They made running a business illegal (unless you are a major donor). When the militias attempt to protect the people who keep their businesses open to provide for themselves, the illusion they are anything different will disappear.
Gangs aren’t bad. Commies know that any group of armed men willing to fight for their communities are a threat, so they demonized them through their proxies.
Are some gang members pieces of shit? Absolutely, but conflating all of them with the worst members is like calling all soldiers baby killers because of the Mai Lai massacre. Its a smear tactic to make them lose public support.
Look at Mexico, the cartels beat the military and government EASILY. Thats why the mainstream media doesn’t cover it, they don’t want us seeing exactly how strong we really are.
No, they're not one and the same. Not by a long shot. The only similarity is that they're organized into groups and have weapons. However, the similarities end there. Their missions are different.
jomten: They made running a business illegal (unless you are a major donor).
Closing a business that sells things that the community needs, that is seen as acceptable to the majority of the United States, because operating it is "deemed illegal" is not the same thing as defending a business that's not legal and that is not accepted by the community.
jomten: When the militias attempt to protect the people who keep their businesses open to provide for themselves, the illusion they are anything different will disappear.
When militias defend a business owner for opening his/her shop, they're doing it from a natural rights, and historic, perspective. The business owner is providing a service to the community. The owners are pursuing their American dream, one that's consistent with what the founding fathers envisioned. When a militia group comes to defend this business when it opens up during a lockdown, that's not the same thing as defending an area of operation involving what would be illegal even outside of pandemic countermeasures.
jomten: Gangs aren't bad.
Most militias aren't bad either. Unlike gangs, they don't get involved with sending rounds against other militia on a regular basis.
jomten: Commies know that any group of armed men willing to fight for their communities are a threat, so they demonized them through their proxies.
Gangs don't do much with regards to their image, they don't need the media's help in demonizing them. When they engage in altercations, and even shootouts, disturbing the peace in the process, the community, and the rest of the country, is going to see them in un-flatering terms.
jomten: Are some gang members pieces of shit? Absolutely, but conflating all of them with the worst members is like calling all soldiers baby killers because of the Mai Lai massacre. Its a smear tactic to make them lose public support.
One main difference is that the US Military is not constantly, or on a regular basis, committing war crimes and atrocities. And, when they do, the military's justice system holds them accountable for their actions. I'm a retired Soldier, I don't see a comparison between gangs and the US Military.
The same thing with militias. There are bad apples among the militia, but they don't represent the majority of militia groups. The larpers and the "gung ho" types are not the majority either. The majority of the militia are regular citizens who go about their normal lives like the rest of us do.
Not to long ago, I read an article where two rival gangs sent their leadership to a meeting to have "peace talks". So we have good movement in that direction.
jomten: Look at Mexico, the cartels beat the military and government EASILY. Thats why the mainstream media doesn't cover it, they don't want us seeing exactly how strong we really are.
We're talking about the Mexican military. Send the US military into their area and we'd pulverize the Mexican cartels. President Trump even offered to deploy the US military into Mexico to take on their gangs.
I've seen examples of how gangs, militia, and foreign military fight. Not the way one would want to engage in combat against a professional military like what the US has... Unless suicide is the fighter's objective.
First thing, thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate patriots debating controversial ideas.
Got some counterpoints-
A Gang and a Militia are alot closer than just weapons and distrust of government. Theres a patriotism in gangs to their neighborhoods, their territory if you will. Their missions are different because their environments are different.
A city controlled by democrats for decades is very different to rural America. Whereas a modern militiaman usually has a stable job and family structure, an “inner city” gang member typically has little in the way of job opportunity and a practically nonexistent family support network.
The militia members train to defend against government tyranny, and some have ex/current law enforcement & military in their ranks to give them more legitimacy.
Gangs practice concealing their activities from the government. Gun control is rampant there, unconstitutional as it is. If Biden/Clinton/whoever instituted gun control and the SC continues to refuse to rule on it, all modern militias become “illegal” unless they just train with squirtguns.
