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.
jomten: If a Texan militiamember is willing to fight for Texas, but not for California, is he no longer patriotic?
This is a "whataboutism". However, private militia members from Texas and from other states in the union will gladly travel to another state to assist local private militias. The Texas Guard, Texas's state defense force, has an oath that requires loyalty not just to the Texas Constitution but also to the U.S. Constitution. Dito with other state's state defense forces.
Naturally, they will defend their state if their state faces an invasion. However, they will gladly deploy to another state, as auxiliary to the US military, if that is what is required to repel invasion. Heck, they would not even need to be with the US military. The state governor of another state can request militia assistance from other states. In these situations, militia members would be more than happy to assist.
jomten: 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.
My definition of a "militia" is based on my understanding of history. Not just US history but Western civilization history and history in general. I've been a history buff for 41 years.
My definition of the militia is consistent with that of what the founders defined it as. During the colonial period, as with the periods before, the idea of a militia consisted of the community banding together for their common defense. This was not used to force one community to do the bidding of another.
Everybody pursued the primary profession/jobs. Then, when under threat, they put these professions and jobs aside and picked up weapons. They banded together to defend the community.
This is a different mission from what the gangs do. Gangs are not there to support a common defense. Their purpose is that of a business interest. To secure their "area of operations" from rival gangs. This is mainly business oriented rather than common defense.
jomten: 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.
What you said in your previous reply:
"...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." -jomtem
This statement explains why these gangs exist. You even referenced the drug cartels in Mexico. The primary motivation involves illegal business activities.
Regardless of what other gang members do, or what other game groups do, the main point of our argument involves our disagreement regarding "gangs and militias" being "the same". You are arguing that they are, and I am arguing that they are not. The fact of the matter is that even your argument is indicating that militias and gangs are not the same.
jomten: The point im making is by your definition it will be trivially easy to classify basically any militia as a gang. [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
A careful reading of my responses to you would show that nothing that I said supports your assumption regarding my definition of a militia versus a gang. I clearly argued, in my previous responses, the differences between a militia and a gang.
Go back and reread my responses to you. I clearly argued their differences. Between my response, and your response, I was able to identify some of those differences to highlight the fact that they militia and a gang are not the same thing beyond both groups being armed.
jomten: Anyone involved in crime? They can make something a crime to make you a criminal. Just look at covid lockdowns and gym/restaurant owners. [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Again, you are dealing with "whataboutisms". For example, pedophilia is illegal. Using that argument, I could attempt to claim that a gang member "is the same thing" as a pedophile. Naturally, you would want to disagree. Based on looking at it this way, you would understand why I would disagree with your attempt to play "whataboutism" regarding something that is "made illegal".
We have to look this in terms of "the long-term" and "what would happen under normal circumstances". Under normal circumstances, absent these lockdowns, what conditions are in place and what are the purposes of gangs and of militias? I've been arguing those differences.
jomten: 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? [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Again, look at this from the standpoint of what normally happens. In the legal system, this would be called "But for" arguments. "But for these lockdowns", meaning remove these lockdowns and look at this from a regular standpoint. If these lockdowns were not happening, would operating a licensed business be illegal?
The answer would be no. You won't see militias rushing to inner cities to defend people selling drugs, "because that is the American thing to do that should not be illegal". However, they would rush to help businesses as these are representative of legal, licensed, businesses that are a part of a person's pursuit of clean success.
jomten: 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. [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Nowhere, in my argument, did I separate militia groups into "legal" and "illegal" via the description of statutory militia above. A description of "organized" and "unorganized" is based on both federal and state law. Neither are "illegal". The "unorganized" militia is the reserve militia for the "organized" militia. The state government can augment the "organized" militia with members of the "unorganized militia".
Clearly, both "organized" militia and "unorganized militia" are legal. Nowhere, in these definitions or in my arguments on this thread, does it state that "gangs" also count as "militia". They don't. They fall outside of both the statutory and historical definition of a militia.
jomten: [Comparison between illegal taxi service and drugs] [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
This is not an argument on "illegal businesses" compared to "legal businesses" as a whole. What you are trying to do is connect one illegal activity, selling drugs, to another illegal activity, unlicensed taxi services, then trying to make this as if it were a licensed, legal business activity. Then, through that fallacy, trying to compare gangs to militia.
That is not the argument. Under normal circumstances, are narcotics illegal? For the most part, yes. They may be legal in some states, but they are illegal at the other states as well as at the federal government level. Are regular businesses illegal? The answer is no. Herein lies one of the differences between gangs and militias. Your mention of militia members coming to the aid of what would normally be a legal business activity, had it not been for this pandemic, is not the same thing as gang activity that defends an illegal activity.
jomten: Amongst most gangs there is a level of discipline that is enforced.
Discipline, among gang members, does not compare to discipline within the military. The examples that you listed, that gangs enforce, are child's play to someone in the military. By discipline, I'm talking about the ability to overcome the desire to do something else in order to do what one is supposed to do.
Let's take your example regarding "rotating out" a leader that becomes effective. You followed that up with "war crimes" becoming more likely. However, if you "rotate out" a platoon leader, the rest of the platoon would be able to carry on with extreme discipline.
jomten: With over 500 gang related murders every year there its basically in uncharted territory anthropologically speaking.
Compare and contrast that with the number of "militia related 'murders'" because militias "couldn't help it" but to "engage in inter militia shootouts". The fact that there is a difference indicates the difference between gangs and militia organizations.
jomten: Im not a huge fan of "product of my environment" arguments but there definitely is some truth to it.
There is a lot of truth to them. Again, one of the examples you brought up with regarding "inner-city" compared to "rural" operating included family structure. The inner-city did not have that, compared to the rural families that had that.
One key difference to this is the presence of a father in the equation. For those living in the "inner-city", there is a good chance that there is no father in the equation. The gang sort of takes that role. There is a huge difference that can be made when there is a stable family relationship that includes upbringing by a father... Versus one without one.
