Local militias

[avatar4321]

Do you think we should start a movement to restore local militias?

[fj1200]

[backs slowly away from thread...]

[DragonStryk72]

Do you think we should start a movement to restore local militias?

Hell yeah, and it wouldn't really even be that hard. you just move the National Guard back to being State-controlled like it used to be.

[J.T]

Some still can be found. For the most part, I think you'd have a better time with the media if you call yourself a firearms and military enthusiast enthusiast club. Remember, militias are right-wing terrorists now. You're a Firearms and Military History Enthusiast.

[DragonStryk72]

I know Arizona and Texas would LOVE to have their National Guardsmen back.

[avatar4321]

Some still can be found. For the most part, I think you'd have a better time with the media if you call yourself a firearms and military enthusiast enthusiast club. Remember, militias are right-wing terrorists now. You're a Firearms and Military History Enthusiast.

But it's not a firearms and military enthusiast club. It's a militia. It's not a club for people who love firearms. It's a group of citizens who unite to protect their local towns, villages, cities, etc.

One is a social group. A militia is to protect life.

[J.T]

Public relations, comrade. Public relations.

[logroller]

I know Arizona and Texas would LOVE to have their National Guardsmen back.

It appears some States do have militias, including Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Map_of_States_with_State_Defense_Forces.png/240px-Map_of_States_with_State_Defense_Forces.png
States with State Defense Forces.
States with Army units highlighted in red,
naval units with blue,
those with both highlighted in green.

Oklahoma has an inactive state defense force and is highlighted in purple. Puerto Rico is not shown.

[CSM]

The very idea of a local militia makes some folks hysterical. If you think the second ammendment causes concern, just imagine the concerns raised if the "gun nuts' actually organized and trained as a militia!

[Noir]

To serve what purpose?

[avatar4321]

To serve what purpose?

Local defense.

[avatar4321]

The very idea of a local militia makes some folks hysterical. If you think the second ammendment causes concern, just imagine the concerns raised if the "gun nuts' actually organized and trained as a militia!

And that's quite a shame. I think it would be good for us to train in local militias. It would build a sense of community.

[Noir]

Local defense.

Local defense of what? Who would this militia want to point their weapons at?

[logroller]

Local defense of what? Who would this militia want to point their weapons at?

A responsible militiaman doesn't WANT to point their weapons at anybody. That's like saying practicing fire drills means you want to have a fire; you train for such things in case it is needed, not because you wish it to be. The purpose of a citizen militia is the defense of the citizenry from any threat to life, liberty, or property. In my home state, CA, the militia was most recently called to duty in support of overwhelmed firefighters in 2008.

[DragonStryk72]

Local defense of what? Who would this militia want to point their weapons at?

Well, in AZ, for instance, there's actually a section of the southern part of their state that has violent mexican gangs controlling it. Yeah, not kidding, we've had threads about that.

But really, why have a standing army? for defense of the country. Defense against what? Um, whatever attacks us.

People hear militia, and they get the worst views, but really, it's a bunch of non-military folk who are trained to help defend their own state, and not be sent off to foreign countries such as Iraq, like our supposed National Guard ended up doing.

Local defense of what? Whichever state the militia resides in. Who would this militia want to point their weapons at? Um, not much of anyone, this is more of a "better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it", or in the case of AZ, they'd likely be pointing their weapons at the folks who are holed up in a portion of their state.

[KartRacerBoy]

[backs slowly away from thread...]


:laugh:

What? You don't want the NSA looking in on you in this thread?

Key wordss, my friends. :laugh:

[KartRacerBoy]

Well, in AZ, for instance, there's actually a section of the southern part of their state that has violent mexican gangs controlling it. Yeah, not kidding, we've had threads about that.

But really, why have a standing army? for defense of the country. Defense against what? Um, whatever attacks us.

People hear militia, and they get the worst views, but really, it's a bunch of non-military folk who are trained to help defend their own state, and not be sent off to foreign countries such as Iraq, like our supposed National Guard ended up doing.

Local defense of what? Whichever state the militia resides in. Who would this militia want to point their weapons at? Um, not much of anyone, this is more of a "better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it", or in the case of AZ, they'd likely be pointing their weapons at the folks who are holed up in a portion of their state.

Was it Gunny in another thread that talked about how badly trained the National Guard used to be in the 70s? Would the locaal militia thing risk the same thing? I imagine there would be ways around that problem. Only pick ex-military, for example.

[logroller]

Was it Gunny in another thread that talked about how badly trained the National Guard used to be in the 70s? Would the locaal militia thing risk the same thing? I imagine there would be ways around that problem. Only pick ex-military, for example.

Most are, in fact, are.

[ConHog]

Local defense of what? Who would this militia want to point their weapons at?

