tell that to the Filipinos when they tried to repel the U.S. They’re pussies compared to the Afghans, right?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
American public schools kind of gloss over the story of Anthony Johnson and John Casor.

The history of the African slave trade, like everything else, is not, shall we say, black and white.[/quote]

Do you have statistics on black slave-owners or just a single incident?

155

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

The insurgents that stuck it to a bigger army “once” “this one time”…

Are you referring to the Vietnamese or the Afghanis? Hard to tell.
[/quote]

No. I think he was talking about Cortes and the Aztecs.

Wait Varq, are you talking about the Afghanis fighting the United States or the Soviet Union? Surely one of those must have been a success.

Or was it Greeks defeating the empire of Persia?

Maybe it was the when the Romans couldn’t quite get that last tip of England and put up Hadrian’s Wall.

But hey, now warfare is like, totally different dude. For realsies.
[/quote]

The reason these stories survive history is because they are exceptional - they are exceptions to the rule.

Would you really base your national security strategy on a hope that the exception will be the norm if something happens?

(By the way, good to see back around, Jefferson, and good to see you out doing your thing in Moscow.)
[/quote]

I always regret stepping away when I do. Even if I don’t agree with folks, there’s consistently a better quality of person around here than out in the world – much like what I enjoyed about the military. I was rather hoping that I would find that when I became a lawsmith. Didn’t happen. I’m damn glad to see you’re still around Bolt. What’s new?

156

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The reason these stories survive history is because they are exceptional - they are exceptions to the rule.

Would you really base your national security strategy on a hope that the exception will be the norm if something happens?

[/quote]

For what it’s worth, I’m not a fan of relying on militias either. Successful insurgencies aren’t quite the impossibility many think, but even if you have a large insurgency, life rather sucks when you’re occupied. We’re not dealing with a insurgency in Russia because we never attacked Russia. We never attacked Russia because they were a hard target. I prefer a strong military that appears to be a hard target.

We like to look back and romanticize the militiaman. We needed him. But his service was a stopgap until we could get a regular army up. And your more successful groups, like those led by Daniel Morgan, could hardly be considered militias when they were pretty much operating professionally when at full swing.

It’s also worth noting that the timing was very good for a successful militia. Those ranks were full of combat veterans of the French and Indian Wars.

I’m a huge fan of the militia. But the value of the militia is akin to having my daughter take karate classes. She’s going to learn a lot more about killing bodies by coming to the range with dad and our evening pushups before bed. But the carryover value in the creation of a virtuous citizen is the more important aspect. By having ranks of militiamen we 1) teach civic virtue and responsibility; 2) provide a pipeline to a professional military force; and 3) can serve as a stopgap. I believe a militia is far more successful for internal revolt than for protection by foreign invaders. Indeed, I’m nearly positive that if we did have some sort of internal revolt it’d be a successful one. But it isn’t going to be Billy Bob with his shooting his Chey-Tac off of a bench rest that’ll get the job done. It’ll be GWoT vets, newfound deserters, and nerds in tandem.

We consistently like to point to the Swiss. Does anyone here truly think that if we wanted to install a puppet government in Switzerland we couldn’t do it because our a K31 or SG550 in every home? It is the creation of the warrior, not the tools of his trade, that is most important. You can’t do that on the sidelines.

157

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The reason these stories survive history is because they are exceptional - they are exceptions to the rule.

Would you really base your national security strategy on a hope that the exception will be the norm if something happens?

[/quote]

For what it’s worth, I’m not a fan of relying on militias either. Successful insurgencies aren’t quite the impossibility many think, but even if you have a large insurgency, life rather sucks when you’re occupied. We’re not dealing with a insurgency in Russia because we never attacked Russia. We never attacked Russia because they were a hard target. I prefer a strong military that appears to be a hard target.

We like to look back and romanticize the militiaman. We needed him. But his service was a stopgap until we could get a regular army up. And your more successful groups, like those led by Daniel Morgan, could hardly be considered militias when they were pretty much operating professionally when at full swing.