A person that is brought up right generally does not commit as much crimes as someone that is not brought up right. When you grow up following the wrong role models, you just might have a bigger chance of running against the law.
The person that engages in a series of poor judgment calls, throughout their lives, tends to get into a lot of trouble. A person that is brought up right, generally is conditioned to make good or educated judgment calls.
This has actually been proven scientifically. There's a good chance that a good number of people who are members of gangs did not grow up with a father in the household. The percentage of people in prison, who grew up without a father, is big.
This is but a small example of why "product of environment" is important. How a person is raised plays a role in how they perform as adults.
In my example, I experienced corporal punishment in both school and at home. I'm not out there exercising one poor judgment after another because I was conditioned, the hard way, to exercise good judgment no matter how much doing something else is tempting. This is similar to the experiences that most in my generation and in the previous generations have had.
jomten: 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 Mexican cartels are used to engaging in gunfights with gangs of similar caliber, or with the Mexican military. The Mexican military is no comparison to the US military. The United States military would also crush the Mexican military in combat.
This is based on my understanding Army infantry tactics (Retired Soldier here), and those of gangs. If the Mexican cartels, or American drug gangs, attempt to fight the US military the way they fight each other, they would get pulverized. Their fighting tactics would end up being suicide tactics for them.
I am strongly confident that if given the chance, the United States military would destroy the Mexican cartels. I'll give you an example. I read about an instance where the Mexican cartels engaged in a shootout in a Mexican town. They had called for reinforcements, who were driving in from adjacent towns.
What would happen if the same thing happened when facing US military? They would've been f*d, because we would have cut the city off from reinforcements. We would have the roads and all other avenues of approach covered. We would also have the airspace above them covered.
Meaning, once US combat troops initiate ground combat against the cartels within the town, the cartels would not be able to call in for reinforcements. The moment those reinforcements attempt to come in, they'd get slaughtered. Driving in civilian vehicles, with machine guns mounted, against armored vehicles would simply be suicide.
This firefight that I read about took place during the daytime. We would've attacked in the middle of the night, at a time when the vast majority of them were asleep. But, even if the engagement took place in the daytime, they would have been on the bad end of the stick.
The United States military gained a reputation as being "Masters of urban warfare" during the war on terror.
jomten: 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.
The United States military dealt with that problem in Iraq (Iraq Veteran here). Yes, Iraqis working with the US military were subject to successful and botched assassination attempts. Did that stop the United States from accomplishing its objectives there and standing of the government? No, it didn't.
In addition to combat arms, United States is a master at psychological operations. A big reason to why United States is successful in the combat theater is the effective use of psychological operations. Our psychological operations elements in Africa could get a warlord's man to defect, they would most certainly be able to do the same thing against Mexican cartels. Our psychological operations would also be able to get the general public to go against the cartels and in favor of US objectives.
Much of the intimidation and terror tactics that the cartels utilize in Mexico, were also utilized in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They were also used in other areas that are under the global war on terror umbrella where US military is deployed. We successfully utilized psychological operations to leverage the population against the enemy.
Jomten: 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?
Again, this happened in Iraq. This also happened in Germany after World War II. It did not deter United States military from continuing to engage the population to stand up a civil government and supported… As well as continue to engage the enemy.
Jomten: 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 "alpha male" tendencies exist in both the US military as well as in the militia. I don't see this as being "twisted". I am Generation X, with my generation and the previous generations, the "alpha male" concept was strived for. We take pride in "being a man". Unfortunately, what we were raised to being is being demonized.
Jomten: 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.
This sets them up for failure for when they get to their units. The discipline that they did not get in basic ends up delivered to them the hard way. This issue's existing does not dismiss the fact that the US military is a wartime military, that has participated in war, whose training is designed to participate in war.
Jomten: 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.
First, gangs have not had to deal with the government bringing the military to bear against them. I've also seen how police have done their operations. Even they would not be able to stand up against the US military.
Heck, one of my friends posted a training video showing police officers entering a building, securing it, and pulling somebody out. I detailed, in my response, their weaknesses. If they would've done that in a real-world scenario… Where the opposition has military experience… The police officers would've gotten killed.
Second, you're assuming that militia organizations have not came up with their own ways of dealing with the government. The reality is that they have. Most members of the militia believe in citizenship and in leveraging their civic duties and first amendment rights. They could easily show up at townhalls and school board meetings as citizens and voice their arguments in those platforms.
Jomten: Op sec for instance.
Your examples of operation security aren't operation security. Operation security involves denying those, not privy to the operation, information that would indicate that an operation is about to go down.
For example, if you see your neighbor with camping gear packed up and loaded in their vehicle, you could assume that they're about to go on a camping trip. If you see your neighbors loading beach items into their vehicle, you could assume that they're going to the beach.
If they cared about operations security, they would hide all of their items in containers that don't provide hints of what is inside those containers. Then the neighbors can't guess what they are about to do.
What you're trying to describe is "tactic, technique, and procedures."
Jomten: 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.
This is true with any human organization, face to face or online. The nearest McDonalds to my place has its own version of doing things, and its own mini culture, that makes it different from other McDonalds restaurant employees.
Someone transferring from one McDonald's restaurant to another is going to know basic job procedures, but they're going to need to learn the basic culture that exists within that specific restaurant. Things won't necessarily be the same in the second McDonald's as the first one.
Jomten: Note 99% arent consciously aware they are doing this, its just naturally “evolved” this way.
This happens in every human organization.
Jomten: To incorporate this into a militia,
You're assuming that what has been done in a gang environment has not been done in a militia environment. People that train and operate together form their own group culture and nuances that sets them apart from other similar organization.
I saw this with my military service. Different commands/units had their own "unit cultures", unique words, nuances, etc. This also happens in militias, sports, etc.
Jomten: 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.