I wonder if you realize that there is a national park in Arizona that the Bureau of Parks and Recreation currently advises Americans NOT to go to because the risk of being killed by invading Mexican drug smugglers is too great.

[DragonStryk72]

Was it Gunny in another thread that talked about how badly trained the National Guard used to be in the 70s? Would the locaal militia thing risk the same thing? I imagine there would be ways around that problem. Only pick ex-military, for example.

It doesn't have to suck. That's a matter of training, and yeah, likely a number of ex-military, such as myself would join up, and that's just the natural way of things. And a militia is useful for more than simple defense, such as the case of having one back during Katrina in Louisiana.

There will be differences in the militias though. That's the thing, is some are just going to be better than others. The thing is there are a lot of people who would love to join a militia who are, for whatever reason, unfit for regular military service but would work just fine within the militia set up.

[LuvRPgrl]

[backs slowly away from thread...]
Sprinting towards thread.

[logroller]

To serve what purpose?

Here's a codified answer--


CAL. MVC. CODE § 128
The unorganized militia may be called for active duty in case
of war, rebellion, insurrection, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of
the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, or other emergency, or
imminent danger thereof, or may be called forth for service under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Whenever it is
necessary to call out any portion of the unorganized militia, the
Governor may call for and accept as many volunteers as are required
for such service, under regulations provided by this division.

The emphasis is mine.

[Noir]

Here's a codified answer--


The emphasis is mine.

FairPlay, cheers.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ca has one for the sole purpose of making sure everyone pays their taxes, people stay on welfare, and nobody enforce the death penalty.


It appears some States do have militias, including Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Map_of_States_with_State_Defense_Forces.png/240px-Map_of_States_with_State_Defense_Forces.png
States with State Defense Forces.
States with Army units highlighted in red,
naval units with blue,
those with both highlighted in green.

Oklahoma has an inactive state defense force and is highlighted in purple. Puerto Rico is not shown.

[LuvRPgrl]

Local defense of what? Who would this militia want to point their weapons at?

Calif. has had to use their National Guard at least a handful of times in my lifetime.
Ever hear of riots?

[Noir]

Calif. has had to use their National Guard at least a handful of times in my lifetime.
Ever hear of riots?

LOL, yeah, from Northern Ireland, i've heard about riots xD

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL, yeah, from Northern Ireland, i've heard about riots xD

Every time we have riots, gun sales go up radically.

[Noir]

Every time we have riots, gun sales go up radically.

FairPlay, we just deploy the police.

[LuvRPgrl]

FairPlay, we just deploy the police.

Police were overwhelmed and getting beat up too.
A white dude in a semi was pulled out and beaten almost to death, by mobs of niggers.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Do you think we should start a movement to restore local militias?

There is nothing to "restore".

Under the Constitution the people never possessed any authority to organize themselves as militia without any organizational structure and command from their state and the federal government.

That constitutionally established militia authority has been completely extinguished since 1903 and presently no governmental entity, federal or state, possesses any authority to muster, organize, train or deploy the general population / citizenry as militia.


It appears some States do have militias, including Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces . . .

Those forces are nothing but a bone thrown to the states to make up for Congress (and SCOTUS) completely extinguishing state militia powers.

State Defensive Forces are fabrications of Congress and have zero connection to the constitutional militia as set-out in Art I, § 8, cl's. 15 & 16.

[J.T]

Under the Constitution the people never possessed any authority to organize themselves as militia without any organizational structure and command from their state and the federal government.

Cite. I never read anything in COTUS saying anything of the sort.


That constitutionally established militia authority has been completely extinguished since 1903 and presently no governmental entity, federal or state, possesses any authority to muster, organize, train or deploy the general population / citizenry as militia.

Really?

How do you explain TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART 1: CHAPTER 13- § 311 of the U.S. Code?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Cite. I never read anything in COTUS saying anything of the sort.

Really?
The Congress shall have the power . . .

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:



The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. We the People have completely surrendered the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia and the powers of appointing the command and creating and implementing a training regimen.

This of course says nothing about the personal arms of private citizens; these very narrow, limited Article I powers are only actionable upon organized, enrolled militia and certainly should not be argued to extend to the general citizenry and their personal, private arms. In fact, the choice of Congress to completely extinguish Art I, § 8, cl's. 15 & 16 powers for itself and the states, has extinguished the power of Congress to have any interest whatsoever in any arm possessed by a citizen (referring to regulations pertaining to commonality of arms and "returns of militia (http://www.potowmack.org/milret.html)" that recorded the types of arms militia members mustered with).


How do you explain TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART 1: CHAPTER 13- § 311 of the U.S. Code?

The general citizenry are the "unorganized militia" and will forever remain that with no legal means of becoming organized except for joining the National Guard.

