Okla. tea parties and lawmakers envision militia

[LiberalNation]

what you wana bet they can't keep their sticky fingers off the illegal firearms.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_militia

OKLAHOMA CITY – Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates. Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.

[namvet]

there's no connection here with the Tea party. that's all made up liberal lies and http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/bullshit_detector4.gif

[bullypulpit]

Given that Oklahoma already has a duly constituted militia, The Oklahoma National Guard, to what end would this right wing-nut militia serve?

According to news reports, "Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea-party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a volunteer militia to help defend against what they say are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty."

Firstly, if they are dis-satisfied with their "political setbacks" constituting a militia is not a means for redressing those issues in a open society. That is what the ballot box is for, as are the multitude of public forums available for them to make their views heard.

If they are unable to make their message heard, the voters are either not interested in what they have to say, or dismiss what they have to say as nonsense. In either case establishing a militia will not give them the ability to more clearly voice their views. It will only serve to further marginalize them, thus feeding into their already overwhelming insecurity and paranoia.

'Cuz, ya see, open political discourse has been the cornerstone of America's success. The political process is the market place for ideas to be put forward and stand or fail on their own merits. And if your ideas fail in the Darwinian environment of this market place, they weren't good enough to survive in the first place or they were poorly thought out and presented.

This half-witted, half-assed plan to form a militia with the aim of defending against imagined "...improper federal infringements on state sovereignty..." is the political equivalent of a child's temper tantrum. But, unlike a child's tantrum, this tantrum can get people killed. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

[bullypulpit]

there's no connection here with the Tea party. that's all made up liberal lies and http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/bullshit_detector4.gif

Really? You might wanna hook that bullshit detector up to yourself.

[CSM]

Given that Oklahoma already has a duly constituted militia, The Oklahoma National Guard, to what end would this right wing-nut militia serve?

According to news reports, "Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea-party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a volunteer militia to help defend against what they say are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty."

Firstly, if they are dis-satisfied with their "political setbacks" constituting a militia is not a means for redressing those issues in a open society. That is what the ballot box is for, as are the multitude of public forums available for them to make their views heard.

If they are unable to make their message heard, the voters are either not interested in what they have to say, or dismiss what they have to say as nonsense. In either case establishing a militia will not give them the ability to more clearly voice their views. It will only serve to further marginalize them, thus feeding into their already overwhelming insecurity and paranoia.

'Cuz, ya see, open political discourse has been the cornerstone of America's success. The political process is the market place for ideas to be put forward and stand or fail on their own merits. And if your ideas fail in the Darwinian environment of this market place, they weren't good enough to survive in the first place or they were poorly thought out and presented.

This half-witted, half-assed plan to form a militia with the aim of defending against imagined "...improper federal infringements on state sovereignty..." is the political equivalent of a child's temper tantrum. But, unlike a child's tantrum, this tantrum can get people killed. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

Here are some thoughts for consideration:

1) The States' National Guard are funded and controlled by the Federal government under the with a State's governor as CinC. The feds fund the Guard, provide the material and weapons, and determine training requirements.

2) The Constitution nor any other law limits the number of militia's any State can have.

3) The federal/state governments control the voting process. With all the libs screaming about stolen elections you would think they would welcome some other means of imposing their will. You just KNOW the 2012 election will be STOLEN as well!

[namvet]

Really? You might wanna hook that bullshit detector up to yourself.

sorry. it works on liberals only. if I told em Charles Manson joined the Party they'd buy it hook line and sinker and have it posted on a forum in record time. that's how god damned fuckin' stupid liberals are.

they don't lead. they always follow

[bullypulpit]

Here are some thoughts for consideration:

1) The States' National Guard are funded and controlled by the Federal government under the with a State's governor as CinC. The feds fund the Guard, provide the material and weapons, and determine training requirements.

2) The Constitution nor any other law limits the number of militia's any State can have.

3) The federal/state governments control the voting process. With all the libs screaming about stolen elections you would think they would welcome some other means of imposing their will. You just KNOW the 2012 election will be STOLEN as well!

So if this comes to pass they'll have to raise taxes to fund it? :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

sorry. it works on liberals only. if I told em Charles Manson joined the Party they'd buy it hook line and sinker and have it posted on a forum in record time. that's how god damned fuckin' stupid liberals are.

they don't lead. they always follow

Project much?