This goes back to what I described; each human organization is going to have its unique "culture". I've detected "plants/trolls" on this site, as well as on Gab and on This Aint Hell/Valor Guardians.
For example, someone posted a racist meme and commentary on Gab. Another troll jumped in and talked about how God "wanted" things this way. You could tell, based on both arguments made on the troll thread, that they were not a part of the Gab culture. I reported them to Gab admin.
Your description of the internal nuances within a gang is not a mention of something that's unique to gangs. They exist in every human organization.
Good points to alot of them, I agree with you with basically everything morals/ethics wise but I think you are misinterpreting some of my arguments.
Some of it is my fault in framing, saying militias and gangs are exactly the same is too strong a statement but its how I wanted to frame my argument. Militias and Gangs have some differences, legitimacy and involvement or lack therof in illicit activities. I believe the illicit activities are a direct result of the lack of legal opportunities in their communities. You can disagree with that, its an opinion and I can respect it.
The history of how most gangs formed is initially it was members of the community banding together to protect themselves in high crime areas. Thats militias in a nutshell to me. The environment creates real problems that need to be dealt with, if your house gets broken into 3x or more a year you have bigger problems than helping someone 2 states away push back on gun restrictions.
If you can’t find any work for months and months, its hard to stand on principle and not sell drugs for cash. Its not like the crackheads will sober up if you don’t sell it to them, you just missed out on a sale. The same high crime areas that necessitate forming groups for protection are the same ones that have no other viable source of income than drug dealing.
When Jordan Peterson explained that if we lived in Nazi Germany we likely would have been Nazi’s, it was a harsh truth about human psychology. We like to think we would be one of the ones that helped Jews escape, but its lying to ourselves about our actual nature. We are capable of great evil and people dont like to realize it, and the environment of 1940’s Germany created the perfect storm for it.
Im taking that same approach to inner city gangs. People want to think they wouldn’t sell heroin to a mother, but in the right environment they absolutely would, and (unpopular opinion here but) id say its the right call. Shes not going to stop doing heroin because you won’t sell it to her. If a genie granted someones wish and all the heroin disappeared she wouldn’t get clean, get a job, and raise a family. Shed switch to hard liquour or something else, so its not as morally reprehensible as the punishment would imply.
Im also of the opinion that drug laws and mandatory minimums are used to keep prisons filled for cheap labor for corporations and the military, creating a massive disincentive to actually fix the high crime areas. That line of thought is a big part of what leads me to my stance on gangs.
The IRA are a much cleaner example I think you would agree with more, but they still had a working economy and intact family system that kept the IRA from engaging in criminal enterprises for income.
And in my opinion; The gang on gang violence that stems from the underground nature of the drug trade is actually a feature, not a bug of our governments policies. The government is much happier with them fighting each other instead of banding together to overthrow them. Similar to Antifa/BLM and Proud boys/Patriots. If they, or we, found common ground and worked together they could overthrow the city/federal governments respectively and actually drive change. But they keep us fighting each other while they consolidate their power.
I think an argument you would be more receptive to is to view gangs as a cautionary tale, a ghost of Christmas future for us to study to avoid the same pitfalls. Thats actually probably a better way to frame it now that I think about it. There are some aspects that I think we need to immediately implement, such as operating in secrecy, extreme vetting of new members, concealing communications and forming and concealing revenue streams from the government.
Even if Trump pulls this off and stays in office the CCP won’t stop. This at best buys us 4 more years to prepare, winter is coming to quote GOT. They weaponized the IRS, FBI, CIA, The department of health and CDC, media, big tech, everything. From seeing the communists in action, we know they will disrupt supply lines (China with medicine/ppe, Venezuela with food), use massive propaganda campaigns to turn public opinion against us, censor us to prevent defending ourselves or organizing a defense, use a madeup virus to shut down our income and get us reliant on government handouts they can withhold for compliance...
We need to take this seriously, they are coming for us, and they are going to use our government against us.
Among the many differences between gangs and militias, one of them is mission and purpose. Compare and contrast the mission and purpose for a gang compared to that of a militia. From what I have read, regarding gangs, the purpose and mission involves illegal activities. When the founding fathers sat down, and hammered out the Constitution, they were not concerned about "defending one's turf" from others who wanted to push their illegal product on the initial group's customers.
The main focus was ensuring that we enjoyed our natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence, they actually pointed out that it was God who gave us these natural rights, and that government was there to ensure that we continue having them. In drafting the Constitution, our founding fathers placed a series of checks and balances against the government. Specifically, against the potential for government abuse.
A reading of the Declaration of Independence shows this mindset. One of the groups, or rather "checks and balance", involves an armed citizenry. The militia. Their intent? To ensure that we continue to enjoy our natural rights. Should the government want to get abusive, and threaten our natural rights, an armed citizen militia acts as a deterrent.
That, acting as a check against the government, is not the sole purpose of the militia. Community can band together for the common good, for the common defense. However, the purpose is still the same. To defend natural rights.
When you argued that this is how gangs "initially" formed, to "defend the community", this scenario would initially have had them as "militia". I tried to find information verifying this and could not. However, my reading on what gangs do does not make them "militia" as defined by our founding fathers.
In one of your responses, you pointed out the Mafia. This would be a closer comparison to the gangs. The mission of gangs, as well as their philosophy, makes them a lot different from militia. However, it makes them very similar to the Mafia's, the "mob", etc. Your description of what gangs do is very similar to what the Mafia does.
My argument about what the militias are willing to do, including crossing state lines, was to drive home the point that they are different from gangs. You illustrated that with your statement about somebody breaking into your home three times a year. A gang member's focus is "self-centered" as well as "group centered" with regards to pursuing business and power objectives.
Your description of what life is like in the inner city, with regards to not finding any work for months, resorting to desperation such as selling to one's own mother, and not having other options, is a way to focus on external issues. This includes both societal and individual issues. However, what I did not read in your description is the concept of "choices" and "benefits or consequences".