It’s also worth noting that the timing was very good for a successful militia. Those ranks were full of combat veterans of the French and Indian Wars.

I’m a huge fan of the militia. But the value of the militia is akin to having my daughter take karate classes. She’s going to learn a lot more about killing bodies by coming to the range with dad and our evening pushups before bed. But the carryover value in the creation of a virtuous citizen is the more important aspect. By having ranks of militiamen we 1) teach civic virtue and responsibility; 2) provide a pipeline to a professional military force; and 3) can serve as a stopgap. I believe a militia is far more successful for internal revolt than for protection by foreign invaders. Indeed, I’m nearly positive that if we did have some sort of internal revolt it’d be a successful one. But it isn’t going to be Billy Bob with his shooting his Chey-Tac off of a bench rest that’ll get the job done. It’ll be GWoT vets, newfound deserters, and nerds in tandem.

We consistently like to point to the Swiss. Does anyone here truly think that if we wanted to install a puppet government in Switzerland we couldn’t do it because our a K31 or SG550 in every home? It is the creation of the warrior, not the tools of his trade, that is most important. You can’t do that on the sidelines.
[/quote]

Good post. I thought everyone thought of militias as nothing more than a way to slow an invasion enough to get professionals there. I don’t think I’d ever even considered that some people believe that those who support militias/armed citizens think an invasion could be completely repelled by guys coming home from their 8-5s and fighting for a few hours before bedtime. Even if a people were to rely solely upon a militia in peacetime, an invasion would create demand for a large number of full-time soldiers.

I guess that I have always viewed a militia as something like a locked door- it hardens the target, but it can’t be the sole means of defending the interior of the home.

158

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
American public schools kind of gloss over the story of Anthony Johnson and John Casor.

The history of the African slave trade, like everything else, is not, shall we say, black and white.[/quote]

Do you have statistics on black slave-owners or just a single incident?[/quote]

Yes. Read the article Nick posted earlier.

And Anthony Johnson was more significant than “a single incident.”

He was, in fact, the first slave-owner in America. He OWNED a black man, as opposed to employing an indentured servant. And he was black.

159

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yes. Read the article Nick posted earlier.[/quote]

I did. I was hoping for more census information in the form of the New Orleans thing mentioned in the article.

My biggest problem with the article is that it’s not sourced very well, and draws some strange conclusions.

I mean, look at this statement-

“To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.”

Why does he compare the % of black slave owners in New Orleans with the total % of slave owners in the South? Wouldn’t it be far more appropriate to create a % out of the total black population in the South (a number the author placed at “fewer than four million”)

But these are all gripes with the author’s writing. I don’t dispute the point he, and you and NickViar are making overall. History is taught in very broad strokes in the middle school/high school level, and is all but useless when it comes to actually presenting the events and concepts of the U.S. in a genuine manner.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And Anthony Johnson was more significant than “a single incident.”

He was, in fact, the first slave-owner in America. He OWNED a black man, as opposed to employing an indentured servant. And he was black.[/quote]

Why is this significant?

160

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Good post. I thought everyone thought of militias as nothing more than a way to slow an invasion enough to get professionals there. I don’t think I’d ever even considered that some people believe that those who support militias/armed citizens think an invasion could be completely repelled by guys coming home from their 8-5s and fighting for a few hours before bedtime. Even if a people were to rely solely upon a militia in peacetime, an invasion would create demand for a large number of full-time soldiers.

I guess that I have always viewed a militia as something like a locked door- it hardens the target, but it can’t be the sole means of defending the interior of the home.[/quote]

Well, the colonists clearly believed in the concept of the citizen soldier (aka militia), and that they would be able to repel the Redcoats (They did not; in fact the citizen soldiers sucked real bad).

And the reasons they sucked is why I don’t necessarily believe in the rationales for a militia that Mikeyali gave.

Anyways, I can’t claim to know why modern hardcore militia people believe in militias. Based on comments I’ve seen here and there though, some people genuinely seem to believe that they and a bunch of like-minded people can give the U.S. army a good fight in an armed rebellion with just their AR-15.