[namvet]

Project much?

here's a new forum for ya. right up your alley

http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/

you'll fit right in

[CSM]

So if this comes to pass they'll have to raise taxes to fund it? :laugh2:

Not necessarily. Militias have been and can be self funded. Of course with your mindset, I can see how you would believe that individuals cannot accomplish anything without government "assisstance". Believe it or not, there are living breathing human beings capable of not only living but succeeding without government help.

[crin63]

[QUOTE=LiberalNation;421595]what you wana bet they can't keep their sticky fingers off the illegal firearms.

It depends on the state as to what is an illegal firearm, so you are painting with a very broad brush. Its federally legal to own full automatic weapons, its up to the individual states. I'm not sure what the fee is any more but it used to be a $200 to own a full auto and approval of your local L.E. if it was okay with the state. Texas allows full autos.

[Silver]

Given that Oklahoma already has a duly constituted militia, The Oklahoma National Guard, to what end would this right wing-nut militia serve?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

To what end would this serve ? You didn't open your semen hole before.

[bullypulpit]

here's a new forum for ya. right up your alley

http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/

you'll fit right in

Sorry, but I've got better things to do than infiltrate a group of RWN crazies dressed up like minutemen with tea-bags dangling from their hats, with mis-spelled banners and placards produced by the corporations funding their protests. Never mind that most haven't the faintest idea of what they're protesting anyways. Gotta go trim my toe-nails.

[bullypulpit]

The teabagger movement:

<center><img src=http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg></center>

[HogTrash]

Given that Oklahoma already has a duly constituted militia, The Oklahoma National Guard, to what end would this right wing-nut militia serve?

The #1 goal of any civilian militia is to maintain a military unit that is free of any federal control since that is who it is intended to be defending against in the event that the US government should ever turn on the people.

I'm surprised anyone has to ask this question...You don't do very much thinking for yourself, do ya Bully?...You should work on that...There's a whole big world out there that might open up to you.

[bullypulpit]

The #1 goal of any civilian militia is to maintain a military unit that is free of any federal control since that is who it is intended to be defending against in the event that the US government should ever turn on the people.

I'm surprised anyone has to ask this question...You don't do very much thinking for yourself, do ya Bully?...You should work on that...There's a whole big world out there that might open up to you.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States... - United States Constitution, Article 2, Sec. 2, para 1"

Any militia constituted by a state government would fall under the constitutional authority of the POTUS as C-in-C. Unless, of course, that militia was formed with the intent to oppose, by force of arms, the federal government. In that case, it would be treason.

This should help clarify things for you:

<center><a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html>CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES</a></center>

Keep a dictionary close at hand for the big words, 'K.

[bullypulpit]

The #1 goal of any civilian militia is to maintain a military unit that is free of any federal control since that is who it is intended to be defending against in the event that the US government should ever turn on the people.

I'm surprised anyone has to ask this question...You don't do very much thinking for yourself, do ya Bully?...You should work on that...There's a whole big world out there that might open up to you.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States... - United States Constitution, Article 2, Sec. 2, para 1"

Any militia constituted by a state government would fall under the constitutional authority of the POTUS as C-in-C. Unless, of course, that militia was formed with the intent to oppose, by force of arms, the federal government. In that case, it would be treason.

This should help clarify things for you:

<center><a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html>CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES</a></center>

Keep a dictionary close at hand for the big words, 'K.

And you might wanna try that thinking thing for yourself. There's a whole big world out there that might open up to you. Provided, of course, you can stop huffing spray paint before you kill anymore gray cells.

[HogTrash]

A government that is governing by the strict confines of the Constitution should have nothing to fear from it's citizens.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States... - United States Constitution, Article 2, Sec. 2, para 1"

Any militia constituted by a state government would fall under the constitutional authority of the POTUS as C-in-C. Unless, of course, that militia was formed with the intent to oppose, by force of arms, the federal government. In that case, it would be treason.

This should help clarify things for you:

<center><a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html>CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES</a></center>

Keep a dictionary close at hand for the big words, 'K.

