Minority Rights

[Michael McMahon]

A Militia is an irregular military force

Irregular definition: “(of troops) not belonging to regular or established army units.”

A military only exists for the convenience of its citizens. We don’t have to worry about foreign threats ourselves because we can delegate that responsibility to the military.

But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that in an ideal world there’d be no power imbalance between the army and civilians. Everyone in the country would be allowed to join the army. Then there wouldn’t be much worry of internal tyranny as there’ll be no civilians left; we’d all become armed soldiers. And if everyone were soldiers, that would inherently mean that every political person and minority member is included in the military. Although not everyone wants to work 24/7 as a soldier and the economy would obviously free-fall. As you can see the way we’ve separated the military from civilian life is just a bit of a short-cut. So I don’t believe there’s perfect way to regulate the regular military.

“IRELAND MIGHT PRIDE itself on its neutrality... but 30 years ago, it was ready to let half a million of its people defend the country with the UK should nuclear-fuelled World War III break out.”

World War III? No problem - half a million Irish will fight it

Secret document revealed under 30-year rule shows Ireland had been assessed for the help it could provide in the case of a nuclear war threat.

www.google.ie

“The concept of the “citizen‐soldier” is based on the notion that citizens have the obligation to arm themselves to defend their communities or nations from foreign invaders and from domestic tyrants...
Throughout history, the problem of the “citizen‐soldier” has been that it represented an ideal abstraction rather than an operationally efficient strategy in anything but the most local kinds of community defense.”

Citizen‐Soldier | Encyclopedia.com

Citizen‐Soldier. The concept of the “citizen‐soldier” is based on the notion that citizens have the obligation to arm themselves to defend their communities or nations from foreign invaders and from domestic tyrants. Usually associated with republicanism, it is best understood in opposition to...

www.encyclopedia.com

The military is just a sample of the population. Proportional representation and free speech would reduce the margin of error for minority representation in the military.

Sample: “a portion drawn from a population, the study of which is intended to lead to statistical estimates of the attributes of the whole population.”

“What is Proportional Representation?
The term describes electoral systems in which candidates win seats in a parliament more or less in proportion to the votes cast.

Supporters of this type of system argue that it reflects voters' choices more accurately than other systems. A voter can usually indicate an order of preference for candidates and more than one candidate is elected to represent a constituency, giving voters a choice of representatives to engage with. This differs from the First Past the Post (FPTP) system used for electing Members of Parliament (MPs) to Westminster. Voters using FPTP choose only one candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins the single seat.”

How do we elect MLAs? | Northern Ireland Assembly Education Service

How do we elect MLAs? There are 90 MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly), representing 18 constituencies. The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 increased the term of an Assembly from 4 to 5 years. Therefore, when an election took place on 5 May 2016, the next election was...

education.niassembly.gov.uk

“The Army Reserve is the largest of the Reserve Forces. The Army Reserve provides support to the Regular Army at home and overseas, and throughout its history almost every major operation has seen reservists operate alongside their Regular counterparts.”
- army mod uk

A militia is similar to a reserve force in that it’s too dispersed and decentralised so as to be unmanageable for a potential tyrant.





“The self-styled militia groups raising alarm in the U.S. today draw inspiration from the early days of the republic, when civilian militias served as local defense forces and some fought alongside George Washington’s Continental Army in the Revolutionary War. But today’s militias are associated with anti-government and (at times) White supremacist ideology, making noise during sometimes violent clashes with the authorities before receding from public view.”

Why Militias, Part of America’s Past, Are a Worry Today

The self-styled militia groups raising alarm in the U.S. today draw inspiration from the early days of the republic, when civilian militias served as local defense forces and some fought alongside George Washington’s Continental Army in the Revolutionary War.

www.bloomberg.com

Americans can already own guns so everyone involved in these armed militias would still be armed anyway even if they weren’t together in a group. I don’t agree with the NRA logic that it takes a good guy with a gun to beat a bad guy with a gun because of the threat of ambush and hit-and-run tactics by lone wolf criminals. So unvetted individual civilians really shouldn’t be freely armed with guns. However I acknowledge that it takes a good military/militia to beat a bad military, and defeating a bad military would require there being either good militias, a spontaneous breakup of the military or else a foreign intervention.