Selling drugs as well is a big part of gang culture. We can debate the morality/legality of selling drugs, but the reason it becomes the business of choice for gangs is because its illegal which lowers competition, increases the profit margin, and it takes no initial investment to get started other than product, a scale, and sandwich bags.
No one is knocking the doors down of the convenience store owner selling tobacco/liqour and arresting him.
Those business owners arent engaged in violence because they can call the police to settle disputes. Gang members also don’t have stable leadership to keep their “soldiers” in check leading to alot more “senseless” violence.
Leave a platoon of young soldiers with a rotating leadership. Whenever the leader becomes too effective he gets replaced, and that platoon will be a much higher risk for “war crimes”.
Gangs also include organized crime like the mafia. The mafia has been impossible to truly stamp out, because the community actually LIKES having the mafia around.
If you want to gamble, get drugs,(including liqour during prohibition), get prostitutes, get a loan, or dodge taxes, the mafia filled that role.
If push comes to shove and patriots end up in open combat with the CCP and their puppets, we will be branded as violent gangs at best, terrorist cells at worst.
And at least some of mexican cartels are literally just mexican special forces that defected. (The Zetas, some Sinaloa cells). The American version of that would be even stronger than the mexican version.
jomten: A Gang and a Militia are alot closer than just weapons and distrust of government.
As I mentioned before, their similarities end beyond the "armed groups" category. Going through your response, you actually built onto my argument regarding the differences between the two.
jomten: Theres a patriotism in gangs to their neighborhoods, their territory if you will. Their missions are different because their environments are different.
Identifying with one's community, and with neighborhoods, isn't the same thing as patriotism as exercised by the military and militias. Patriotism involves a love for one's countrymen and country. This entails support and belief in a philosophy that is shared not just in the immediate community but throughout the country.
Different communities and neighborhoods have their own nuances and differences when it comes to local neighborhood and community matters. If anything, this is akin to "tribalism". Members of a tribe, or a village, are going to have "patriotism" towards other members of the village/tribe.
Like the military, the militia also has a concept that involves God being above country, and country being above community... Even if this isn't stated.
jomten: A city controlled by democrats for decades is very different to rural America. Whereas a modern militiaman usually has a stable job and family structure, an "inner city" gang member typically has little in the way of job opportunity and a practically nonexistent family support network.
This is a big reason to why gangs and militia are different beyond being groups that are armed. Having a stable family structure, to include both parents influencing upbringing, and an extended family and community, will influence the ultimate thought process. The philosophy and mindset that results is going to be different from the one gained from the scenario that you described for the growing up environment for inner city gang members.
The upbringing in rural America, in "Red" America, creates someone that would more than likely join a militia. Their philosophy, for life, and for why they joined the militia, is going to be different from that of someone that joins a gang.
jomten: Gangs practice concealing their activities from the government. Gun control is rampant there, unconstitutional as it is. If Biden/Clinton/whoever instituted gun control and the SC continues to refuse to rule on it, all modern militias become "illegal" unless they just train with squirtguns.
Here's another reason to why gangs and militia are different beyond being armed groups. The militia is a part of natural law and can't be overturned by a law of man. We have a natural right to protect ourselves. This is one reason to why the 2nd Amendment is worded, "the right", followed by the right of the people to bear arms, followed by, "shall not be infringed".
The expressed purpose that the 2nd Amendment states for our need to bear arms? To have a well regulated (functioning) militia.
This right came from above, someone higher than the highest offices of the land. They would have to overturn religion, and cause those of us who are a part of religion to abandon religious/spiritual beliefs, for militias to be truly overturned.
Militias are tied to natural rights. Natural rights are given to us by God. There's no similar tie to gang membership or the purpose of gangs. Gangs serve their business objective, in a business that's normally illegal and not accepted by the United States population as a whole. Militias, for the most part, tie their existence to protecting our natural rights and ensuring that the government doesn't infringe on these natural rights.
jomten: Selling drugs as well is a big part of gang culture. We can debate the morality/legality of selling drugs, but the reason it becomes the business of choice for gangs is because its illegal which lowers competition, increases the profit margin, and it takes no initial investment to get started other than product, a scale, and sandwich bags.