Our forefathers layed it out in simple terms for us.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Liberals rarely understand this because they are way to dependent on government.
Writing to William Smith (1755-1816), John Adams' secretary and future son-in-law, Thomas Jefferson seemed to welcome Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts: "god forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure." Jefferson was confident that rather than repression, the "remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

[bullypulpit]

A government that is governing by the strict confines of the Constitution should have nothing to fear from it's citizens.

Our forefathers layed it out in simple terms for us.


Liberals rarely understand this because they are way to dependent on government.


Please, tell me, just how is the Obama administration is becoming "... destructive of these ends..." as laid out in the Declaration of Independence?

I did notice your failure to emphasize "...<b><i><font color= red>Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes</font></i></b>...", which is exactly what the issues the teabaggers are up in arms about. Light and transient causes. Their willingness to be led counter to their own interests by corporate funded groups like, Americans For Prosperity, Freedom Works and others shows a serious lack of intellectual rigor and a willingness...even a need...to be told what to do and how to think.

And when you cite your sources, please, be specific and provide working links.

[BoogyMan]

Bully, do you actually want debate or do you simply want to play flame-bait bingo? The continued use of "teabaggers" tells me you simply want to be relegated to the baiter category.

The massive increases in taxation and class warrior turn that Obama has put the nation on, not to mention the fact that the congress IGNORED the preponderance of their constituencies to force this health care nightmare down our throats puts us squarely in the "taxation without representation" category.

Don't come in here talking about lack of intellectual rigor when you are defending the rape of our constitution and complete lack of understanding of our history that the Obama admin has evidenced.



Please, tell me, just how is the Obama administration is becoming "... destructive of these ends..." as laid out in the Declaration of Independence?

I did notice your failure to emphasize "...<b><i><font color= red>Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes</font></i></b>...", which is exactly what the issues the teabaggers are up in arms about. Light and transient causes. Their willingness to be led counter to their own interests by corporate funded groups like, Americans For Prosperity, Freedom Works and others shows a serious lack of intellectual rigor and a willingness...even a need...to be told what to do and how to think.

And when you cite your sources, please, be specific and provide working links.

[LiberalNation]

they were just asking for the teabagger nickname when they chose their name. LOL serves em right.

[SassyLady]

they were just asking for the teabagger nickname when they chose their name. LOL serves em right.

Actually, some of us understand history and the significance of the original Boston Tea Party, and others, like yourself and the ignorant youth of this day and age, find their education in the stupidity of frat house humor.

[bullypulpit]

Bully, do you actually want debate or do you simply want to play flame-bait bingo? The continued use of "teabaggers" tells me you simply want to be relegated to the baiter category.

The massive increases in taxation and class warrior turn that Obama has put the nation on, not to mention the fact that the congress IGNORED the preponderance of their constituencies to force this health care nightmare down our throats puts us squarely in the "taxation without representation" category.

Don't come in here talking about lack of intellectual rigor when you are defending the rape of our constitution and complete lack of understanding of our history that the Obama admin has evidenced.

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004160049>About those 25 tax increases...</a></center>

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004150021>CBS poll finds most Tea Party supporters say their taxes are fair</a></center>

As for healthcare reform, most on the left are disgusted for its failure to provide a genuine alternative to private, for profit insurers. As for those on the right...Well, anything the Obama administration does with, or in spite of, the Democratic majority in Congress and their obstructionist Republican colleagues, is the work of Satan, Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao all rolled up into one. What utter, unmitigated, unsubstantiated rubbish. It is indicative of an appalling ignorance of political reality and history. So before you lay claim to any intellectual rigor, you would be well served by developing that quality in yourself.

[MtnBiker]

mediamatters.org/blog/201004160049>About those 25 tax increases

mediamatters.org/blog/201004150021>CBS poll finds most Tea Party supporters say their taxes are fair




Media Matters is just a mouthpiece for progressive liberalism, it is baised and is agenda driven. Hillary says so herself, make sure to catch the 2:45 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM

[BoogyMan]

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004160049>About those 25 tax increases...</a></center>

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004150021>CBS poll finds most Tea Party supporters say their taxes are fair</a></center>

As for healthcare reform, most on the left are disgusted for its failure to provide a genuine alternative to private, for profit insurers. As for those on the right...Well, anything the Obama administration does with, or in spite of, the Democratic majority in Congress and their obstructionist Republican colleagues, is the work of Satan, Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao all rolled up into one. What utter, unmitigated, unsubstantiated rubbish. It is indicative of an appalling ignorance of political reality and history. So before you lay claim to any intellectual rigor, you would be well served by developing that quality in yourself.