[J.T]

Just because congress is authorized to organize the militia doesn't mean people can't organize, arm, and train themselves outside of those militias managed by congress. They simply are not considered 'regular' by congress's/constitutional standards and remain part of only the unorganized militia (if they are members thereof), as their regiments, ranks, and organizational structure (if any) are not recognized by congress. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents citizens from training themselves in matters of self-, home-, or homeland defense. They simply are not recognized as a regular or organized force.

[ConHog]

Just because congress is authorized to organize the militia doesn't mean people can't organize, arm, and train themselves outside of those militias managed by congress. They simply are not considered 'regular' by congress's/constitutional standards and remain part of only the unorganized militia (if they are members thereof), as their regiments, ranks, and organizational structure (if any) are not recognized by congress. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents citizens from training themselves in matters of self-, home-, or homeland defense. They simply are not recognized as a regular or organized force.


Yep, and what happens if said "unorganized militia" were to try to deploy and actually do anything? Oh yeah they'd have their asses handed to them.

[J.T]

Yep, and what happens if said "unorganized militia" were to try to deploy and actually do anything? Oh yeah they'd have their asses handed to them.

Do you have a point? Saying you doubt the Michigan Militia Corps' combat effectiveness has jack shit to do with whether COTUS allows for their self-organization and training, which is the subject at hand.

[ConHog]

Do you have a point? Saying you doubt the Michigan Militia Corps' combat effectiveness has jack shit to do with whether COTUS allows for their self-organization and training, which is the subject at hand.

Again you prove you can't read. I never said shit about their effectiveness. I only spoke of their authority to act. They have none. Because as has been pointed out to you, only Congress can authorize a militia to act.

So if your Michigan Militia Corps were to deploy to fight an enemy, they would in fact be in violation of the law.

[J.T]

Again you prove you can't read. I never said shit about their effectiveness.

Wow, you can't help yourself, can you?


Yep, and what happens if said "unorganized militia" were to try to deploy and actually do anything? Oh yeah they'd have their asses handed to them.

Maybe you should see a psychiatrist. Maybe they can help you with the compulsive lying. Now go ahead and try to spin your way out of the web of lies you've caught yourself in. Such is your wont after all.

[ConHog]

Wow, you can't help yourself, can you?



Maybe you should see a psychiatrist. Maybe they can help you with the compulsive lying. Now go ahead and try to spin your way out of the web of lies you've caught yourself in. Such is your wont after all.

wTF are you babbling about? If a private militia tried to deploy in the US they most certainly would have their asses handed to them by the Justice Department, because they would be ILLEGALLY operating, so how is that a lie JT?

[J.T]

Okay. Whatever. I was waiting for you to spin your way out of it. You're already on record tonight condemning the North for disobeying the Fugitive Slave Act so I suppose I'll let you have this one. No reason for you to make a total idiot of yourself in two threads in one night.

[ConHog]

Okay. Whatever. I was waiting for you to spin your way out of it. You're already on record tonight condemning the North for disobeying the Fugitive Slave Act so I suppose I'll let you have this one. No reason for you to make a total idiot of yourself in two threads in one night.

IOW you concede that I am right.

BTW Still waiting for you to prove your claims about me in regards to the Fugitive Slaves Act.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Just because congress is authorized to organize the militia doesn't mean people can't organize, arm, and train themselves outside of those militias managed by congress.

Well, no more or less than the people are allowed to print their own currency . . .

You should understand federal preemption and the principle of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius".

Saying "Congress shall have the power" does in fact mean nobody else does . . .

Federal preemption is very evident in militia law and early militia cases are still cited today, i.e., Houston v Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.), (1820).


They simply are not considered 'regular' by congress's/constitutional standards and remain part of only the unorganized militia (if they are members thereof), as their regiments, ranks, and organizational structure (if any) are not recognized by congress.

Laws forbidding citizens from assembling armed and drilling have been held to not injure the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizen; PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U. S. 252 (1886):


[*=1]"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."



There is nothing in the constitution that prevents citizens from training themselves in matters of self-, home-, or homeland defense. They simply are not recognized as a regular or organized force.

Which returns us to the context of the OP which I replied to; "Do you think we should start a movement to restore local militias?"

Once the Constitution was established and law was enacted in conformance with the Constitution's militia clauses (Militia Act of 1792) the "local militias" whatever they might have been, were moot. The powers of organizing, training, calling up and deploying the citizens as militia was fully contained within federal and state powers . . .

The people have retained no powers to organize militia for as long as the Constitution is in force.

[J.T]

Well, no more or less than the people are allowed to print their own currency . . .
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States
They just can't pretend it's legal tender and try to usurp federal notes

2) To compare a state making its own currency and recognizing it as legal tender (what COTUS deals with) to individual citizens going out in the woods and practicing small unit tactics, owning firearms, and repeating the pledge of allegiance while swearing that they'll defend their homeland if eve necessary is a bit disingenuous, don't ya think?