Its that debate, regarding morality and legality, that contributes to the differences between gangs and militia beyond the fact that they're members of armed groups. Gangs pursue, and defend, an activity that's frowned upon by society both left and right. Militias are not always smiled upon by the public, and they're not always known by the public.
However, beyond the private militias, there is the statutory militia. Both the federal and state governments have identified an organized militia and a non-organized militia. The organized militia consists of the National Guard and the State Defense Force/State Guard. The unorganized militia consists of designated individuals, not in the military, national guard, or state defense force, who are of a certain age group.
These militias, organized and unorganized, are backed by federal and state law, and have a chain of command. The organized militia trains with state support. The unorganized militia, those who form private militias, train in private settings.
Their mission is to defend and support the constitution of their state and of the United States. This orientation contributes to the differences between gangs and militia.
jomten: Gang members also don't have stable leadership to keep their "soldiers" in check leading to alot more "senseless" violence.
Hence another difference between gangs and militias. Though not as disciplined as the regular military and organized militia, they do have their chain of command and organizational codes of conduct.
jomten: Leave a platoon of young soldiers with a rotating leadership. Whenever the leader becomes too effective he gets replaced, and that platoon will be a much higher risk for "war crimes".
Platoon leaders, usually a young Soldier fresh out of the Academy or ROTC, are there roughly two years, then rotates out or gets replaced sooner. Whether they get too effective or not is a non-issue. They rotate out in order to progress in their careers.
Each platoon consists of three rifle squads and a weapons squad. Each of these squads is broken down into two teams, each lead by a team leader. Additionally, there's a platoon sergeant.
The platoon sergeant is usually in his mid to late 30s. Each squad is lead by a squad leader, who's usually in their late 20s or early 30s. The team sergeants are usually in their mid to late 20s.
The platoon sergeant and squad leaders are usually older than the platoon leader. These folks usually stay in the platoon longer than the platoon sergeant does. So, when the platoon leader rotates out, there is enough discipline within the platoon to avoid committing war crimes (for the most part).
Even a private would keep someone in check if they started to stray away from what is expected of them. Discipline goes all the way down to the most junior man in the platoon. For the most part.
jomten: Gangs also include organized crime like the mafia. The mafia has been impossible to truly stamp out, because the community actually LIKES having the mafia around. If you want to gamble, get drugs,(including liqour during prohibition), get prostitutes, get a loan, or dodge taxes, the mafia filled that role.
This would be a better comparison to gangs... Mafias. I've seen how this arrangement worked overseas where the "mafia" included the government.
jomten: If push comes to shove and patriots end up in open combat with the CCP and their puppets, we will be branded as violent gangs at best, terrorist cells at worst.
This would naturally occur to any group that dares lift a hand against the leftist elites and their desires causes. For example, if most Latinos become conservative, and vote that way, they would be lumped together with Caucasians and demonized.
jomten: And at least some of mexican cartels are literally just mexican special forces that defected. (The Zetas, some Sinaloa cells). The American version of that would be even stronger than the mexican version.
The US Special forces, as well as US Army and Marine infantry units, would be able to crush a Mexican cartel consisting of former Mexican special forces. The Mexican military is mainly a force in garrison. They spend a lot of time doing administrative and housekeeping operations at their bases. Their training, in the field, would be comparable to the most active garrison-based training that the US military does.
Additionally, based on nearly two decades of recent wartime experience, American special forces, as well as the Marines and Army, engage in realistic combat training scenarios. This is done at the team level, squad level, platoon level, and up. The US military also trains more frequently.
If the Mexican cartels ever had to get into a combat engagement with the US military, they're going to be faced with realities that their actual fighting has not provided them. They're used to fighting a peer force. If they have to engage in combat against the US Military, they won't be having an opposition that fights like they do. They would end up facing their mortality as they see their buddies bodies drop to the ground in greater numbers and in quicker succession than what they're used to experiencing.