Media Matters??? You retort with the Forrest Gump of modern media and try to claim intellectual rigor? Rigor mortis maybe, but not rigor.

Valid non-biased sourcing will see your arguments treated with much more respect than the Media Matters mental midgetry you are now trying to put forth as a fodder for a discussion.

[bullypulpit]

Media Matters??? You retort with the Forrest Gump of modern media and try to claim intellectual rigor? Rigor mortis maybe, but not rigor.

Valid non-biased sourcing will see your arguments treated with much more respect than the Media Matters mental midgetry you are now trying to put forth as a fodder for a discussion.

Like it or not, Media Matters reports the issues and debunks the falsehoods with independent and independently verifiable sources. I'm sorry if reality has too much of a liberal bias for you to tolerate. Speaks volumes about your own "mental midgetry".

[bullypulpit]

Media Matters is just a mouthpiece for progressive liberalism, it is baised and is agenda driven. Hillary says so herself, make sure to catch the 2:45 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM

See above, and since when has anyone on the right given any credence to anything Hillary has to say?

[Kathianne]

Media Matters??? You retort with the Forrest Gump of modern media and try to claim intellectual rigor? Rigor mortis maybe, but not rigor.

Valid non-biased sourcing will see your arguments treated with much more respect than the Media Matters mental midgetry you are now trying to put forth as a fodder for a discussion.

You and media matters, a biased source btw, both miss the point. Taxes fair, THIS YEAR? Problem isn't this year. Problem is what has been going on via legislation for the past 12+ months and the tax burden within. Those that are not sheeple as yourself, they see and do not want the next generations hamstrung by today's choices by the government. It's immoral to do to our future.

[revelarts]

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States... - United States Constitution, Article 2, Sec. 2, para 1"

Any militia constituted by a state government would fall under the constitutional authority of the POTUS as C-in-C. Unless, of course, that militia was formed with the intent to oppose, by force of arms, the federal government. In that case, it would be treason.

This should help clarify things for you:

<center><a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html>CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES</a></center>

Keep a dictionary close at hand for the big words, 'K.

Thanks for the link to the law.
I've got a very honest and serious question for you.

What rights do you believe the States and localities have against the Federal gov't. Is Federal law an automatic trump?

Are there ANY limits to Federal Authority?

Couple of examples.

1. California might make marijuana use legal. the fed law says it's not.
if CA only enforces it's own laws is it committing treason against the federal Gov't?

2. Alabama would like to make abortion illegal again if AL only enforces it's own laws is it committing treason against the federal Gov't?





If the federal Gov't creates laws that are against state laws, and local laws and the constitution, and the Supreme court supports those laws, what recourse do the people have?

[BoogyMan]

Like it or not, Media Matters reports the issues and debunks the falsehoods with independent and independently verifiable sources. I'm sorry if reality has too much of a liberal bias for you to tolerate. Speaks volumes about your own "mental midgetry".

Media Matters MAKES UP a twist to everything they publish and they make fools of the ideologues who are ridiculous enough to base opinions on their Fisher Price style of news.

Disconnect from the stupidity and engage or you will be just another stupid liberal screaming at himself alone in the dark.

[bullypulpit]

Media Matters MAKES UP a twist to everything they publish and they make fools of the ideologues who are ridiculous enough to base opinions on their Fisher Price style of news.

Disconnect from the stupidity and engage or you will be just another stupid liberal screaming at himself alone in the dark.

Then you're not payin' attention.

[BoogyMan]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing024.gif

[bullypulpit]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing024.gif

qed

[bullypulpit]

Thanks for the link to the law.
I've got a very honest and serious question for you.

What rights do you believe the States and localities have against the Federal gov't. Is Federal law an automatic trump?

Are there ANY limits to Federal Authority?

Couple of examples.

1. California might make marijuana use legal. the fed law says it's not.
if CA only enforces it's own laws is it committing treason against the federal Gov't?

2. Alabama would like to make abortion illegal again if AL only enforces it's own laws is it committing treason against the federal Gov't?