[quote]Saying "Congress shall have the power" does in fact mean nobody else does . . .
And they're not organizing anything recognized as a militia as pertains to COTUS. They're simply organizing and training private citizens in small unit tactics and military drills. They are not recognized as an organized militia by the federal government and they make no attempt usurp, undermine, or replace the constitutional system to which you refer.



Federal preemption is very evident in militia law and early militia cases are still cited today, i.e., Houston v Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.), (1820).

Here's what Google turned up: http://supreme.justia.com/us/18/1/

Where does it say private citizens can't get together and perform small-unit maneuvers in the woods?


Laws forbidding citizens from assembling armed and drilling have been held to not injure the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizen; PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U. S. 252


let us grant that for that discussion. Where are any such laws on the books? SCOTUS also holds that laws mandating forced sterilization as punishment for criminal offenses are constitutional. That doesn't mean any such laws are on the books (in fact, I'm fairly confident none are). So, please cite the law which outlaws people gathering in the woods, wearing camo, and practicing small-unit tactics.

Here's the first Google result for the case you cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois


Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the state.


Which doesn't prove what you've been claiming, that it is illegal (specifically, that it is forbidden by COTUS) for the Michigan Militia Corps to exist, for the individual citizens who meet to be keep arms, and/or for these citizens to practice military drills to ensure they are fit for service if they are called upon to serve their community, State, or country.



Which returns us to the context of the OP which I replied to; "Do you think we should start a movement to restore local militias?"
So you wish to return to the original question after having failed to prove your claims? Very well then, we'll ignore your little distraction and get back to the question of whether we should start a social movement to encourage the formation of local 'militias' (again, these groups not recognized as militia by COTUS or congress).


Once the Constitution was established and law was enacted in conformance with the Constitution's militia clauses (Militia Act of 1792) the "local militias" whatever they might have been, were moot. The powers of organizing, training, calling up and deploying the citizens as militia was fully contained within federal and state powers . . .

Which still does not say that the association of individuals, the keeping of arms by private citizens, or the engagement by private citizens in military-style training drills or adoption of a structure of any sort (including, but not limited to structure and titles or ranks' modeled after those of military forces within their private clubs (which, for legal purposes, is all these 'militias' truly are, as they are not recognized as militia by congress or folded into the structure of the organized militia) is forbidden by the Constitution or any other law you've yet cited.


The people have retained no powers to organize militia for as long as the Constitution is in force.
All you've done is highlight the fact that they are not 'true' militia in the eyes of the law as congress does not recognize them as such. At most you can object to their illegitimate (in the eyes of the law) use of the term 'militia' to refer to their organizations. You have not yet shown that there is any law forbidding the formation of the groups themselves, the keeping of arms by private citizens, their adoption of structure and titles modeled after those of military forces or any other group, or their practicing military-style readiness and small-unit drills to ensure their personal fitness and and their readiness if they are ever called upon to serve their community or country, be it through mass or targeted calling forth of the unorganized militia and whether congress, in issuing such a call chooses to keep the members of such organizations together in a single unit under congressional control (should they decide it would be advantageous to make use of their collective training and readiness) or to organize the individuals as they see fit with total disregard to their membership in such organizations.

[LuvRPgrl]

Again you prove you can't read. I never said shit about their effectiveness. I only......



they'd have their asses handed to them.......

I have no clue how you cant see the blatant contradiction there. Even MM would pick up on that one.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States
They just can't pretend it's legal tender and try to usurp federal notes

At least you understand that if they did consider it the real thing they would be "pretending".


2) To compare a state making its own currency and recognizing it as legal tender (what COTUS deals with) to individual citizens going out in the woods and practicing small unit tactics, owning firearms, and repeating the pledge of allegiance while swearing that they'll defend their homeland if eve necessary is a bit disingenuous, don't ya think?

Characterizing my statements in such a fashion is what is disingenuous. Why are you including the right to arms, "individual citizens . . . owning firearms", in this discussion of militia powers? Talk about dangerous and disingenuous! No one is questioning the citizen's right to arms; the unfettered exercise of that right is pretty much a given if we are focused on a secondary action of private citizens creating ad-hoc military organizations is it not? The question is, do citizen have a right to create their own paramilitary organizations; their right to arms is not in question and linking the two is illegitimate.

To bring you back from the edge, the point was about supremacy; the Constitution placing the creation of legal tender under the powers of Congress means, again, that nobody else can exercise those powers. Same principle follows barring the formation of private paramilitary organizations / militias.


And they're not organizing anything recognized as a militia as pertains to COTUS. They're simply organizing and training private citizens in small unit tactics and military drills. They are not recognized as an organized militia by the federal government and they make no attempt usurp, undermine, or replace the constitutional system to which you refer.