If a Texan militiamember is willing to fight for Texas, but not for California, is he no longer patriotic?
I think your definition of militia is too narrow, while you think my definition is too wide. The militia as defined by the founders meant the whole people, or at least the men of combat age.
Gangs do not require a business motive. There are gangs that are not involved with crime at all. There are gangs that have some members involved with criminal activity while the other members are oblivious.
The point im making is by your definition it will be trivially easy to classify basically any militia as a gang. Anyone involved in crime? They can make something a crime to make you a criminal. Just look at covid lockdowns and gym/restaurant owners.
Those business owners have the support of roughly 40-60% of the community depending on which city they are in and which poll you ask. If they cuck enough of your neighbors into thinking defending your rights is bad does your militia lose legitimacy?
The organized and disorganized militia concept should not mean that once you classify a certain militia group “bad” they lose their right and can be targeted for affiliation alone.
And drug dealing is just one example of a way they make money. Running unlicensed taxis is another. Before Uber the cities hated this because taxi medallions are a huge source of income for the state to play with, which is why they hate uber too. But the private interests overruled them because they could get in on the action through the stock market.
Unlicensed taxis are illegal, but clearly its a service that many people want. After Uber came out there was a huge spin campaign to turn public opinion against it, to this day there are people parroting talking points about “they arent inspected or have enough insurance” that the leftist state media tried pushing.
And public opinion has been pro drug enough to have several states legalize marijuana. Without veering too far off subject ill assert that all illegal drugs are “legal” in the taxi medallion sense that you just need to pay enough money to the right people and you can sell essentially the same narcotics “gangs” sell. More Americans are on prescription opiates than use tobacco products. I dont how many Americans get amphetamine prescriptions but I know there is basically always a shortage.
Amongst most gangs there is a level of discipline that is enforced. The Southern mexican gangs in Cali once enforced a “no drive by” policy that was followed by the gangbangers. Famously there was a “one foot on the ground” rule, where you had to stop the car and the shooter needed one foot on the ground. This was in response to a civilian being hit in crossfire.
In Chicago is where the most breakdown of order has happened. I like to joke murder is legal on the southside of Chicago, but with a 17% clearance rate for murders its practically a reality.
With over 500 gang related murders every year there its basically in uncharted territory anthropologically speaking. Im not a huge fan of “product of my environment” arguments but there definitely is some truth to it.
And I dont doubt that our military would overwhelm the cartels if given the chance, but the point is they actually take on their own government. How many of our civilians would actually face their government to stop them from arresting Don Jr for example, the way the cartels surrounded the military when El Chapos son was captured?
The cartels shot a politician (I think a mayor) in broad daylight, then had someone in the crowd waiting when the successor was being sworn in. As soon as the replacement was sworn in he was shot as well. No one else wanted the position after that.
If that happened whenever a politician here got caught influence peddling/insider trading/taking kickbacks and bribes etc, how long until no politician wanted to risk it?
Our population has gotten so soft. Gang culture is one of the last places you see actual “Alpha male” tendencies held as an ideal, twisted as it is. The military is getting soft too, I heard that they give privates a card they can show their drill sergeant if they are being too “mean” and the drill sergeant has to back off.
With “Gangs” I think we can learn alot from them, they have solved many of the problems a Militia would encounter actually resisting pur government.
Op sec for instance. They use slang, which sounds silly to us but it serves a purpose. Slang is like an accent, in that is purpose is to identify outsiders quickly. An undercover will sound out of place compared to someone entrenched in the lifestyle, which is why undercover operations don’t work with gangs anymore.
Note 99% arent consciously aware they are doing this, its just naturally “evolved” this way.
To incorporate this into a militia, we have a meme culture here that has its own unique culture. While an undercover could know some of our memes, theres an underlying philosophy to it that makes newcomers stand out. Like when a handshake tries to bring racism in they might as well have “Shill” painted on them.
They are one and the same.