If the federal Gov't creates laws that are against state laws, and local laws and the constitution, and the Supreme court supports those laws, what recourse do the people have?

Example 1: Since this action is not advocating for armed resistance to the federal government, It doesn't seem that it would fall under the rubric of US Code Chap 115. But i'm no expert in constitutional law...just making an observation.

Example 2: The decision in Roe v. Wade established that the state has non compelling interest in prohibiting abortions until after the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur, regardless of the reason or the misinformation presented as fact by the so called "Pro-Life" movement.

Finally, sometimes the federal government must step in so as to undo an injustice inherent in the laws of a state or local government. Brown v. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the overturning of anti-miscegenation laws by the courts are prime examples of this.

[revelarts]

Example 1: Since this action is not advocating for armed resistance to the federal government, It doesn't seem that it would fall under the rubric of US Code Chap 115. But i'm no expert in constitutional law...just making an observation.

Example 2: The decision in Roe v. Wade established that the state has non compelling interest in prohibiting abortions until after the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur, regardless of the reason or the misinformation presented as fact by the so called "Pro-Life" movement.
.

Alabama's not advocating armed resistance either. So it seems your answer for 1 would apply for #2 as well.



...
Finally, sometimes the federal government must step in so as to undo an injustice inherent in the laws of a state or local government. Brown v. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the overturning of anti-miscegenation laws by the courts are prime examples of this.

And Yes I think there may be cases where the federal gov't should enforce the bill of rights and constitution as clearly define (not the "penumbra" as in Roe V Wade) within the boarders of the states where the violations are clear or prevalent and seemingly intractable. But beyond that it is beyond it's jurisdiction. The separated but equal school issues etc , though horrible and wrong, probably was beyond the pale of clear federal authority. There a legal saying. Hard cases s make bad law.
But just as you accept the authority of the federal gov't to right legal wrongs my leading question was what authority do the people go to when the federal gov't is the one who has abridged our rights? I say it has to swing back to the the mean ol state and local gov'ts with a true and solid appeal to the constitution. 9th and 10th amendments.

From reading your post this thread i get the impression that your OK with a law being against the constitution as long as it's not an "unreasonable" burden to the people. which you don't think health care is. Just as the you sight the supreme court as the last word on the roe v wade i site the constitution as the last word on all laws. And it's not a long or overally complicated doc to read or understand. ANd Clearly health care anit there. neither is the patriot act or warentless wire taps. the federal gov't has crossed the constitutional line LONG ago and we can't just be agaist the feds unconstitutional crap when the republicans are doing it or just when the liberals are doing it. Or if its unconstitutional but we like it.

We should all call on the law honestly not just when it serves our postions don't you think? and the constitution is suppose to be the Supreme law of the land.

[cat slave]

what you wana bet they can't keep their sticky fingers off the illegal firearms.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_militia

OKLAHOMA CITY – Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates. Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.

What incredible bullshit! They dont make boots high enough to walk through
that shit!

States rights still are in order! That is the pecking order and it is protection
of states from a tyrannical government and or dictatorship.

[bullypulpit]

What incredible bullshit! They dont make boots high enough to walk through
that shit!

States rights still are in order! That is the pecking order and it is protection
of states from a tyrannical government and or dictatorship.

Which tyranny or dictatorship are you referring to?

[Gaffer]

Which tyranny or dictatorship are you referring to?

The one that is in the white house and controls congress. Which one are you referring too?

[bullypulpit]

The one that is in the white house and controls congress. Which one are you referring too?

Go look up the words "tyranny" and "dictatorship". Come back when you have a firm grasp on their true meaning rather that that spoon-fed you by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

[SassyLady]

Go look up the words "tyranny" and "dictatorship". Come back when you have a firm grasp on their true meaning rather that that spoon-fed you by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

The idea is to be prepared so that the government doesn't become tyrannical or create dictators....only sheep wait until the wolf is in the middle of the flock to bleat their distress. Most of them will then turn around and watch the wolf eat their neighbor and then go back to eating their cud. Now, a sheepdog is constantly alert and ready to defend themselves and protect the ignorant sheep and will harass the wolf until he leaves the area.

It would seem to me that having a well armed and trained state militia is akin to having a herd of sheepdogs.