 

[Michael McMahon]

The use of hate speech laws could also stop bad militaries, though that depends on how trustworthy the court system is in a country. The other potential difficulty with hate speech laws is that there can be shades of grey in certain volatile or divided countries where many rival political parties might have a chequered history. Some sinister politicians might be try to lie and not reveal their evil intentions until they’re already in government. So this uncertainty of a party’s true motive is yet a further challenge for using hate speech laws. Another risk is that hate speech laws could actually be abused by a bad government to ban their good political opponents.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Besides hate speech legislation, an additional reason why armed militias are more accountable than armed individuals is that an armed individual criminal might be nihilistic and have nothing to lose by committing an attack, whereas an attack by a single member of a rogue militia would result in their entire group being collectively defeated and disbanded. For example, the two main parties in America are Republicans and Democrats. They have different views but they’re both safe and have been around a long time. So a Democratic militia or a Republican militia wouldn’t pose any threat.

 

[Rich2018]

Irregular definition: “(of troops) not belonging to regular or established army units.”

That would describe a Militia

A military only exists for the convenience of its citizens. We don’t have to worry about foreign threats ourselves because we can delegate that responsibility to the military.

So the citizens of France didn't "have to worry about foreign threats" in 1870, 1914, 1940 because it could "delegate that responsibility to the military"

You talk like the USA has never been invaded

But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that in an ideal world there’d be no power imbalance between the army and civilians. Everyone in the country would be allowed to join the army....

No, in an ideal world there would be no armies
How can an "ideal world" had an army with hundreds of millions of soldiers ?

Then there wouldn’t be much worry of internal tyranny as there’ll be no civilians left; we’d all become armed soldiers...

I don't know if you're just naïve or ignorant
Armies are not democracies, they can shoot you for mutiny

If all citizens were in the army (at least part time) you have a military dictatorship right there
Soldiers obey orders

If the army seizes power and you're a soldier in a firing squad for the ex-president, you fire
Or in front of the wall you go

The military is just a sample of the population...

Oh no it's not
They behave quite differently. The army sees to that - individualism is stamped out. They all look the same, think the same and act the same...there is a reason the army likes recruiting 18-21 year old males
I know, for I was a soldier once

“What is Proportional Representation?
The term describes electoral systems in which candidates win seats in a parliament more or less in proportion to the votes cast.

Almost
In PR, political parties are legally recognized and it's the votes for individual parties that are spread among candidates in as close a ratio to the actual vote as possible

"The Army Reserve is the largest of the Reserve Forces. The Army Reserve provides support to the Regular Army at home and overseas, and throughout its history almost every major operation has seen reservists operate alongside their Regular counterparts.”
- army mod uk

A militia is similar to a reserve force in that it’s too dispersed and decentralised so as to be unmanageable for a potential tyrant.

No it's not

In many cases the British army reserve (formally the Territorial Army) supplies individuals who will slip into established, understrength regular units

The reserve is not part of the regular army, but they're not irregular units either. They adhere to the same command structure as the regular army and indeed are actually part of it
ie: a brigade on a combat footing can actually comprise a battalion or two of reserve soldiers

This is not true of irregular forces like a militia

Americans can already own guns so everyone involved in these armed militias would still be armed anyway even if they weren’t together in a group.

The militia today has been replaced by the National Guard

However that's the organized militia, every able bodied male citizen, of military age, could be deemed to be in the unorganized militia - a group of unorganized, undisciplined men-with=guns, would be impossible to resupply and useless except for cannon fodder

So unvetted individual civilians really shouldn’t be freely armed with guns....

For me that includes anyone not in law enforcement or the military

However I acknowledge that it takes a good military/militia to beat a bad military, and defeating a bad military would require there being either good militias, a spontaneous breakup of the military or else a foreign intervention.

A bad military will beat a bad militia ever time in conventional combat.

 

[Michael McMahon]

A bad military will beat a bad militia ever time in conventional combat.

