CALL OUT THE MILITIA!

I’ve just had this thought bugging me the last couple of days — the LA Sheriff and Police are searching desperately for an allegedly rogue cop who already killed a couple of police and may have just shot two more in a shoot-out (click).

Although, who knows? The local constabulary has already shot up two vehicles officers thought contained the suspect. They didn’t, and now the Sheriff is buying at least one person a new pickup truck and, presumably, paying their medical bills.

Those issues aside, I was wondering, where is the militia in all this?

If the LA Sheriff is as good as most sheriff’s in Utah, he is a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment which safeguards the right of everyone in America to keep a gun handy so they can, at the needed time, form into a militia.  I’d say having a rogue cop wandering around shooting folks qualifies. We don’t need troops, just good guys with guns to hunt him down.

Plus, there’s a million dollar reward. I am amazed those good guys with guns aren’t mobbing the place.

It would be interesting if they did. The guy took to the hills, so there would be some slogging around mountains and valleys and woods and dales. There’s snow on the ground so we know it’s cold.

But that shouldn’t matter. These are rough tough defenders of the US and apple pie and girls they left behind. I’m sure the sheriff would welcome them to his ranks, too.

More realistically, it would be a good reality check for those guys — it’s one thing to buy a gun to defend home and hearth, quite another to go out and actually do it. That’s why the military actually trains. Given the general lack of fitness of the average American male, not to mention weight issues, it would be interesting to see how many of our erstwhile militiamen made it out alive.

Or even have gone.  But there is precedent. The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 (click) was put down by federalized militia called up by President Washington (and led by him too) — but there was considerable resistance, few volunteered and a draft caused riots. When the militia marched into some towns the residents raised liberty poles, a sign of rebellion and opposition to the federal government left over from the Revolutionary War.

How good were they in combat? We’ll never know. The rebels ran away. In this case, it looks as if the cops have the guy surrounded.

Still, it’s one thing to say people need to keep guns to defend their homes, but it’s quite another to get them to actually do it.

 

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to CALL OUT THE MILITIA!

  1. Brent Glines says:

    Charles, you haven’t been paying attention to the news, I see. Allow me to bring you up to date.

    15 year old defends home against burglars with father’s AR-15.

    Home owner uses gun to fight of 2 violent home invaders, saves family.

    72 year old man fights armed intruders with handgun.

    Homeowner holds burglar at gunpoint awaiting police.

    This is by no means an exhaustive list. Charles, you’re supposed to be a journalist. Could you at least make an attempt to research this stuff before you blather about it?

    • Charles Trentelman says:

      research what? I can show you five stories of people shot accidentally, or by someone else in the home, or suicide, for every one of those.

      But there’s no point, they are irrelevant to my post. The blog refers to people defending their homes as part of a “well regulated militia,” as called for in the 2nd Amendment. The people you cite were not a “well regulated militia” or even a poorly regulated one. Buy a dictionary.

      • Brent Glines says:

        I wasn’t commenting on your misconception regarding the word ‘militia’, Charles. That is a common misconception among liberals. I was criticizing you last line.

        “Still, it’s one thing to say people need to keep guns to defend their homes, but it’s quite another to get them to actually do it.’

        That statement is false demonstrably false.

      • hawg says:

        “research what?”

        how about researching where the founding fathers thought that “militia” is the same as a “posse”, to be used for local criminal issues?

        you’re reaching here.

        • hawg says:

          “But there is precedent. The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 (click) was put down by federalized militia called up by President Washington ”

          also charles, don’t you think the posse comitatus act of 1878 sort of trumps your “precedent” and concept?

          give it up, we can own guns. your understanding why and acceptance of such is not necessary

  2. Ben Geiger says:

    You seem to believe in the second amendment at least a little. Obama wants an assault riffle ban, background checks, etc. The killer in this case would have been able to get access to his weapons even if Obama’s laws were already in place. With a killer on the loose in my neighborhood, I would not want to have to wait for a background check to defend my home and family.
    I don’t know anyone who has total trust for government. Democrates accuse republicans of evil all the time. Many people think 911 was an inside job. Similar ideas are thought about democrates from republicans. Glen beck played a tape from the bengazi investigation were members of the government say we are giving weapons to the muslim brotherhood. No matter which side of the isle you stand, you don’t want the government to have the power that comes with an unarmed population.