Specifically, a person engaging in poor judgment decisions throughout their lives. Poor judgment decisions lead to predicaments and "consequences". The first part of this is the common denominator among all the cities with these inner-city problem… The Democrat Party Machine. The people in these inner cities, who form gangs, consistently vote for the very people who create the conditions that gives them limited to no options. Democrat policies tend to keep people poor.
This, along with the scenario that I pointed out involving people growing up without fathers, contribute to the direct conditions that you listed that appears to "imprison" a person to a life of crime.
I've been to countries on four different continents outside of North America. I've seen conditions, in foreign inner cities, that are far worse than what you would find in American inner cities. In fact, American inner cities would look like "Caribbean Vilas" in comparison. Yet, there are people within these conditions that manage to get out of these conditions.
This boils down to a personal choice. This goes back to my statement about "making a series of poor choices in life". Everybody makes a decision to carry an action out. Depending on what that action is, it provides benefits or consequences. Too many people make the poor decisions that results in them suffering the consequences. To add damage to injury, too many of these individuals refuse to look inward.
Instead, they blame some outside factor, or a combination of them, instead of looking at what they could do themselves. There are people who escape these poor conditions in their home countries, conditions that put American poor conditions to shame, and who subsequently end up succeeding.
Forming groups to deal with the environment that you talking about is not the same as forming groups to defend natural rights. What you are describing is the beginning of the breakdown of society from civilization to barbarism. This does not happen overnight, but across generations.
People are addicted? They can choose as to whether to remain slaves of this addiction, or to fight for their freedom from this addiction. If other drugs disappear, then the drug addicts can make a decision to go through the suffering of the withdrawals and of not having the benefits of the drugs… Or they could choose to find another master to be addicted to.
Even in the direst conditions, a person has a choice. Forming gangs to defend a poor choice is not the same thing as forming a militia to defend one's natural rights.
As for what Jordan Peterson said, that's baloney. People made a choice to support the Nazis. They did not initially come out to describe themselves as they actually were. They came across as moderates. They made the same promises, or similar promises, that Communists made before communism was implemented.
They come across as being "reasonable" and "being inclusive". During this period of time, people jumped onto their bandwagon. Look at the Communists and socialists in the United States. They don't think that communism/socialism could turn out in the United States the way it turned out in other countries. They don't think that it would turn into totalitarianism. The Venezuelans, recently, didn't think so.
It is when they get to the point where they do not need the people, to remain in power, when their true nature comes out. By then, it is too late for many of the people. This happened in Nazi Germany, this happened as recently in Venezuela.
This is not a good example to use to explain, and even excuse, people making poor decisions in their lives. The argument, about "it's lying to ourselves about our actual nature" attempts to justify people's refusal to take the correct course of action in life. It attempts to justify the poor decisions made, so far, in life. It describes people as slaves to their choices and habits.
It represents a refusal to acknowledge that a person went down the wrong track, that they made a mistake, and that they need to make a correction in their path. It attempts to shift blame, consistent with blaming society as to why a certain group of people are "selling drugs and refusing the quit".
Regardless of what you think about the purpose of drug laws and mandatory minimums, the fact remains that people have a choice. They could decide to do drugs, or they could decide not to do drugs. They could decide to sell drugs, or they could decide not to sell drugs. If they decide to sell drugs, if they decide to do drugs, then they risk suffering the consequences.
That problem could easily be resolved if an individual decides not to sell drugs, and decides not to do drugs. If you don't do either, then you won't be breaking those respective laws. By extension, you would not end up in prison as "cheap labor".
Speaking of which, your statement on "cheap labor for the military". If you are talking about "source of enlistment", that's not likely. A person, today, can't enlist into the military as a form of "judicial punishment". In other words, if the judge tells a defendant that they are to serve in the military in lieu of serving prison time, the military would not enlist them.
In fact, before a person can join the military, they can't currently be serving a sentence. Having a criminal record could also prevent someone from being able to join the military. They were running exemptions to that, but they have restricted entry from those groups of individuals.
The Irish Republican Army is not an example you can use to compare to gang activity in the United States. They began under the concept that they were the "Army" all of Ireland. They were trying to "fight to free Ireland from British rule". Whatever business activities they were involved with, to fund their activities, was for their nationalistic goals. This is not the same thing as what gangs are doing. They have since stood down and focused on continuing their efforts through politics.
The gang-on-gang violence involved with the underground drug trade is a feature of gang activities, not of government policies. Each gang, and each member of the gang, can make a choice to not engage in violence. Commit violence, or not to commit violence. If they decided, individually and as a group not to commit violence, then no violence is committed.
If gangs are going to fight each other, even have fights and violence within the gangs, that's not a government design to force people to remain separate and at each other's throats... In order to avoid them banding together to overthrow the government. You can't even expect them to band together when they can't even get along within each gang. How could gangs find common ground with Antifa/BLM or any other group when they can't find common ground with each other?
This is just an excuse to shift blame onto someone or something else and not on where it squarely belongs... The people that engage in violence. The government is not forcing gangs to fight each other. Gangs are making the decision to fight each other when they easily could decide not to fight each other.
As for gangs as a cautionary tale... Yes, it's what could happen when people consistently engage in making and carrying out poor judgment calls in life. Parents tell their children that if they don't change certain poor habits, they would end up in bad positions in life. They could end up in jail. They could end up on the streets. They could wind up on the wrong side of the law. The list goes on.
What I would not be receptive to is the idea that we should only look at societal causes for gangs while not focusing/emphasizing the individual life choices that people make that leads them to being gang members. Your recommendations for what gangs should do to operate in secrecy ignores this factor... If people made the right choices in life, even choosing to live in the humblest of conditions if needed, they could avoid being in gangs and avoid selling drugs. If they avoided dealing with drugs, if they avoided doing drugs or selling drugs, then they would not have to worry about having to concealing drug-related activity to the government.