OK, pretending . . .

This pertains to the question of should we "restore local militias" and the fact that there is nothing to restore under the Constitution? That you believe you have a right to establish extra-constitutional pretend militias is as bad as Congress believing it has the authority to extinguish the true militia powers of the states and grant extra-constitutional authority to the states to establish "State Defensive Forces" pretend militias.


Here's what Google turned up: http://supreme.justia.com/us/18/1/

Where does it say private citizens can't get together and perform small-unit maneuvers in the woods?

There is no federal law to be found in the USC because the Constitution delegates to the states the power to establish the command of the organized militia (under organizational structures written by Congress). A Bill was introduced in 1995, Domestic Insurgency Act of 1995 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.1544.IH:), "To prohibit the formation of private paramilitary organizations" but it died in committee with only 4 co-sponsors.


Where are any such laws on the books? SCOTUS also holds that laws mandating forced sterilization as punishment for criminal offenses are constitutional. That doesn't mean any such laws are on the books (in fact, I'm fairly confident none are). So, please cite the law which outlaws people gathering in the woods, wearing camo, and practicing small-unit tactics.

States with Both Anti-Militia and Anti-Paramilitary Training Laws (7)

-Florida. FLA. STAT. ANN. ch. 870.06, 790.29.
-Georgia. GA. CODE ANN. ss 38-2-277, 16-11-150 to -152.
-Idaho. IDAHO CODE ss 46-802, 18-8101 to -8105.
-Illinois. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 1805, para. 94-95.
-New York. N.Y. MIL. LAW s 240.
-North Carolina. N.C. GEN. STAT. ss 127A-151, 14-288.20.
-Rhode Island. R.I. GEN. LAWS ss 30-12-7, 11-55-1 to -3.


States with Anti-Militia Laws Only (17)

-Alabama. ALA. CODE s 31-2-125.
-Arizona. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. s 26-123.
-Iowa. IOWA CODE s 29A.31.
-Kansas. KAN. STAT. ANN. s 48-203.
-Kentucky. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. s 38.440.
-Maine. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 37-B, s 342.2.
-Maryland. MD. CODE ANN. art. 65, s 35.
-Massachusetts. MASS. GEN. L. ch. 33, s 129-132.
-Minnesota. MINN. STAT. s 624.61.
-Mississippi. MISS. CODE ANN. $ 33-1-31.
-Nevada. NEV. REV. STAT. s 203-080.
-New Hampshire. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. s 111:15.
-North Dakota. N.D. CENT. CODE s 37-01-21.
-Texas. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. s 431.010.
-Washington. WASH. REV. CODE s 38.40.120.
-West Virginia. W. VA. CODE s 15-1F-7.
-Wyoming. WYO. STAT. s 19-1-106.


States with Anti-Paramilitary Training Laws Only (17)

-Arkansas. ARK. CODE s 5-71-301 to -303.
-California. CAL. PENAL CODE s 11460.
-Colorado. COLO. REV. STAT. s 18-9-120.
-Connecticut. CONN. GEN. STAT. s 53-206b.
-Louisiana. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. s 117.1.
-Michigan. MICH. COMP. LAWS s 750.528a.
-Missouri. MO. REV. STAT. s 574.070.
-Montana. MONT. CODE ANN. s 45-8-109.
-Nebraska. NEB. REV. STAT. s 28-1480 to -1482.
-New Jersey. N.J. REV. STAT. s 2C:39-14.
-New Mexico. N.M. STAT. ANN. s 30-20A-1 to -4.
-Oklahoma. OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, s 1321.10.
-Oregon. OR. REV. STAT. s 166.660.
-Pennsylvania. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. s 5515.
-South Carolina. S.C. CODE ANN. s 16-8-10 to -30.
-Tennessee. TENN. CODE ANN. s 39-17-314.
-Virginia. VA. CODE ANN. s 18.2-433.1 to -433.3.

Forming or participating in a private militia in any of the states listed (41) could make you a criminal there. Once you break the law your freedom (and your legal exercise of your right to arms) is totally at the discretion of the government if it decides to prosecute. That these laws are not enforced presently does not mean they can't be vigorously (and even excessively / illegitmately) enforced in the future. Some states have acted upon para-military organizations when they become enough of a pain in the ass. Google Covenant Sword and Arm of the Lord to see how that turns out . . .


Here's the first Google result for the case you cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois


Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the state.




Which doesn't prove what you've been claiming, that it is illegal (specifically, that it is forbidden by COTUS) for the Michigan Militia Corps to exist, for the individual citizens who meet to be keep arms, and/or for these citizens to practice military drills to ensure they are fit for service if they are called upon to serve their community, State, or country.