They made running a business illegal (unless you are a major donor). When the militias attempt to protect the people who keep their businesses open to provide for themselves, the illusion they are anything different will disappear.
Gangs aren’t bad. Commies know that any group of armed men willing to fight for their communities are a threat, so they demonized them through their proxies.
Are some gang members pieces of shit? Absolutely, but conflating all of them with the worst members is like calling all soldiers baby killers because of the Mai Lai massacre. Its a smear tactic to make them lose public support.
Look at Mexico, the cartels beat the military and government EASILY. Thats why the mainstream media doesn’t cover it, they don’t want us seeing exactly how strong we really are.
jomten: They are one and the same.
No, they're not one and the same. Not by a long shot. The only similarity is that they're organized into groups and have weapons. However, the similarities end there. Their missions are different.
jomten: They made running a business illegal (unless you are a major donor).
Closing a business that sells things that the community needs, that is seen as acceptable to the majority of the United States, because operating it is "deemed illegal" is not the same thing as defending a business that's not legal and that is not accepted by the community.
jomten: When the militias attempt to protect the people who keep their businesses open to provide for themselves, the illusion they are anything different will disappear.
When militias defend a business owner for opening his/her shop, they're doing it from a natural rights, and historic, perspective. The business owner is providing a service to the community. The owners are pursuing their American dream, one that's consistent with what the founding fathers envisioned. When a militia group comes to defend this business when it opens up during a lockdown, that's not the same thing as defending an area of operation involving what would be illegal even outside of pandemic countermeasures.
jomten: Gangs aren't bad.
Most militias aren't bad either. Unlike gangs, they don't get involved with sending rounds against other militia on a regular basis.
jomten: Commies know that any group of armed men willing to fight for their communities are a threat, so they demonized them through their proxies.
Gangs don't do much with regards to their image, they don't need the media's help in demonizing them. When they engage in altercations, and even shootouts, disturbing the peace in the process, the community, and the rest of the country, is going to see them in un-flatering terms.
jomten: Are some gang members pieces of shit? Absolutely, but conflating all of them with the worst members is like calling all soldiers baby killers because of the Mai Lai massacre. Its a smear tactic to make them lose public support.
One main difference is that the US Military is not constantly, or on a regular basis, committing war crimes and atrocities. And, when they do, the military's justice system holds them accountable for their actions. I'm a retired Soldier, I don't see a comparison between gangs and the US Military.
The same thing with militias. There are bad apples among the militia, but they don't represent the majority of militia groups. The larpers and the "gung ho" types are not the majority either. The majority of the militia are regular citizens who go about their normal lives like the rest of us do.
Not to long ago, I read an article where two rival gangs sent their leadership to a meeting to have "peace talks". So we have good movement in that direction.
jomten: Look at Mexico, the cartels beat the military and government EASILY. Thats why the mainstream media doesn't cover it, they don't want us seeing exactly how strong we really are.
We're talking about the Mexican military. Send the US military into their area and we'd pulverize the Mexican cartels. President Trump even offered to deploy the US military into Mexico to take on their gangs.
I've seen examples of how gangs, militia, and foreign military fight. Not the way one would want to engage in combat against a professional military like what the US has... Unless suicide is the fighter's objective.
First thing, thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate patriots debating controversial ideas.
Got some counterpoints-
A Gang and a Militia are alot closer than just weapons and distrust of government. Theres a patriotism in gangs to their neighborhoods, their territory if you will. Their missions are different because their environments are different.
A city controlled by democrats for decades is very different to rural America. Whereas a modern militiaman usually has a stable job and family structure, an “inner city” gang member typically has little in the way of job opportunity and a practically nonexistent family support network.
The militia members train to defend against government tyranny, and some have ex/current law enforcement & military in their ranks to give them more legitimacy.
Gangs practice concealing their activities from the government. Gun control is rampant there, unconstitutional as it is. If Biden/Clinton/whoever instituted gun control and the SC continues to refuse to rule on it, all modern militias become “illegal” unless they just train with squirtguns.