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.
jomten: If a Texan militiamember is willing to fight for Texas, but not for California, is he no longer patriotic?
This is a "whataboutism". However, private militia members from Texas and from other states in the union will gladly travel to another state to assist local private militias. The Texas Guard, Texas's state defense force, has an oath that requires loyalty not just to the Texas Constitution but also to the U.S. Constitution. Dito with other state's state defense forces.
Naturally, they will defend their state if their state faces an invasion. However, they will gladly deploy to another state, as auxiliary to the US military, if that is what is required to repel invasion. Heck, they would not even need to be with the US military. The state governor of another state can request militia assistance from other states. In these situations, militia members would be more than happy to assist.
jomten: 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.
My definition of a "militia" is based on my understanding of history. Not just US history but Western civilization history and history in general. I've been a history buff for 41 years.
My definition of the militia is consistent with that of what the founders defined it as. During the colonial period, as with the periods before, the idea of a militia consisted of the community banding together for their common defense. This was not used to force one community to do the bidding of another.
Everybody pursued the primary profession/jobs. Then, when under threat, they put these professions and jobs aside and picked up weapons. They banded together to defend the community.
This is a different mission from what the gangs do. Gangs are not there to support a common defense. Their purpose is that of a business interest. To secure their "area of operations" from rival gangs. This is mainly business oriented rather than common defense.
jomten: 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.
What you said in your previous reply:
"...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." -jomtem
This statement explains why these gangs exist. You even referenced the drug cartels in Mexico. The primary motivation involves illegal business activities.
Regardless of what other gang members do, or what other game groups do, the main point of our argument involves our disagreement regarding "gangs and militias" being "the same". You are arguing that they are, and I am arguing that they are not. The fact of the matter is that even your argument is indicating that militias and gangs are not the same.
jomten: The point im making is by your definition it will be trivially easy to classify basically any militia as a gang. [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
A careful reading of my responses to you would show that nothing that I said supports your assumption regarding my definition of a militia versus a gang. I clearly argued, in my previous responses, the differences between a militia and a gang.
Go back and reread my responses to you. I clearly argued their differences. Between my response, and your response, I was able to identify some of those differences to highlight the fact that they militia and a gang are not the same thing beyond both groups being armed.
jomten: Anyone involved in crime? They can make something a crime to make you a criminal. Just look at covid lockdowns and gym/restaurant owners. [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Again, you are dealing with "whataboutisms". For example, pedophilia is illegal. Using that argument, I could attempt to claim that a gang member "is the same thing" as a pedophile. Naturally, you would want to disagree. Based on looking at it this way, you would understand why I would disagree with your attempt to play "whataboutism" regarding something that is "made illegal".
We have to look this in terms of "the long-term" and "what would happen under normal circumstances". Under normal circumstances, absent these lockdowns, what conditions are in place and what are the purposes of gangs and of militias? I've been arguing those differences.
jomten: 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? [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Again, look at this from the standpoint of what normally happens. In the legal system, this would be called "But for" arguments. "But for these lockdowns", meaning remove these lockdowns and look at this from a regular standpoint. If these lockdowns were not happening, would operating a licensed business be illegal?
The answer would be no. You won't see militias rushing to inner cities to defend people selling drugs, "because that is the American thing to do that should not be illegal". However, they would rush to help businesses as these are representative of legal, licensed, businesses that are a part of a person's pursuit of clean success.
jomten: 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. [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Nowhere, in my argument, did I separate militia groups into "legal" and "illegal" via the description of statutory militia above. A description of "organized" and "unorganized" is based on both federal and state law. Neither are "illegal". The "unorganized" militia is the reserve militia for the "organized" militia. The state government can augment the "organized" militia with members of the "unorganized militia".
Clearly, both "organized" militia and "unorganized militia" are legal. Nowhere, in these definitions or in my arguments on this thread, does it state that "gangs" also count as "militia". They don't. They fall outside of both the statutory and historical definition of a militia.
jomten: [Comparison between illegal taxi service and drugs] [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
This is not an argument on "illegal businesses" compared to "legal businesses" as a whole. What you are trying to do is connect one illegal activity, selling drugs, to another illegal activity, unlicensed taxi services, then trying to make this as if it were a licensed, legal business activity. Then, through that fallacy, trying to compare gangs to militia.
That is not the argument. Under normal circumstances, are narcotics illegal? For the most part, yes. They may be legal in some states, but they are illegal at the other states as well as at the federal government level. Are regular businesses illegal? The answer is no. Herein lies one of the differences between gangs and militias. Your mention of militia members coming to the aid of what would normally be a legal business activity, had it not been for this pandemic, is not the same thing as gang activity that defends an illegal activity.
jomten: Amongst most gangs there is a level of discipline that is enforced.
Discipline, among gang members, does not compare to discipline within the military. The examples that you listed, that gangs enforce, are child's play to someone in the military. By discipline, I'm talking about the ability to overcome the desire to do something else in order to do what one is supposed to do.
Let's take your example regarding "rotating out" a leader that becomes effective. You followed that up with "war crimes" becoming more likely. However, if you "rotate out" a platoon leader, the rest of the platoon would be able to carry on with extreme discipline.
jomten: With over 500 gang related murders every year there its basically in uncharted territory anthropologically speaking.
Compare and contrast that with the number of "militia related 'murders'" because militias "couldn't help it" but to "engage in inter militia shootouts". The fact that there is a difference indicates the difference between gangs and militia organizations.
jomten: Im not a huge fan of "product of my environment" arguments but there definitely is some truth to it.
There is a lot of truth to them. Again, one of the examples you brought up with regarding "inner-city" compared to "rural" operating included family structure. The inner-city did not have that, compared to the rural families that had that.
One key difference to this is the presence of a father in the equation. For those living in the "inner-city", there is a good chance that there is no father in the equation. The gang sort of takes that role. There is a huge difference that can be made when there is a stable family relationship that includes upbringing by a father... Versus one without one.