And that's the problem with the superficial treatment Wikipedia offers and the limited knowledge it imparts. Had you bothered to actually read the case you would find:


[*=1]"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms without and independent of an act of Congress or law of the state authorizing the same is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system, they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."

SCOTUS has thus upheld state laws forbidding "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law," and nothing has transpired that would allow anyone to believe that the enforcement of the state statutes I list above would have a different outcome.



So you wish to return to the original question after having failed to prove your claims?

LOL


Very well then, we'll ignore your little distraction and get back to the question of whether we should start a social movement to encourage the formation of local 'militias' (again, these groups not recognized as militia by COTUS or congress).

Well, just make sure your group does not violate any law forbidding the creation of a paramilitary organization; the state does possess plenary authority over militia institutions, exclusive discretion over the legitimacy of your actions and certainly the power to punish exceptions to their laws.


Which still does not say that the association of individuals, the keeping of arms by private citizens, or the engagement by private citizens in military-style training drills or adoption of a structure of any sort (including, but not limited to structure and titles or ranks' modeled after those of military forces within their private clubs (which, for legal purposes, is all these 'militias' truly are, as they are not recognized as militia by congress or folded into the structure of the organized militia) is forbidden by the Constitution or any other law you've yet cited.

For as long as the Constitution is in force such is the condition of the people's "right" to form their own militias.


You have not yet shown that there is any law forbidding the formation of the groups themselves, the keeping of arms by private citizens, their adoption of structure and titles modeled after those of military forces or any other group, or their practicing military-style readiness and small-unit drills to ensure their personal fitness and and their readiness if they are ever called upon to serve their community or country, be it through mass or targeted calling forth of the unorganized militia and whether congress, in issuing such a call chooses to keep the members of such organizations together in a single unit under congressional control (should they decide it would be advantageous to make use of their collective training and readiness) or to organize the individuals as they see fit with total disregard to their membership in such organizations.

Why on earth do you link your perceived right to form private militias with "the keeping of arms by private citizens"? The citizen's right to arms exists without any dependence upon any attachment to a militia of any construction.

Your kooky focus on your imagined right and intermingling a real right into it, is dangerous to liberty.

[Missileman]

1)
All you've done is highlight the fact that they are not 'true' militia in the eyes of the law as congress does not recognize them as such. At most you can object to their illegitimate (in the eyes of the law) use of the term 'militia' to refer to their organizations. You have not yet shown that there is any law forbidding the formation of the groups themselves, the keeping of arms by private citizens, their adoption of structure and titles modeled after those of military forces or any other group, or their practicing military-style readiness and small-unit drills to ensure their personal fitness and and their readiness if they are ever called upon to serve their community or country, be it through mass or targeted calling forth of the unorganized militia and whether congress, in issuing such a call chooses to keep the members of such organizations together in a single unit under congressional control (should they decide it would be advantageous to make use of their collective training and readiness) or to organize the individuals as they see fit with total disregard to their membership in such organizations.

Instead of militia, maybe they can call it Man Scouts. Two, three, and four finger salutes are already taken...I propose the official Man Scout salute be of the one finger variety. Hell...might even be able to get some federal funding for uniforms and such.

[J.T]

Why are you including the right to arms, "individual citizens . . . owning firearms", in this discussion

What do you think militias do, exactly?


The question is, do citizen have a right to create their own paramilitary organizations

Again, if you can cite a single law making it illegal for private citizens to form a club, adopt ranks and titles for their members modeled after those of the armed forces, own firearms, read the constitution, and engage in military-style readiness drills to ensure their fitness and readiness in case they are ever called to serve their community/county, please just cite it and stop wasting time with your little dance.




the point was about supremacy; the Constitution placing the creation of legal tender under the powers of Congress means, again, that nobody else can exercise those powers
And? That doesn't mean private citizens can't barter or trade with a local 'currency' of the sort mentioned in the linked list. It only means it will never be legal currency acceptable for payment of taxes or other public or private debt (if I choose to forgive your debt in exchange for anything, that is another matter; however, the states cannot make the local 'currencies
legal tender and force their acceptance). The exact language of COTUS reads thus: No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts


This pertains to the question of should we "restore local militias" and the fact that there is nothing to restore under the Constitution? That you believe you have a right to establish extra-constitutional pretend militias is as bad as Congress believing it has the authority to extinguish the true militia powers of the states and grant extra-constitutional authority to the states to establish "State Defensive Forces" pretend militias.

Again, if you can cite a single law making it illegal for private citizens to form a club, adopt ranks and titles for their members modeled after those of the armed forces, own firearms, read the constitution, and engage in military-style readiness drills to esure their fitness and readiness in case they are ever called to serve their community/county, please just cite it and stop wasting time with your little dance.