Selling drugs as well is a big part of gang culture. We can debate the morality/legality of selling drugs, but the reason it becomes the business of choice for gangs is because its illegal which lowers competition, increases the profit margin, and it takes no initial investment to get started other than product, a scale, and sandwich bags.
No one is knocking the doors down of the convenience store owner selling tobacco/liqour and arresting him.
Those business owners arent engaged in violence because they can call the police to settle disputes. Gang members also don’t have stable leadership to keep their “soldiers” in check leading to alot more “senseless” violence.
Leave a platoon of young soldiers with a rotating leadership. Whenever the leader becomes too effective he gets replaced, and that platoon will be a much higher risk for “war crimes”.
Gangs also include organized crime like the mafia. The mafia has been impossible to truly stamp out, because the community actually LIKES having the mafia around.
If you want to gamble, get drugs,(including liqour during prohibition), get prostitutes, get a loan, or dodge taxes, the mafia filled that role.
If push comes to shove and patriots end up in open combat with the CCP and their puppets, we will be branded as violent gangs at best, terrorist cells at worst.
And at least some of mexican cartels are literally just mexican special forces that defected. (The Zetas, some Sinaloa cells). The American version of that would be even stronger than the mexican version.
jomten: A Gang and a Militia are alot closer than just weapons and distrust of government.
As I mentioned before, their similarities end beyond the "armed groups" category. Going through your response, you actually built onto my argument regarding the differences between the two.
jomten: Theres a patriotism in gangs to their neighborhoods, their territory if you will. Their missions are different because their environments are different.
Identifying with one's community, and with neighborhoods, isn't the same thing as patriotism as exercised by the military and militias. Patriotism involves a love for one's countrymen and country. This entails support and belief in a philosophy that is shared not just in the immediate community but throughout the country.
Different communities and neighborhoods have their own nuances and differences when it comes to local neighborhood and community matters. If anything, this is akin to "tribalism". Members of a tribe, or a village, are going to have "patriotism" towards other members of the village/tribe.
Like the military, the militia also has a concept that involves God being above country, and country being above community... Even if this isn't stated.
jomten: A city controlled by democrats for decades is very different to rural America. Whereas a modern militiaman usually has a stable job and family structure, an "inner city" gang member typically has little in the way of job opportunity and a practically nonexistent family support network.
This is a big reason to why gangs and militia are different beyond being groups that are armed. Having a stable family structure, to include both parents influencing upbringing, and an extended family and community, will influence the ultimate thought process. The philosophy and mindset that results is going to be different from the one gained from the scenario that you described for the growing up environment for inner city gang members.
The upbringing in rural America, in "Red" America, creates someone that would more than likely join a militia. Their philosophy, for life, and for why they joined the militia, is going to be different from that of someone that joins a gang.
jomten: Gangs practice concealing their activities from the government. Gun control is rampant there, unconstitutional as it is. If Biden/Clinton/whoever instituted gun control and the SC continues to refuse to rule on it, all modern militias become "illegal" unless they just train with squirtguns.
Here's another reason to why gangs and militia are different beyond being armed groups. The militia is a part of natural law and can't be overturned by a law of man. We have a natural right to protect ourselves. This is one reason to why the 2nd Amendment is worded, "the right", followed by the right of the people to bear arms, followed by, "shall not be infringed".
The expressed purpose that the 2nd Amendment states for our need to bear arms? To have a well regulated (functioning) militia.
This right came from above, someone higher than the highest offices of the land. They would have to overturn religion, and cause those of us who are a part of religion to abandon religious/spiritual beliefs, for militias to be truly overturned.
Militias are tied to natural rights. Natural rights are given to us by God. There's no similar tie to gang membership or the purpose of gangs. Gangs serve their business objective, in a business that's normally illegal and not accepted by the United States population as a whole. Militias, for the most part, tie their existence to protecting our natural rights and ensuring that the government doesn't infringe on these natural rights.
jomten: Selling drugs as well is a big part of gang culture. We can debate the morality/legality of selling drugs, but the reason it becomes the business of choice for gangs is because its illegal which lowers competition, increases the profit margin, and it takes no initial investment to get started other than product, a scale, and sandwich bags.