    • willbike says:

      Glen Beck? That’s funny.

      • Brent Glines says:

        Whether it is Beck, or someone else, we are still giving things like F-16′s to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which many people find to be problematic. Ad Hominem is an invalid argument.

    • Debra says:

      No one is advocating being “unarmed” – much less O’Bama.
      Get real……..!

      No average citizen needs semi- or automatic weapons – period. Keep your sporting rifles and self-defense handguns. C’mon guys……..no need to be so ridiculous – or extreme – in your generalized resentment toward all government. (That’s YOU.) i don’t see any of you running for ANY office – much less your participation at local meetings!

      • hawg says:

        some people believe in slippery slope, and some people don’t.

        hope your personal “wants” are secure from other peoples ideas of “needs”

      • Ben Geiger says:

        FREEDOM! That is the point of the United States. There are plenty of countries that restrict guns. Why don’t you gun activists move to one of those. Because we are free, you are actually allowed to leave.
        Name one government in history that was not filled with corruption. You do not want to give our leaders the power that comes with an unarmed public. Assault riffles, automatic weapons, etc. are the best guns for revolt. Crime will not go down if you take these weapons. Criminals will buy black market weapons. The cop killer would have had weapons even with new gun legislation. Goverment control will however get stronger if goverment takes these weapons. Our government is already too big and has too much control over us.

  3. Ben Geiger says:

    My point was not about Becks story. My point is that many anti gun left wingers have no trust for government figures like President Bush or Regan. Do they really want people like that to have the power givin by an unarmed population. I dont want people like Obama to have unchecked power either. Why is this concept so hard for the anti gun folks to understand? Hitler disarmed the public for example. The jews may have had a better fait with weapons.
    WITHOUT AN ARMED POPULATION, THOSE IN POWER CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!

    • ctrentelman says:

      read up on history. Warsaw, Poland, the Jews had weapons, put up huge resistance, killed hundreds of Germans.

      Still lost. Rifle vs. Tank? No question.

      • Brent Glines says:

        Disarmament was still a Nazi policy, Charles. The fact that it was not always entirely successful is fortunate.

        • J. Hartwell says:

          Brent, might I respectfully suggest a tad less time watching “300″ and a bit more reading history.

          http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

          • Brent Glines says:

            J. Hartwell, explain this, then.

            On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

            “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
            the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all
            conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms
            have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
            Adolph Hitler

            From “NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS”
            17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, No. 3, 483-535 (2000)
            http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

          • Brent Glines says:

            Perhaps you should rely on sources other than Salon for you history.

          • willbike says:

            Do I need to make extensive quotes from Glenn Beck, an actual commentator that had his own show on Fox News to demonstrate the point? I can, if you’d like.

          • Brent Glines says:

            Knock yourself out, Willbike. Lay it on me. Include footnotes to the historical source material, as did the author of the article I linked, to support every Beck quote you’d like to either defend or refute.

            Are you still trying to make the argument that Nazis really weren’t all that bad in their persecution of Jews when it comes to gun control? I really like it when you guys go all sociopathic on us!

            I’d like that very much. Go for it.

        • willbike says:

          I’d have to agree with Hartwell on that one. The image of the screaming guy is kind of childish.

          “Perhaps you should rely on sources other than Salon for you history.”

          Ad Hominem is an invalid argument.

          • Brent Glines says:

            When Salon proves to be historically inaccurate, then yes, advice to consider historical sources other than Salon is justified, don’t you think?

            Do I need to make extensive quotes from the article I linked, an actual published paper from the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, to demonstrate the point? I can, if you’d like.