There is no federal law to be found in the USC
Okay, so you admit that there is no law prohibiting the formation and existence of the organizations being discussed. Since you've just refuted your original claim, the debate is over.


A Bill was introduced... but it died in committee
Then it's not relevant, since it's not a law and never was. It's good for you that I saw that, since accepting it as relevant would mean that the fact that such a law was proposed would be a strong indicator that it was thought needed since no such prohibition currently exists. Why are you trying to drag more evidence into this that debunks your original claim?


Forming or participating in a private militia in any of the states listed (41) could make you a criminal there
1)Why do these laws exist if your original claim that COTUS makes the existence of these groups illegal is true?
2)That leaves nine stated where these groups are legal according to you, once again debunking your original claim. If you original claim were true, formation for such a groups would be illegal in all states per COTUS. Hence I'm not going to bother looking up any of the laws in any of these states because even if they say what you claim (which would be the first time anything you cited in this thread said what you claim) it only serves as further evidence that your original claim is false. You have thoroughly refuted your original claim.

Actually, I went ahead and looked at one of them. It reads: No person, partnership or corporation shall maintain troops under arms

That's not a prohibition against a citizen 'militia'- a group such as we've been discussing. It's a prohibition against a private army. To claim it's an anti-militia law is patently false and rather dishonest. Of course, that's been par for the course every time I've checked one of your citations thus far. Whether you are incapable of distinguishing a private army such as that employed by corporations and warlords in some African nations from a group of American citizens who participate in military-style exercises and share a love of their country while not maintaining or constitution a private standing military force serving a person, partnership, or corporation or you're intentionally being dishonest and obtuse in this discussion, you've failed repeatedly to cite anything claiming what you say it does and you've already refuted your own original claim as shown above. Hence I see no reason to bother with the rest of your post or any more of your posts until you can cite any law making it illegal for private citizens to form a club, adopt ranks and titles for their members modeled after those of the armed forces, own firearms, read the constitution, and engage in some small-unit tactics and fitness drills in the woods on the weekends before packing up and going back to their jobs and/or families.

[J.T]

One last thing:

The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


It might be worth keeping in mind King George III also tried to disband the local militias, just for a little historical context.

[J.T]

Instead of militia, maybe they can call it Man Scouts. Two, three, and four finger salutes are already taken...I propose the official Man Scout salute be of the one finger variety. Hell...might even be able to get some federal funding for uniforms and such.

See post #4 ;)

And I second the motion for the adoption of the single-fingered salute :thumb:

[Gunny]

Was it Gunny in another thread that talked about how badly trained the National Guard used to be in the 70s? Would the locaal militia thing risk the same thing? I imagine there would be ways around that problem. Only pick ex-military, for example.


Most are, in fact, are.

The National Guard is funded by individual states. They get hand-me-down equipment from the Federal government after the US military has worn it out. Their training comes from retirees and/or paper tiger types. It's endemic to the position. Anyone who wants to be in the military is not going to aspire to being a professional weekend warrior. People who join the guard usually want the uniform and the title, but want to stay home too.

That of course is a generalization, and seems to be universally held. It is meant as no offense to any individual who sees it and/or themselves otherwise.

Reviving "state militias" would be no harder than finding the funding to properly train and equip them. Being from TX, I wasn't aware other states didn't have a militia. I just assumed everyone had one. Guess we'll just add that to the list of "Things are Better in Texas Because .....":laugh:

[Surf Fishing Guru]

What do you think militias do, exactly?

Well, one thing is for sure; organized militias don't need a "right" to be armed for them to be armed.


Again, if you can cite a single law making it illegal for private citizens to form a club, adopt ranks and titles for their members modeled after those of the armed forces, own firearms, read the constitution, and engage in military-style readiness drills to ensure their fitness and readiness in case they are ever called to serve their community/county, please just cite it and stop wasting time with your little dance.

I posted citations for a bunch of them . . . California's is a good example:

Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.



And New Hampshire's statute speaks directly to your pretend militia social club:

"Armed Civilian Groups. No organization, society, club, post, order, league or other combination of persons, or civil group, or any member thereof , are authorized to assume any semblance of military organization or character by bearing or possessing rifles, pistols, sabres, clubs, or military weapons of any kind, or wearing a military uniform of any kind. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section or taking part in such military organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person, or guilty of a felony, if any other person, and any rifles, pistols, sabres, clubs or other military weapons used in violation hereof shall be forfeited."





Okay, so you admit that there is no law prohibiting the formation and existence of the organizations being discussed. Since you've just refuted your original claim, the debate is over.

You cited US Code and asked if a law existed . . . I said no federal law existed and gave you a reason (the authority to bar such activity by statute is the domain of the states). That a federal law does not exist doesn't mean that constitutional supremacy does not exist and that the definitive constitutional assignment of militia powers are not applicable. SCOTUS has held for a long time that there is no claimable right of armed citizens to assemble and train outside of state and federal regulations; that for all intents and purposes is the standing federal law on the subject.