Its that debate, regarding morality and legality, that contributes to the differences between gangs and militia beyond the fact that they're members of armed groups. Gangs pursue, and defend, an activity that's frowned upon by society both left and right. Militias are not always smiled upon by the public, and they're not always known by the public.
However, beyond the private militias, there is the statutory militia. Both the federal and state governments have identified an organized militia and a non-organized militia. The organized militia consists of the National Guard and the State Defense Force/State Guard. The unorganized militia consists of designated individuals, not in the military, national guard, or state defense force, who are of a certain age group.
These militias, organized and unorganized, are backed by federal and state law, and have a chain of command. The organized militia trains with state support. The unorganized militia, those who form private militias, train in private settings.
Their mission is to defend and support the constitution of their state and of the United States. This orientation contributes to the differences between gangs and militia.
jomten: Gang members also don't have stable leadership to keep their "soldiers" in check leading to alot more "senseless" violence.
Hence another difference between gangs and militias. Though not as disciplined as the regular military and organized militia, they do have their chain of command and organizational codes of conduct.
jomten: Leave a platoon of young soldiers with a rotating leadership. Whenever the leader becomes too effective he gets replaced, and that platoon will be a much higher risk for "war crimes".
Platoon leaders, usually a young Soldier fresh out of the Academy or ROTC, are there roughly two years, then rotates out or gets replaced sooner. Whether they get too effective or not is a non-issue. They rotate out in order to progress in their careers.
Each platoon consists of three rifle squads and a weapons squad. Each of these squads is broken down into two teams, each lead by a team leader. Additionally, there's a platoon sergeant.
The platoon sergeant is usually in his mid to late 30s. Each squad is lead by a squad leader, who's usually in their late 20s or early 30s. The team sergeants are usually in their mid to late 20s.
The platoon sergeant and squad leaders are usually older than the platoon leader. These folks usually stay in the platoon longer than the platoon sergeant does. So, when the platoon leader rotates out, there is enough discipline within the platoon to avoid committing war crimes (for the most part).
Even a private would keep someone in check if they started to stray away from what is expected of them. Discipline goes all the way down to the most junior man in the platoon. For the most part.
jomten: Gangs also include organized crime like the mafia. The mafia has been impossible to truly stamp out, because the community actually LIKES having the mafia around. If you want to gamble, get drugs,(including liqour during prohibition), get prostitutes, get a loan, or dodge taxes, the mafia filled that role.
This would be a better comparison to gangs... Mafias. I've seen how this arrangement worked overseas where the "mafia" included the government.
jomten: If push comes to shove and patriots end up in open combat with the CCP and their puppets, we will be branded as violent gangs at best, terrorist cells at worst.
This would naturally occur to any group that dares lift a hand against the leftist elites and their desires causes. For example, if most Latinos become conservative, and vote that way, they would be lumped together with Caucasians and demonized.
jomten: And at least some of mexican cartels are literally just mexican special forces that defected. (The Zetas, some Sinaloa cells). The American version of that would be even stronger than the mexican version.
The US Special forces, as well as US Army and Marine infantry units, would be able to crush a Mexican cartel consisting of former Mexican special forces. The Mexican military is mainly a force in garrison. They spend a lot of time doing administrative and housekeeping operations at their bases. Their training, in the field, would be comparable to the most active garrison-based training that the US military does.
Additionally, based on nearly two decades of recent wartime experience, American special forces, as well as the Marines and Army, engage in realistic combat training scenarios. This is done at the team level, squad level, platoon level, and up. The US military also trains more frequently.
If the Mexican cartels ever had to get into a combat engagement with the US military, they're going to be faced with realities that their actual fighting has not provided them. They're used to fighting a peer force. If they have to engage in combat against the US Military, they won't be having an opposition that fights like they do. They would end up facing their mortality as they see their buddies bodies drop to the ground in greater numbers and in quicker succession than what they're used to experiencing.