A country has borders with other countries but there’s obviously no borders inside the country itself. In the event of tyranny, refugees might struggle to flee to other countries that may require travel visas and waiting periods. Thus an advantage of a decentralised army is that persecuted civilians could simply escape to another part of the same country that wasn’t militarily controlled by the threatening tyrant. There’s “open borders” within the country.

“An open border is a border that enables free movement of people (and often of goods) between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement, that is lacking substantive border control.” - Wikipedia

they can shoot you for mutiny

It would be difficult for lone individuals to defect from a tyrannical military. They’d have strength in numbers if they were with like-minded people. That’s where free speech in the military is important.

For me that includes anyone not in law enforcement or the military

Yes I agree that civilians shouldn’t have guns. People who like shooting guns for fun are able to join gun clubs where they keep every gun there on-site at the shooting range.

 

[Rich2018]

A country has borders with other countries but there’s obviously no borders inside the country itself. In the event of tyranny, refugees might struggle to flee to other countries that may require travel visas and waiting periods. Thus an advantage of a decentralised army is that persecuted civilians could simply escape to another part of the same country that wasn’t militarily controlled by the threatening tyrant. There’s “open borders” within the country.

A de-centralized army ?
That's a contradiction of terms

You basically mean dividing the country up and having an army in each sector (or state)

That's a recipe for civil war, it certainly isn't a recipe for good defense against a hostile foreign power - though the USA s fortunate to not have to worry too much about foreign invasions any more

It would be difficult for lone individuals to defect from a tyrannical military. They’d have strength in numbers if they were with like-minded people. That’s where free speech in the military is important.

There is no free speech in the military

Without discipline and obedience of orders, a military is just a mob

Yes I agree that civilians shouldn’t have guns. People who like shooting guns for fun are able to join gun clubs where they keep every gun there on-site at the shooting range.

Totally agree.

 

[Michael McMahon]

“A Dublin councillor has claimed some people in her area are carrying knives with them because 'they fear attack'. She said there were four stabbing incidents in an eight day period in the north inner-city... "It's two-pronged: it needs to be education and it needs to be fully resourced, where we have the Garda on the ground and they're able to tackle any altercation that they come across".”

Knife crime: Dublin councillor appeals for help after 'four stabbings in eight days'

A Dublin councillor has claimed some people in her area are carrying knives with them because 'th...

www.newstalk.com

To be honest I think that banning small sharp objects might be a bit idealistic. It’d be a bit like banning the carry of guns on the streets but nonetheless allowing everyone to keep handguns inside their own homes. That would be unworkable as we’d always have to rely on a criminal’s goodwill and hope that they won’t sneak them out to commit a crime. In a large society of millions of people there’ll inevitably be a few antisocial people who won’t listen to any police warnings or attempts at education. A further difficulty is that to avoid being caught a person who intends on committing a knife crime probably won’t habitually carry it around with them until that final period of time just before the attack. So it would be doubly hard for the police to search and catch the people with knives if they don’t always have it on them. Sometimes criminals meticulously prepare for an ambush as seen in the fast bank robberies so phoning and waiting for the police to arrive and stop a person in the process of attacking a victim with a knife might take too long. I’m not necessarily saying that I think everyone should be armed with knives but perhaps people might potentially need a sort of little blunt instrument to be able to fend off any knife-wielding criminal.

 

[Daddyo]

Hi again.

One problem with using guns against opportunistic crimes is that some criminals are very psychopathic. So the criminal won't take any chances and opt to shoot first. This could turn robberies into armed robberies. Of course the other problem is that of proportionality in shooting at unarmed criminals.

In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.

At some point you will realized that you can only do what you can do and extreme scenarios can and do happen even to the very best of us. You can't worry about it. If you get got you got got lol.

What you can do is practice the highest levels of situational awareness! Always know your surroundings. Know the highest danger points in your immediate area. Actively look for threats. Just make it hard for someone to get the drop on you.

Next make sure your skill level is high enough so that you can deploy your defensive firearm should the need become unavoidable. Make sure you have the tactics in your tool box to increase your chances of survival and decrease your attackers chances of success. Things like moving to and using cover, creating distance, one hand shooting, and one handed weak hand shooting etc.