Of course, if you choose to be a sheep, be prepared to be one of those that the wolf takes down first.

[LiberalNation]

thing is these "militias" are no match for the US military. They would be decimiated in any head on confrontation the best they could do would be taliban tactics.

[Mr. P]

thing is these "militias" are no match for the US military. They would be decimiated in any head on confrontation the best they could do would be taliban tactics.

Wrong, LN. A small group can whip a large one and the tactics to do so long predate the Taliban.

[SassyLady]

Wrong, LN. A small group can whip a large one and the tactics to do so long predate the Taliban.

I guess they don't teach the American Revolution in school anymore. Farmers and shopkeepers going up against the British Empire's army? Go figure.

[Gaffer]

Go look up the words "tyranny" and "dictatorship". Come back when you have a firm grasp on their true meaning rather that that spoon-fed you by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

I do know the meaning of the words. And look who's talking about being spoon fed, the bamabot himself. The dark lord in the white house is a tyrant wanna be and your just one of his minions. Congress is full of his followers. They all do what they're told. And your either too stupid to see it or your willfully blind because you actually believe people should be ruled over instead of making their own choices. You keep up the good work there comrade.

[bullypulpit]

I do know the meaning of the words. And look who's talking about being spoon fed, the bamabot himself. The dark lord in the white house is a tyrant wanna be and your just one of his minions. Congress is full of his followers. They all do what they're told. And your either too stupid to see it or your willfully blind because you actually believe people should be ruled over instead of making their own choices. You keep up the good work there comrade.

Since you were obviously too lazy, I'll spoon-feed it to you.

<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>tyr·an·ny</b>
Pronunciation: \<b>ˈtir-ə-nē</b>\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
Date: 14th century
<b>1 :</b> oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
<b>2 a :</b> a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state<b> b :</b> the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

Main Entry:<b> dic·ta·tor·ship</b>
Pronunciation: \<b>dik-ˈtā-tər-ˌship, ˈdik-</b>ˌ\
Function: noun
Date: 1542

<b>1 </b>: the office of dictator
<b>2 :</b> autocratic rule, control, or leadership
<b>3 a :</b> a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique <b>b </b>: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated <b>c :</b> a despotic state

<i>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary</i></blockquote>

Upon seeing the definitions of "tyranny" and "dictatorship" laid out so clearly, it is a simple matter to see just how ridiculous the assertions from the right that the Obama administration is such an entity. There have been no mass arrests of tea-baggers at their rallies as one my expect under a dictatorial regime. People retain the right to keep and bear arms. Taxes are lower than they were under GOP icon and saint, Ronald Reagan. There have been no "disappearances" of vocal opponents of the Obama administration.

For anyone to claim that America is now in the hands of a dictator is simply an outright lie, completely devoid of fact, lacking even the least scintilla of evidence to support it. The delusions of the RWN punditocracy and its slavish and equally deluded followers simply cannot be counted as facts.

[LiberalNation]

I guess they don't teach the American Revolution in school anymore. Farmers and shopkeepers going up against the British Empire's army? Go figure.

ever seen an airstrike, there goes your militia in one bomb.

[SassyLady]

ever seen an airstrike, there goes your militia in one bomb.

Yes ... and a government that would call in an airstrike against it's own citizens protecting their constitutional rights would be a tyrannical government don't you think?

As I said before Libbs....not all militias are formed to attack the government, but to defend against a tyrannical government. And, when it gets to that point .... think about who would be left in the military.

And I'm all for the arrest and prosecution of militias that are plotting to overthrow the government ..... but I have no problem with arming and being prepared if the government becomes tyrannical. And, I don't see that happening yet.

[namvet]

ever seen an airstrike, there goes your militia in one bomb.

ever see Vietnam ????

[Gaffer]

Since you were obviously too lazy, I'll spoon-feed it to you.