If a Texan militiamember is willing to fight for Texas, but not for California, is he no longer patriotic?
I think your definition of militia is too narrow, while you think my definition is too wide. The militia as defined by the founders meant the whole people, or at least the men of combat age.
Gangs do not require a business motive. There are gangs that are not involved with crime at all. There are gangs that have some members involved with criminal activity while the other members are oblivious.
The point im making is by your definition it will be trivially easy to classify basically any militia as a gang. Anyone involved in crime? They can make something a crime to make you a criminal. Just look at covid lockdowns and gym/restaurant owners.
Those business owners have the support of roughly 40-60% of the community depending on which city they are in and which poll you ask. If they cuck enough of your neighbors into thinking defending your rights is bad does your militia lose legitimacy?
The organized and disorganized militia concept should not mean that once you classify a certain militia group “bad” they lose their right and can be targeted for affiliation alone.
And drug dealing is just one example of a way they make money. Running unlicensed taxis is another. Before Uber the cities hated this because taxi medallions are a huge source of income for the state to play with, which is why they hate uber too. But the private interests overruled them because they could get in on the action through the stock market.
Unlicensed taxis are illegal, but clearly its a service that many people want. After Uber came out there was a huge spin campaign to turn public opinion against it, to this day there are people parroting talking points about “they arent inspected or have enough insurance” that the leftist state media tried pushing.
And public opinion has been pro drug enough to have several states legalize marijuana. Without veering too far off subject ill assert that all illegal drugs are “legal” in the taxi medallion sense that you just need to pay enough money to the right people and you can sell essentially the same narcotics “gangs” sell. More Americans are on prescription opiates than use tobacco products. I dont how many Americans get amphetamine prescriptions but I know there is basically always a shortage.
Amongst most gangs there is a level of discipline that is enforced. The Southern mexican gangs in Cali once enforced a “no drive by” policy that was followed by the gangbangers. Famously there was a “one foot on the ground” rule, where you had to stop the car and the shooter needed one foot on the ground. This was in response to a civilian being hit in crossfire.
In Chicago is where the most breakdown of order has happened. I like to joke murder is legal on the southside of Chicago, but with a 17% clearance rate for murders its practically a reality.
With over 500 gang related murders every year there its basically in uncharted territory anthropologically speaking. Im not a huge fan of “product of my environment” arguments but there definitely is some truth to it.
And I dont doubt that our military would overwhelm the cartels if given the chance, but the point is they actually take on their own government. How many of our civilians would actually face their government to stop them from arresting Don Jr for example, the way the cartels surrounded the military when El Chapos son was captured?
The cartels shot a politician (I think a mayor) in broad daylight, then had someone in the crowd waiting when the successor was being sworn in. As soon as the replacement was sworn in he was shot as well. No one else wanted the position after that.
If that happened whenever a politician here got caught influence peddling/insider trading/taking kickbacks and bribes etc, how long until no politician wanted to risk it?
Our population has gotten so soft. Gang culture is one of the last places you see actual “Alpha male” tendencies held as an ideal, twisted as it is. The military is getting soft too, I heard that they give privates a card they can show their drill sergeant if they are being too “mean” and the drill sergeant has to back off.
With “Gangs” I think we can learn alot from them, they have solved many of the problems a Militia would encounter actually resisting pur government.
Op sec for instance. They use slang, which sounds silly to us but it serves a purpose. Slang is like an accent, in that is purpose is to identify outsiders quickly. An undercover will sound out of place compared to someone entrenched in the lifestyle, which is why undercover operations don’t work with gangs anymore.
Note 99% arent consciously aware they are doing this, its just naturally “evolved” this way.
To incorporate this into a militia, we have a meme culture here that has its own unique culture. While an undercover could know some of our memes, theres an underlying philosophy to it that makes newcomers stand out. Like when a handshake tries to bring racism in they might as well have “Shill” painted on them.