Now once you do all these things if you get got.......it was mean to be OR you need to contact bubble boy and borrow his bubble.

 

[Daddyo]

Over here when assessing your societies inbult predjudicies its simply considered true

In built prejudices? We elected a black man as president. Seems your country has yet to do that. Perhaps you should look in the mirror. BTW those who use the N word are usually the ones with the prejudices.

 

[Daddyo]

Well knives are contact weapons which makes it significantly harder for a criminal to ambush someone. Whatever about the legality of contact weapons, guns are a lot more dangerous.

Knives can easily kill if misused.

Guns can easily kill if misused.

I fail to see how knives are less dangerous. Sure you need to be closer for the knife however the knife never malfunctions or runs out of ammo.

 

[Daddyo]

I suspect the alcohol deaths are self inflicted unlike the gun murders

Not the DUI deaths. Which are many!

 

[flogger]

In built prejudices? We elected a black man as president. Seems your country has yet to do that. Perhaps you should look in the mirror. BTW those who use the N word are usually the ones with the prejudices.

Given how relatively few black people we have here why should we pro actively vouch for them over white people ?

 

[Daddyo]

Given how relatively few black people we have here why should we pro actively vouch for them over white people ?

To show how woke you are of course.

Why should anyone "vouch" for any particular race over another? Boy you sound really really racist.

 

[Michael McMahon]

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25853546.amp
“Muslim, Sikh, Jewish and Wiccan soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen can now request exemptions to strict military uniform and grooming policies.”

If it’s permissible for religious apparel to be worn in the military, should the same not hold true for political symbolism? A hypothetical tyrant could seek to oppress political minorities and not just religious ones.

 

[Michael McMahon]

A political symbol can be inconspicuous like the pin above. There’s a spectrum of visibility depending on the size of the object or garment. So these identifiers don’t have to be that big of a deal.

 

[Michael McMahon]

https://www.politicalsettlements.org/infographics/military-power-sharing/
“Military power-sharing can be an effective tool for ending violence because it focuses on including groups key to the conflict – rather than assuming that rebel groups will unilaterally ‘disarm and disband’ while the state army remains.”

If military power-sharing can end conflicts then couldn’t it also stop a conflict from arising in the first place? Preemptively proportioning the military along political lines might make it easier to organise and maintain the same cohesion rather than risking it further fragmenting into a “split” force.

https://www.peaceagreements.org/publication/12
“Military power-sharing is used frequently in peace processes to accommodate the competing interests of conflict parties to be included in the state’s power structures.”

https://www.politicalsettlements.or...wer-sharing-and-inclusion-in-peace-processes/
“It is important to anticipate whether military power-sharing proposals are likely to result in joint exercise of power in a unified state army or ‘split’ security force with ‘forces within forces’ reporting to a split ‘government of national unity’ or a highly territorially devolved political arrangement.”

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Hi again.

One problem with using guns against opportunistic crimes is that some criminals are very psychopathic. So the criminal won't take any chances and opt to shoot first. This could turn robberies into armed robberies. Of course the other problem is that of proportionality in shooting at unarmed criminals.

In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.

There is nothing to support this. Ask any criminal what they fear the most...armed civilians they intend to rob.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Ask any criminal what they fear the most...armed civilians they intend to rob.

You are really increasing the stakes. Robbery is a very serious crime but there are unfortunately worse crimes. Maybe one might deter some small-time criminals with that attitude. But what if we were to encounter a nihilistic criminal who feels they have nothing to live for and are willing to risk their own death? Lethal deterrence won’t stop the mindset of some criminals. A fist fight over stolen property carries less expected risk and a mutually lower death rate than a gun fight.

 

[Waddy]

You are really increasing the stakes. Robbery is a very serious crime but there are unfortunately worse crimes. Maybe one might deter some small-time criminals with that attitude. But what if we were to encounter a nihilistic criminal who feels they have nothing to live for and are willing to risk their own death? Lethal deterrence won’t stop the mindset of some criminals. A fist fight over stolen property carries less expected risk and a mutually lower death rate than a gun fight.