          • Brent Glines says:

            Actually, I think it’s hysterical to find you guys in the position of trying to defend the argument that the Nazi’s were really such a bunch of sweethearts when it comes to gun control as it applied the the Jewish people. Maybe hysterical is not the word I’m looking for. Instructive, perhaps.

            By all means, do carry on.

      • hawg says:

        “Still lost”

        so the possibility of failure is good enough reason to not try.

        “participation medals”, the downfall of America.

    • willbike says:

      I had lunch with President Bush at Fort Hood before I went to Iraq, I like the guy.

      “WITHOUT AN ARMED POPULATION, THOSE IN POWER CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!” This is the problem. What are you talking about? I like guns, I have lots of them. Obama has proposed banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines, bfd.

      • hawg says:

        “bfd”

        doesn’t affect me so “bfd”. spoken like a true disciple

        • willbike says:

          Thats the criteria? I need to be against anything that will affect me?

          I don’t think it will make much of a difference as far as shootings go, but it will make a lot of my fellow Americans feel safer so I’m for it, it’s a minor sacrifice. It’s called compromise and a little compromise could make this country great again.

          • Ben Geiger says:

            You want to take my freedom to own the gun I want, not for safety, but so your fellow Americans feel safer. I don’t think we should take freedom so people feel safer. You should hope you don’t have something precious to you taken from you so fellow americans can feel safer, when really they are not. THAT IS A DANGEROUS PATTERN IF YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH PERSONAL FREEDOM.
            You just made my point about the power of the government. The government can take my precious possesions so you feel safer. Imagine what the government can do when the public has no weapons!

          • hawg says:

            I’m all for compromise. I find it works best when the other guy does it.

            so I’d feel safer if you weren’t allowed to drive a car. minor sacrifice, bfd.

            however, me and about 35-40 thousand people a year won’t be holding our breaths

      • Brent Glines says:

        Speaking of gun snatching Democrats, Obama is not the only person people have to worry about. Democrats in Missouri have proposed legislation to confiscate weapons.

        4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

        (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

        (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

        (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

        I think that is a ‘bfd’.

  4. Ben Geiger says:

    ctrent… Do you trust the absolute power given to governments when the population is unarmed? Do you feel comfortable with the governments being the only groups with weapons? Do you think government is capable of corruption? Do you think freedom is possible without the right to defend yourself?
    Enough debating history. Answer the questions.

  5. Tanner says:

    Charles,

    You sure do seem to be singing a different tune from last weeks “Rambler” about the Layton homeowner. Your left hand doesn’t know what your right hand is typing!

  6. red dawn says:

    Has anyone noticed the military build up on BDO, OR ARE ALL OF YOU FREAKIN BLIND!!

  7. Charles Trentelman says:

    the illuminati store their vehicles at BDO…

    Oh, wait, that’s a secret.

    It’s the army reserve, honest.

  8. Stormin Norman says:

    Citizens along the border with guns would take care of illegal immigration if their were a bounty on the illegals! But then we wouldn’t need a border patrol except to pick up the dead bodies!

    • Decider says:

      How many slaughtered citizens do you think there would be, Norm? — is that women and children combatants too? –
      or are they just collateral damage?

  9. mohokat says:

    If the time ever came, Chucky would arrive on scene on his bicycle with his camera in tow for a photo op. At Chuckys house a home invasion would result in a high capacity camera pointed at the perps.

  10. robert says:

    Mental imbalance is not a requered check on the form to purchase a weapon, It is a yes or no check box. Therefore the argument not being checked out in the background check holds no water,

    Back ground checks are for felony convictions and arrest records.

    Obama did not go into gun control in his first 4 years because its a political suicide topic. He waited.. then tries to slam this through.

    Well regulated militia. At the time this was writen it is argued today that only smoothbore percussion and flint pistols and rifles were available, Being true the 2nd amendment does not specify what type of weapon should not be infringed. The weapons were of the time period and carries on to todays advanced weapons. Where the militia were armed in the 1700′s, So should the people be armed with todays better weapons.

    Obama and his wife were surounded by victims of some sort of gun related violence.

    My view is that Obama should have been surounded by jobless and homeless persons.