A person that is brought up right generally does not commit as much crimes as someone that is not brought up right. When you grow up following the wrong role models, you just might have a bigger chance of running against the law.
The person that engages in a series of poor judgment calls, throughout their lives, tends to get into a lot of trouble. A person that is brought up right, generally is conditioned to make good or educated judgment calls.
This has actually been proven scientifically. There's a good chance that a good number of people who are members of gangs did not grow up with a father in the household. The percentage of people in prison, who grew up without a father, is big.
This is but a small example of why "product of environment" is important. How a person is raised plays a role in how they perform as adults.
In my example, I experienced corporal punishment in both school and at home. I'm not out there exercising one poor judgment after another because I was conditioned, the hard way, to exercise good judgment no matter how much doing something else is tempting. This is similar to the experiences that most in my generation and in the previous generations have had.
Part II
jomten: 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 Mexican cartels are used to engaging in gunfights with gangs of similar caliber, or with the Mexican military. The Mexican military is no comparison to the US military. The United States military would also crush the Mexican military in combat.
This is based on my understanding Army infantry tactics (Retired Soldier here), and those of gangs. If the Mexican cartels, or American drug gangs, attempt to fight the US military the way they fight each other, they would get pulverized. Their fighting tactics would end up being suicide tactics for them.
I am strongly confident that if given the chance, the United States military would destroy the Mexican cartels. I'll give you an example. I read about an instance where the Mexican cartels engaged in a shootout in a Mexican town. They had called for reinforcements, who were driving in from adjacent towns.
What would happen if the same thing happened when facing US military? They would've been f*d, because we would have cut the city off from reinforcements. We would have the roads and all other avenues of approach covered. We would also have the airspace above them covered.
Meaning, once US combat troops initiate ground combat against the cartels within the town, the cartels would not be able to call in for reinforcements. The moment those reinforcements attempt to come in, they'd get slaughtered. Driving in civilian vehicles, with machine guns mounted, against armored vehicles would simply be suicide.
This firefight that I read about took place during the daytime. We would've attacked in the middle of the night, at a time when the vast majority of them were asleep. But, even if the engagement took place in the daytime, they would have been on the bad end of the stick.
The United States military gained a reputation as being "Masters of urban warfare" during the war on terror.
jomten: 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.
The United States military dealt with that problem in Iraq (Iraq Veteran here). Yes, Iraqis working with the US military were subject to successful and botched assassination attempts. Did that stop the United States from accomplishing its objectives there and standing of the government? No, it didn't.
In addition to combat arms, United States is a master at psychological operations. A big reason to why United States is successful in the combat theater is the effective use of psychological operations. Our psychological operations elements in Africa could get a warlord's man to defect, they would most certainly be able to do the same thing against Mexican cartels. Our psychological operations would also be able to get the general public to go against the cartels and in favor of US objectives.
Much of the intimidation and terror tactics that the cartels utilize in Mexico, were also utilized in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They were also used in other areas that are under the global war on terror umbrella where US military is deployed. We successfully utilized psychological operations to leverage the population against the enemy.
Jomten: 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?
Again, this happened in Iraq. This also happened in Germany after World War II. It did not deter United States military from continuing to engage the population to stand up a civil government and supported… As well as continue to engage the enemy.
Jomten: 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 "alpha male" tendencies exist in both the US military as well as in the militia. I don't see this as being "twisted". I am Generation X, with my generation and the previous generations, the "alpha male" concept was strived for. We take pride in "being a man". Unfortunately, what we were raised to being is being demonized.
Jomten: 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.
This sets them up for failure for when they get to their units. The discipline that they did not get in basic ends up delivered to them the hard way. This issue's existing does not dismiss the fact that the US military is a wartime military, that has participated in war, whose training is designed to participate in war.
Jomten: 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.
First, gangs have not had to deal with the government bringing the military to bear against them. I've also seen how police have done their operations. Even they would not be able to stand up against the US military.
Heck, one of my friends posted a training video showing police officers entering a building, securing it, and pulling somebody out. I detailed, in my response, their weaknesses. If they would've done that in a real-world scenario… Where the opposition has military experience… The police officers would've gotten killed.
Second, you're assuming that militia organizations have not came up with their own ways of dealing with the government. The reality is that they have. Most members of the militia believe in citizenship and in leveraging their civic duties and first amendment rights. They could easily show up at townhalls and school board meetings as citizens and voice their arguments in those platforms.
Jomten: Op sec for instance.
Your examples of operation security aren't operation security. Operation security involves denying those, not privy to the operation, information that would indicate that an operation is about to go down.
For example, if you see your neighbor with camping gear packed up and loaded in their vehicle, you could assume that they're about to go on a camping trip. If you see your neighbors loading beach items into their vehicle, you could assume that they're going to the beach.
If they cared about operations security, they would hide all of their items in containers that don't provide hints of what is inside those containers. Then the neighbors can't guess what they are about to do.
What you're trying to describe is "tactic, technique, and procedures."
Jomten: 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.
This is true with any human organization, face to face or online. The nearest McDonalds to my place has its own version of doing things, and its own mini culture, that makes it different from other McDonalds restaurant employees.
Someone transferring from one McDonald's restaurant to another is going to know basic job procedures, but they're going to need to learn the basic culture that exists within that specific restaurant. Things won't necessarily be the same in the second McDonald's as the first one.
Jomten: Note 99% arent consciously aware they are doing this, its just naturally “evolved” this way.
This happens in every human organization.
Jomten: To incorporate this into a militia,
You're assuming that what has been done in a gang environment has not been done in a militia environment. People that train and operate together form their own group culture and nuances that sets them apart from other similar organization.
I saw this with my military service. Different commands/units had their own "unit cultures", unique words, nuances, etc. This also happens in militias, sports, etc.
Jomten: 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.