That nihilistic criminal won't want any witnesses left. So you better be prepared for a last ditch effort to save your own life. For that I would want a gun. And few criminals will likely engage in a fist fight over anything, they will have a weapon, at the least a knife, so you better be prepared to defend yourself accordingly. Better if you have a weapon more deadly than the one the criminal will use.
Women get raped, killed and dumped in the weeds precisely because they had no way to fight back.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

You are really increasing the stakes. Robbery is a very serious crime but there are unfortunately worse crimes. Maybe one might deter some small-time criminals with that attitude. But what if we were to encounter a nihilistic criminal who feels they have nothing to live for and are willing to risk their own death? Lethal deterrence won’t stop the mindset of some criminals. A fist fight over stolen property carries less expected risk and a mutually lower death rate than a gun fight.

Increasing the stakes? We are not forcing these criminals to rob, rape and use home invasions. It's a personal decision if citizens want to be armed just as criminals to rob.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Better if you have a weapon more deadly than the one the criminal will use.
Women get raped, killed and dumped in the weeds precisely because they had no way to fight back.

I wrote in a previous post about close combat weapons carrying less risk of ambush (post 11) and a more random outcome which isn’t based only on physical strength (#264). I mentioned if lots of leaks occur in a gun control system whereby we’re unable to disarm several criminal gangs then there might be some leeway for less lethal ammunition and air guns (#211). This is so a person can have a residual ability to return fire to fend off an armed criminal until help arrives or else to be better able to flee through covering fire.

It's a personal decision if citizens want to be armed just as criminals to rob.

I don’t think it’s possible to win an arms race against criminals. An unarmed person can’t beat someone with a gun, armed people can’t beat a fighter jet, and a country with fighter jets can’t beat a nation with nuclear weapons. My point is there’s a limit to how much we can defend ourselves without inadvertently leading criminals to attempt arming themselves to the same extent.

 

[Waddy]

I wrote in a previous post about close combat weapons carrying less risk of ambush (post 11) and a more random outcome which isn’t based only on physical strength (#264). I mentioned if lots of leaks occur in a gun control system whereby we’re unable to disarm several criminal gangs then there might be some leeway for less lethal ammunition and air guns (#211). This is so a person can have a residual ability to return fire to fend off an armed criminal until help arrives or else to be better able to flee through covering fire.



I don’t think it’s possible to win an arms race against criminals. An unarmed person can’t beat someone with a gun, armed people can’t beat a fighter jet, and a country with fighter jets can’t beat a nation with nuclear weapons. My point is there’s a limit to how much we can defend ourselves without inadvertently leading criminals to attempt arming themselves to the same extent.

I wouldn't have much faith in an airgun saving my life against a determined criminal even armed with a knife.

I'm not seeking to win an arms race, and I doubt I'll ever face a fighter jet. All I want is an equal chance. As the saying goes; God made man and Colonel Colt made the equals. The worst I'll ever face is a criminal with a gun. I want the same chance he gets. If I don't have a gun I'm certainly a victim.

 

[Michael McMahon]

The worst I'll ever face is a criminal with a gun.

What about a criminal with grenades? Yes, you might be able to beat such a person with your gun. Yet we can’t legalise fragmentation hand grenades because of the risk of ambush and collateral damage. That’s why we can’t realistically be as armed as the worst possible criminal. I think alternative methods like those mentioned above need to be explored.

 

[Michael McMahon]

I wouldn't have much faith in an airgun saving my life against a determined criminal even armed with a knife.

If guns were kept in a gun club instead of at the house or on your person, then if they were located closer to you than the police you could also call your local gun club for backup against an armed threat.

 

[DebateChallenge]

What about a criminal with grenades? Yes, you might be able to beat such a person with your gun. Yet we can’t legalise fragmentation hand grenades because of the risk of ambush and collateral damage. That’s why we can’t realistically be as armed as the worst possible criminal. I think alternative methods like those mentioned above need to be explored.

I would rather have a gun than a grenade. If I was going up against a criminal with a grenade I would rather have a gun than a grenade of my own.