Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Teppodama, Mar 7, 2018.
and camping gear.
militias = camping
If you read the quotes I posted, every one is mostly talking about a domestic threat of tyranny.
No they pictured all citizens with the ability to defend themselves.
to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason
In the last 100 years how many have been slaughtered by their own governments?
What government hasn't abused it's people?
Why would you think governments are now past that?
You first. Please film it for posterity. Thanks.
what does that have to with these guys?
Grenades, bombs, missile delivery systems, nukes, landmines, claymores, etc.....
I don't think missiles/bombs/nukes would be considered arms. The others people already can legally own with the right paperwork.
hi again RerouteToRemain,
i hear you loud and clear, my friend. as i've been saying, the primary rationale behind militias is to prepare for the day where patriots will be forced to kill unpatriotic americans.
off the top of my head, there's Mao's Great Leap Forward. Assad seems to be doing a good job in killing his citizenry. Jews certainly could have mounted a spirited defense against the Luftwaffe if they'd only had some deer rifles and Dinty Moore, i guess?
i could go on, but what does this have to do with the United States of America? are you afraid that someone like Obama go insane, waking up one morning and deciding he's Pinochet?
Listen, the amendment simply says arms. Missiles and bombs are arms. And don't you think it's fucked up that private citizens can stockpile grenades and land mines? What could possibly be the practical purpose for that shit?
There is never any guarantee to safety. But preparedness is better than having to scramble after the fact or suffer the potential consequence of not being prepared. That is unless you completely trust everyone around you including those that aren't family or friends. Of course you could also live so remotely that it isn't much of an issue because human interaction simply isn't a factor.
Maybe if you had one they would have? And it doesn't always have to devolve to actual armed conflict. The threat of such can often be enough. All of our laws are at their most fundamental are backed by the threat of armed conflict. That's why we arm those we choose to enforce them.
That would really depend on how literally an individual believes in the sanctity of their rights and how far their convictions extent to protecting them now wouldn't it? Does that mean I advocate drawing down on everyone looking to nibble on the 2nd? No, there is an obvious and lawful chain of events that extend before such a drastic and usually irrevocable decision, or at the very least should be for anyone acting in good faith. Most of those revolve around seeking resource through our system of laws. But what do you do if you believe the law is not impartial? Will not listen to your grievance and give it due consideration and that actions resulting from said law are unjust?
What about the Patriot act under Bush? As defined by our constitution, where the actions conducted under its auspices really considered legal? Where the actions just? Or where they merely expedient in achieving a result that otherwise may not have been achieved or one that would have taken too long to be of any real use using "regular" lawful methods outside those expanded or made available by the Act?
The government made its own arguments and justifications to itself on why it should be able to do what it wanted to do without consultation of the citizenry. You, I an every other regular citizen had no say in that power grab by our government. Actions were conducted that are still debated regarding legality. They haven't really stepped away from that conferred power either. That's one thing about our government. They're quick to take what they need at the time, but slow to give it up if at all once the apparent need passes. There's always some justification to hold onto it a little longer, tweak it, potentially expand it....
They're called arms. Nuclear arms. Arms race. Sounds like they're covered under the general heading of "arms". The right thing to do would be to add an Amendment prohibiting indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction. Were there arms at the time of founding that were illegal for citizens in good standing to own? If not...
i live in a city. i am a city guy. lived in New York, then Philly, now Charlotte.
we city people don't do militias, i don't know what to tell you. not enough forests around to practice in or something.
maybe i would have what? drawn down on marauding rioters to protect my studio?
not a chance, lol.
i am insured, i am not some kind of barbarian.
listen, i am a normal, busy middle aged guy. i work, i try and go out to dinner if i can get a reservation at the right place, i see my girlfriend...i try to make time to see my parents. when i have time, i try to unwind a bit by posting here and reading a bit. i like to smoke high quality pot.
i don't have any time to go crawling around in the dirt, far from modern plumbing, in preparation to fight for the right to own firearms.
its not on my schedule, at all.
if the nation's senators and house members get together and decide for some reason to radically curtail the right to own firearms - one would assume they're not being whimsical for edgy reasons; it would be because a huge, overwhelming amount of Americans desire that kind of change.
if, in response to this kind of bilateral agreement, you feel you have the right to shoot Americans....idk what to say.
you seem like a good guy, Tep. good talking to you, i gotta run.
You can keep saying that as much as you want but that doesn't make the statement true and it doesn't deal with the complete reasoning for a militia as outlined in our constitution or why those very reasons will always be valid.
How much of what occurred under those regimes would have been able to be accomplished to the degree they were accomplished had they recourse to arms from the outset?
One certainly hopes not but we certainly hear a lot of bluster from our politicians and media about how Trump is one questionable decision away from becoming such now don't we? Maybe only non-Democratic Presidents and politicians are capable of becoming such huh? Maybe it's "non-intellectuals" that only succumb to the temptation right? Certainly no modern educated man or woman would right?
Doesn't Antifa believe they are fighting fascists? Don't they use that as the justification for the disruption, destruction, violence and intimidation? Maybe they're the civilian militia of the liberal progressives fighting the good fight against repression huh? Granted, they haven't started drawing down on people at their rallies, yet but is beyond comprehension that things couldn't escalate to that point if they truly and fully believe their current tactics simply aren't working? Granted, they'd have to buy guns first...learn to shoot them...
Night Igit. Enjoy your evening and sleep well. Pleasure talking with you.
Yes that is the primary rationale. But instead of the "patriotic & unpatriotic" it would be citizens vs those "just following orders".
That no government is free from potential abuse of it's citizens.
Yes I think Obama is going to come back, seize power and start a new red terror.
I like to think of it this way: if the time came when the common person needed to form a militia, that person could. Until the time comes, individuals must be respected to bear arms.
I don’t buy the National Guard as meeting that definition.
Just my opinion. Supreme Court Justices don’t even know. Hell, they overturn unconstitutional rulings that were affirmed by them only a few years before (Frank v.Maryland/Camara v. Municipal Court)
I hope you enjoyed your time there. Love that city.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have the power
1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:
4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:
7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
For what it's worth, I want to sincerely thank everyone that participated in this discussion regardless of their side of the issue.