    Unemployment and the result on family lives are a breeding ground for violence in all forms.

    The 2nd amendment rights are a protection put in place to prevent the destruction of the US constitution by foreing and domestic takeover.

    It is NOT by chance that this is the 2nd amendment in its place of importance only to be toped by the 1st, freedom of speech. For without the first 2, you would lose the others.

    You may or may not like guns, But I am betting you DO like your freedom being you use the 1st without fail.

  11. mohokat says:

    Oh and Piers Morgan would be following closely behind. Piers in his signature Lace Panties with his little air rifle in his hand.

  12. Fat survivalists are kinda funny.

    You know what they call their chubby wives?
    Rations.

  13. Glenn Ballard says:

    Charles, for a man who doesn’t like guns and doesn’t trust his sons with them, (by you own admission) you certainly have no limit of advice for the rest of us. Considering your level of admitted dysfunction, I think you should “put a sock in it”. Maybe this is insulting, but I’ve got to say it: I feel that I am being advised by “Homer Simpson”.

    • ctrentelman says:

      upi ,ist be thinking of someone else. If you’d bother to read my column or blog you’d know I own guns and used to be an active black powder muzzleloader shooter.

      my sons make their own decisions and if you can show me where i’ve said i don’t trust them with guns — and that is, specifically, not some interpretation by you of something else i said — I’ll donated $20 to the red cross in your name.

  14. zoie says:

    Hello… I’m new to this whole joining thing but finally did and felt compelled to give everyone a heads up about an author I’ve been following people should check out. His new book Damascus Road is excellent and right on point. His other book published last year, Almost Home was chilling about a power grid failure – and then Hollywood ripped it off for the TV series Revolution. Hollywood is such a rip off. Anyway… here’s what I’m in to and thought I’d share.

    The author L. Charles Holt: Almost Home and his most recent book Damascus Road. The excerpt below is for Damascus Road. Both books can be found on Amazon, or Kindle, or at other retailers.

    http://www.amazon.com/Damascus-Road-L-Charles-Holt/dp/148236249X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361977878&sr=1-1

    CW regains consciousness with a knot on the back of his head – painful evidence of the brawl with Homeland Security. His family was going home with their monthly load of supplies when forced to stop at the mobile enforcement checkpoint to have papers validated and their bodies searched again – a humiliation they had endured earlier that morning. When TSA dragged their 13-year old daughter Clarion away in handcuffs Shelby fought like a wildcat until she was taken down and clubbed into submission face down on the pavement. He tried but failed to reach them, doing his best by putting up one hell of a fight until being knocked unconscious. TSA had no right to do what they did. Now his family is separated and he doesn’t know where they were taken. He vows in his heart to find them and bring them home – swearing unholy vengeance on anyone that hurt his family.

    “A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.” Jean de La Fontaine (French Poet, 1621-1695)

    Damascus Road is a story of love of family, digging deeper than you thought possible when facing insurmountable odds and making your own luck until you ultimately succeed even as the world crumbles around you.

    Just thought you folks would want to know about these books. I love his favorite quote:
    “I’ll do what it takes – shoulder any burden, protect and defend family and friends. I love my family, my God and my country – I’m a Man living my days in America.”
    All the best ya’ll.
    Zoie

  15. Suzi Oborn says:

    Ok, back to the article, I’m still thinking about why there was no indication of a call out to a militia or offer from a militia to assist in the armed pursuit of the man in question. Could it be there is no such militia? I’ve been led to believe that there is a militia out there and this well meaning militia needs the freedom to have access to every type of firearm known to mankind in order to perform militia type duties to the best of their ability. What exactly are these duties that some are so quick to defend? Clearly they don’t include fighting crime or maintaining law and order as defined by our modern civilized rules of society, otherwise our society would be more civilized. If they exist to defend our country against Hitler, they should feel free to stand down. I think if we all could relax and stop thinking in terms of worse case scenarios, a rational compromise will be reached. If not, there’s always that freedom of speech thing I keep hearing about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>