<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>tyr·an·ny</b>
Pronunciation: \<b>ˈtir-ə-nē</b>\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
Date: 14th century
<b>1 :</b> oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
<b>2 a :</b> a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state<b> b :</b> the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

Main Entry:<b> dic·ta·tor·ship</b>
Pronunciation: \<b>dik-ˈtā-tər-ˌship, ˈdik-</b>ˌ\
Function: noun
Date: 1542

<b>1 </b>: the office of dictator
<b>2 :</b> autocratic rule, control, or leadership
<b>3 a :</b> a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique <b>b </b>: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated <b>c :</b> a despotic state

<i>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary</i></blockquote>

Upon seeing the definitions of "tyranny" and "dictatorship" laid out so clearly, it is a simple matter to see just how ridiculous the assertions from the right that the Obama administration is such an entity. There have been no mass arrests of tea-baggers at their rallies as one my expect under a dictatorial regime. People retain the right to keep and bear arms. Taxes are lower than they were under GOP icon and saint, Ronald Reagan. There have been no "disappearances" of vocal opponents of the Obama administration.

For anyone to claim that America is now in the hands of a dictator is simply an outright lie, completely devoid of fact, lacking even the least scintilla of evidence to support it. The delusions of the RWN punditocracy and its slavish and equally deluded followers simply cannot be counted as facts.

You might take note I said he's a tyrant wanna be. He hasn't got complete control yet. With the internet and other sources of information available to the public it's more difficult than it was back in the 30's. He hasn't been able to convince the majority of people, so he's going to have to be more devious and rely on useful idiots like yourself.

Taxes are higher. Prices are higher, jobs are getting more and more scarce. There's more government controls now than ever in our history and all that's needed is a good crisis that allows him to declare martial law. Are you going to follow blindly then or will you actually sit up and take notice.

[LiberalNation]

ever see Vietnam ????

we could have won the south if we had stayed......

[namvet]

we could have won the south if we had stayed......

your right. Kerry, Fonda, the media and the hippies won the North

[cat slave]

ever seen an airstrike, there goes your militia in one bomb.


Should it come to that, I wouldnt take so much glee in seeing another
American Revolution snuffed out....you will suffer right along with us.

[cat slave]

we could have won the south if we had stayed......

You seem to be saying that the south would be better if overrun and
obliterated by Yankees..must be why so many people are fleeing to the south!

[cat slave]

What does the yellow triangle sign at the thread mean?

And just so glock will know, due to his comments in the animal section, he
is the one and only person on IGNORE! Bah by glock. My screen and
blood pressure is much better now.:puke3:

[revelarts]

...
<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>tyr·an·ny</b>
...<b>1 :</b> oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
<b>2 a :</b> a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state<b> b :</b> the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

Main Entry:<b> dic·ta·tor·ship</b>
....
<b>1 </b>: the office of dictator
<b>2 :</b> autocratic rule, control, or leadership
<b>3 a :</b> a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique <b>b </b>: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated <b>c :</b> a despotic state
...</blockquote>...

I don't know Bully,

Seems when Bush was President that the term Tyrant and Fascist got thrown around pretty easily by the left. Seeing how Obama has yet to roll back any of the the POWERS VESTED IN THE OFFICE, it seem that tyrant may not be that far off, it's a small group is in power now. The people have voiced thier opinion on many issues and the majority voices have not been listened to. the constitution has been discarded. that's neither a democracy or a constitutional republic. Maybe a better term would be an mildly oppressive oligarchy with tyrannical tendencies.

-Torture is Tyrannical, Obama has yet to fully give it up.
-Being able to throw you or i in jail without warrant or trail is tyrannical Obama fully supports the idea.
-Changing laws to fit your personal governmental vision as a opposed to the constitution he swore to uphold and supposes to be a scholar of is tyrannical.
-Forcing people into gov't medical programs that they do not have a say in is tyrannical.
-Bombing other countries without a declaration of war from congress (Pakistan) is tyrannical.
-Spying on citizens phone/web/internet activity is tyrannical. Giving private companies immunity to help the gov't do it is tyrannical (Obama voted for it).
-the Supreme court say the go'vt can take your property for it's own purposes.

I can go on...

Where is your line in the sand for tyranny Bully? When soldiers come to your door? At what point is the gov't "oppressive" enough for you. when it tells you that you can't do something that you want to do?

Seems like to me that a gov't that hs granted itself the legal authority take your property, your mails, your money, your medicine and your body at anytime under the guise of national security or interest is pretty close to tyranny.

You may see gov't as a wonderful always benevolent savior so this will all sound craaazzzy. But anyone with the power to give you a house, a job and health care also has the power to take it away my friend.