[geeks] FW: [rescue] UPS Recommendation

[Mike Meredith]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:26:01 -0500
Brian Dunbar <Brian.Dunbar at plexus.com> wrote:
> Mike Meredith [mailto:mike at blackhairy.demon.co.uk] on Wednesday, July
> 16, 2003 1:07 PM said
> > The 2nd amendment ? You know that looks like a spectacularly dumb
> 
> I've heard _of_ it, sure.  It didn't come across well, but I was
> trying to make joke, a jest, a funny.  Obviosly not _that_ funny. 
> I've been told my humour doesn't travel well.

I'm just being argumentative (and *not* being pro or anti gun ... it's
just the "militia" thing).

As to humour, I know what you mean ... 99 times out of a hundred I don't
get a twitch out of my jokes; that 1 other time they're all rolling on
the floor. Buggered if I can spot the difference.

> > neighbours for self-protection doesn't make you a member of a
> > militia either.
> 
> I'm just a dumb hick who has trouble understanding why, if I work 55
> hours in a week, I can't put that on my 'time sheet'.  

There's no reason at all why you can't band together with your
neighbours and call yourselves "Brain's Free Militia". The problem
arrives when you fight as a militia. According to the laws of war there
are certain conditions to being perceived as 'militia' ... a militia is
officially part of a nation's army, must have a responsible leader
(prob. with some connection to the nation's government), must wear a
uniform (actually "an emblem recognisable from a distance"), etc, etc.

The correct term for you and your band of neighbours is "guerillas".
Nothing wrong with that, but it makes a big difference to how you are
treated if captured.

This is all very legalistic, but the Constitution is about law and
'militia' has probably been a legal term for longer than most countries
have existed.

> Worth noting that 'militia' in the colonial era was, IIRC, every able
> bodied male in the community, mustering under a pre-selected elected
> leader.  By the definition in common use in the 18th century, everyone
> was _in_ the militia, willy-nilly.

I suspect 'militia' is in some senses a deliberately vague term. In the
UK 'militia' meant specially priviliged regiments of the army that
served in the UK and could not be sent abroad ... and this was in the
18th century. But it was always an integral part of a nation's armed
forces (note your use of "elected leader").

> It's a bit of a stretch to call a mob like that a military formation
> in the modern sense of the word, but I'll bet whatever drill events
> they had were a blast.  Spend a few hours in close order and musketry
> drill followed by the 1780s version of a kegger.

That level of training is a good deal better than the raw recruits
in most European armies received at the time. You could probably call
certain sections of the US or UK armies of the present time 'militia'
(although they probably wouldn't like it), and they certainly don't
qualify as a mob!