This goes back to what I described; each human organization is going to have its unique "culture". I've detected "plants/trolls" on this site, as well as on Gab and on This Aint Hell/Valor Guardians.
For example, someone posted a racist meme and commentary on Gab. Another troll jumped in and talked about how God "wanted" things this way. You could tell, based on both arguments made on the troll thread, that they were not a part of the Gab culture. I reported them to Gab admin.
Your description of the internal nuances within a gang is not a mention of something that's unique to gangs. They exist in every human organization.
Good points to alot of them, I agree with you with basically everything morals/ethics wise but I think you are misinterpreting some of my arguments.
Some of it is my fault in framing, saying militias and gangs are exactly the same is too strong a statement but its how I wanted to frame my argument. Militias and Gangs have some differences, legitimacy and involvement or lack therof in illicit activities. I believe the illicit activities are a direct result of the lack of legal opportunities in their communities. You can disagree with that, its an opinion and I can respect it.
The history of how most gangs formed is initially it was members of the community banding together to protect themselves in high crime areas. Thats militias in a nutshell to me. The environment creates real problems that need to be dealt with, if your house gets broken into 3x or more a year you have bigger problems than helping someone 2 states away push back on gun restrictions.
If you can’t find any work for months and months, its hard to stand on principle and not sell drugs for cash. Its not like the crackheads will sober up if you don’t sell it to them, you just missed out on a sale. The same high crime areas that necessitate forming groups for protection are the same ones that have no other viable source of income than drug dealing.
When Jordan Peterson explained that if we lived in Nazi Germany we likely would have been Nazi’s, it was a harsh truth about human psychology. We like to think we would be one of the ones that helped Jews escape, but its lying to ourselves about our actual nature. We are capable of great evil and people dont like to realize it, and the environment of 1940’s Germany created the perfect storm for it.
Im taking that same approach to inner city gangs. People want to think they wouldn’t sell heroin to a mother, but in the right environment they absolutely would, and (unpopular opinion here but) id say its the right call. Shes not going to stop doing heroin because you won’t sell it to her. If a genie granted someones wish and all the heroin disappeared she wouldn’t get clean, get a job, and raise a family. Shed switch to hard liquour or something else, so its not as morally reprehensible as the punishment would imply.
Im also of the opinion that drug laws and mandatory minimums are used to keep prisons filled for cheap labor for corporations and the military, creating a massive disincentive to actually fix the high crime areas. That line of thought is a big part of what leads me to my stance on gangs.
The IRA are a much cleaner example I think you would agree with more, but they still had a working economy and intact family system that kept the IRA from engaging in criminal enterprises for income.
And in my opinion; The gang on gang violence that stems from the underground nature of the drug trade is actually a feature, not a bug of our governments policies. The government is much happier with them fighting each other instead of banding together to overthrow them. Similar to Antifa/BLM and Proud boys/Patriots. If they, or we, found common ground and worked together they could overthrow the city/federal governments respectively and actually drive change. But they keep us fighting each other while they consolidate their power.
I think an argument you would be more receptive to is to view gangs as a cautionary tale, a ghost of Christmas future for us to study to avoid the same pitfalls. Thats actually probably a better way to frame it now that I think about it. There are some aspects that I think we need to immediately implement, such as operating in secrecy, extreme vetting of new members, concealing communications and forming and concealing revenue streams from the government.
Even if Trump pulls this off and stays in office the CCP won’t stop. This at best buys us 4 more years to prepare, winter is coming to quote GOT. They weaponized the IRS, FBI, CIA, The department of health and CDC, media, big tech, everything. From seeing the communists in action, we know they will disrupt supply lines (China with medicine/ppe, Venezuela with food), use massive propaganda campaigns to turn public opinion against us, censor us to prevent defending ourselves or organizing a defense, use a madeup virus to shut down our income and get us reliant on government handouts they can withhold for compliance...
We need to take this seriously, they are coming for us, and they are going to use our government against us.
Among the many differences between gangs and militias, one of them is mission and purpose. Compare and contrast the mission and purpose for a gang compared to that of a militia. From what I have read, regarding gangs, the purpose and mission involves illegal activities. When the founding fathers sat down, and hammered out the Constitution, they were not concerned about "defending one's turf" from others who wanted to push their illegal product on the initial group's customers.
The main focus was ensuring that we enjoyed our natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence, they actually pointed out that it was God who gave us these natural rights, and that government was there to ensure that we continue having them. In drafting the Constitution, our founding fathers placed a series of checks and balances against the government. Specifically, against the potential for government abuse.
A reading of the Declaration of Independence shows this mindset. One of the groups, or rather "checks and balance", involves an armed citizenry. The militia. Their intent? To ensure that we continue to enjoy our natural rights. Should the government want to get abusive, and threaten our natural rights, an armed citizen militia acts as a deterrent.
That, acting as a check against the government, is not the sole purpose of the militia. Community can band together for the common good, for the common defense. However, the purpose is still the same. To defend natural rights.
When you argued that this is how gangs "initially" formed, to "defend the community", this scenario would initially have had them as "militia". I tried to find information verifying this and could not. However, my reading on what gangs do does not make them "militia" as defined by our founding fathers.
In one of your responses, you pointed out the Mafia. This would be a closer comparison to the gangs. The mission of gangs, as well as their philosophy, makes them a lot different from militia. However, it makes them very similar to the Mafia's, the "mob", etc. Your description of what gangs do is very similar to what the Mafia does.
My argument about what the militias are willing to do, including crossing state lines, was to drive home the point that they are different from gangs. You illustrated that with your statement about somebody breaking into your home three times a year. A gang member's focus is "self-centered" as well as "group centered" with regards to pursuing business and power objectives.
Your description of what life is like in the inner city, with regards to not finding any work for months, resorting to desperation such as selling to one's own mother, and not having other options, is a way to focus on external issues. This includes both societal and individual issues. However, what I did not read in your description is the concept of "choices" and "benefits or consequences".
Specifically, a person engaging in poor judgment decisions throughout their lives. Poor judgment decisions lead to predicaments and "consequences". The first part of this is the common denominator among all the cities with these inner-city problem… The Democrat Party Machine. The people in these inner cities, who form gangs, consistently vote for the very people who create the conditions that gives them limited to no options. Democrat policies tend to keep people poor.
This, along with the scenario that I pointed out involving people growing up without fathers, contribute to the direct conditions that you listed that appears to "imprison" a person to a life of crime.
I've been to countries on four different continents outside of North America. I've seen conditions, in foreign inner cities, that are far worse than what you would find in American inner cities. In fact, American inner cities would look like "Caribbean Vilas" in comparison. Yet, there are people within these conditions that manage to get out of these conditions.
This boils down to a personal choice. This goes back to my statement about "making a series of poor choices in life". Everybody makes a decision to carry an action out. Depending on what that action is, it provides benefits or consequences. Too many people make the poor decisions that results in them suffering the consequences. To add damage to injury, too many of these individuals refuse to look inward.
Instead, they blame some outside factor, or a combination of them, instead of looking at what they could do themselves. There are people who escape these poor conditions in their home countries, conditions that put American poor conditions to shame, and who subsequently end up succeeding.
Forming groups to deal with the environment that you talking about is not the same as forming groups to defend natural rights. What you are describing is the beginning of the breakdown of society from civilization to barbarism. This does not happen overnight, but across generations.
People are addicted? They can choose as to whether to remain slaves of this addiction, or to fight for their freedom from this addiction. If other drugs disappear, then the drug addicts can make a decision to go through the suffering of the withdrawals and of not having the benefits of the drugs… Or they could choose to find another master to be addicted to.
Even in the direst conditions, a person has a choice. Forming gangs to defend a poor choice is not the same thing as forming a militia to defend one's natural rights.
As for what Jordan Peterson said, that's baloney. People made a choice to support the Nazis. They did not initially come out to describe themselves as they actually were. They came across as moderates. They made the same promises, or similar promises, that Communists made before communism was implemented.
They come across as being "reasonable" and "being inclusive". During this period of time, people jumped onto their bandwagon. Look at the Communists and socialists in the United States. They don't think that communism/socialism could turn out in the United States the way it turned out in other countries. They don't think that it would turn into totalitarianism. The Venezuelans, recently, didn't think so.
It is when they get to the point where they do not need the people, to remain in power, when their true nature comes out. By then, it is too late for many of the people. This happened in Nazi Germany, this happened as recently in Venezuela.
This is not a good example to use to explain, and even excuse, people making poor decisions in their lives. The argument, about "it's lying to ourselves about our actual nature" attempts to justify people's refusal to take the correct course of action in life. It attempts to justify the poor decisions made, so far, in life. It describes people as slaves to their choices and habits.
It represents a refusal to acknowledge that a person went down the wrong track, that they made a mistake, and that they need to make a correction in their path. It attempts to shift blame, consistent with blaming society as to why a certain group of people are "selling drugs and refusing the quit".
Regardless of what you think about the purpose of drug laws and mandatory minimums, the fact remains that people have a choice. They could decide to do drugs, or they could decide not to do drugs. They could decide to sell drugs, or they could decide not to sell drugs. If they decide to sell drugs, if they decide to do drugs, then they risk suffering the consequences.
That problem could easily be resolved if an individual decides not to sell drugs, and decides not to do drugs. If you don't do either, then you won't be breaking those respective laws. By extension, you would not end up in prison as "cheap labor".
Speaking of which, your statement on "cheap labor for the military". If you are talking about "source of enlistment", that's not likely. A person, today, can't enlist into the military as a form of "judicial punishment". In other words, if the judge tells a defendant that they are to serve in the military in lieu of serving prison time, the military would not enlist them.
In fact, before a person can join the military, they can't currently be serving a sentence. Having a criminal record could also prevent someone from being able to join the military. They were running exemptions to that, but they have restricted entry from those groups of individuals.
The Irish Republican Army is not an example you can use to compare to gang activity in the United States. They began under the concept that they were the "Army" all of Ireland. They were trying to "fight to free Ireland from British rule". Whatever business activities they were involved with, to fund their activities, was for their nationalistic goals. This is not the same thing as what gangs are doing. They have since stood down and focused on continuing their efforts through politics.
The gang-on-gang violence involved with the underground drug trade is a feature of gang activities, not of government policies. Each gang, and each member of the gang, can make a choice to not engage in violence. Commit violence, or not to commit violence. If they decided, individually and as a group not to commit violence, then no violence is committed.
If gangs are going to fight each other, even have fights and violence within the gangs, that's not a government design to force people to remain separate and at each other's throats... In order to avoid them banding together to overthrow the government. You can't even expect them to band together when they can't even get along within each gang. How could gangs find common ground with Antifa/BLM or any other group when they can't find common ground with each other?
This is just an excuse to shift blame onto someone or something else and not on where it squarely belongs... The people that engage in violence. The government is not forcing gangs to fight each other. Gangs are making the decision to fight each other when they easily could decide not to fight each other.
As for gangs as a cautionary tale... Yes, it's what could happen when people consistently engage in making and carrying out poor judgment calls in life. Parents tell their children that if they don't change certain poor habits, they would end up in bad positions in life. They could end up in jail. They could end up on the streets. They could wind up on the wrong side of the law. The list goes on.
What I would not be receptive to is the idea that we should only look at societal causes for gangs while not focusing/emphasizing the individual life choices that people make that leads them to being gang members. Your recommendations for what gangs should do to operate in secrecy ignores this factor... If people made the right choices in life, even choosing to live in the humblest of conditions if needed, they could avoid being in gangs and avoid selling drugs. If they avoided dealing with drugs, if they avoided doing drugs or selling drugs, then they would not have to worry about having to concealing drug-related activity to the government.