Then it's not relevant, since it's not a law and never was. It's good for you that I saw that, since accepting it as relevant would mean that the fact that such a law was proposed would be a strong indicator that it was thought needed since no such prohibition currently exists. Why are you trying to drag more evidence into this that debunks your original claim?

OH NO, YOU REALLY CAUGHT ME! LOL! The focus of my answer was federal law, I included an introduced bill just to provide as complete an answer as possible. I would be interested in how and why you think it debunks my original claim (and by that I mean my first post in this thread, not something you have invented for me.


1)Why do these laws exist if your original claim that COTUS makes the existence of these groups illegal is true?

That's not my original claim; that is one you have invented for me. Reading comprehension is a fundamental and essential component of effective debate. Extra-constitutional is not necessarily illegal; it just means that when the government hammer comes down, you have no a), authority of law to justify your actions, or b), a claimable immunity for your actions (i.e., claiming the protections of a provision of the Bill of Rights).


2)That leaves nine stated where these groups are legal according to you, once again debunking your original claim.

Perhaps. I would recommend that if you re out in the woods with others and you are running around with guns pretending to be a militia you better have a good lawyer on retainer.


I'm not going to bother looking up any of the laws in any of these states because even if they say what you claim (which would be the first time anything you cited in this thread said what you claim) it only serves as further evidence that your original claim is false. You have thoroughly refuted your original claim.

That's fine, I posted two above for you. I have not contradicted either of my original claims (my actual one and the one you have invented for me LOL).


Actually, I went ahead and looked at one of them. It reads: No person, partnership or corporation shall maintain troops under arms

That's not a prohibition against a citizen 'militia'- a group such as we've been discussing. It's a prohibition against a private army.

Semantics like that will put you in the express line for a stay at the Graybar Hotel.


Of course, that's been par for the course every time I've checked one of your citations thus far.

Says the Wikipedia legal scholar.


Whether you are incapable of distinguishing a private army such as that employed by corporations and warlords in some African nations from a group of American citizens who participate in military-style exercises and share a love of their country while not maintaining or constitution a private standing military force serving a person, partnership, or corporation or you're intentionally being dishonest and obtuse in this discussion, . . .

But your honor, I respect the Constitution of the USA and of my state and the laws made in conformance, by ignoring them and/or pretending they don't apply to my "social club".


you've failed repeatedly to cite anything claiming what you say it does and you've already refuted your own original claim as shown above. Hence I see no reason to bother with the rest of your post or any more of your posts

Be careful when lighting your celebratory fireworks, you are completely covered in straw.

[ConHog]

The National Guard is funded by individual states. They get hand-me-down equipment from the Federal government after the US military has worn it out. Their training comes from retirees and/or paper tiger types. It's endemic to the position. Anyone who wants to be in the military is not going to aspire to being a professional weekend warrior. People who join the guard usually want the uniform and the title, but want to stay home too.

That of course is a generalization, and seems to be universally held. It is meant as no offense to any individual who sees it and/or themselves otherwise.

Reviving "state militias" would be no harder than finding the funding to properly train and equip them. Being from TX, I wasn't aware other states didn't have a militia. I just assumed everyone had one. Guess we'll just add that to the list of "Things are Better in Texas Because .....":laugh:

What the? First of all, you're wrong about everything.

National Guard troops train right alongside full time Army members when it comes to boot camp, advanced training and summer drills. Through the year on their once a month training yes they train with other National Guard units, but when they go to schools and such they are the same training done by the same people as full time military.

Same with equipment, in some cases they buy military surplus, in many other instances though they buy front line brand new equipment, in fact many times National Guard units are BETTER equipped then their regular Army counterparts.

As for WHO joins the National Guard, what an insult you just threw out there. Weekend warrior? We may as well further generalize that the Marines usually get idiots who weren't smart enough to get into the Navy. It is just as true. Just because a person chooses to join a branch of the military that is supposed to primarily protect their own state does not mean they are any less dedicated than full time militaries, or that they are any worse trained.

[ConHog]

I have no clue how you cant see the blatant contradiction there. Even MM would pick up on that one.



I was speaking of an ass whipping from the Justice Departments of the various states, not an ass whipping from an enemy if they engaged one.

[ConHog]

This message is hidden because J.T is on your ignore list.

This is not near as effective when certain people quote his every post anyway.

[LuvRPgrl]

I was speaking of an ass whipping from the Justice Departments of the various states, not an ass whipping from an enemy if they engaged one.

and how exactly would the justice dept give them an ass whooping?

[ConHog]

and how exactly would the justice dept give them an ass whooping?

By throwing them in jail????

[J.T]

California's is a good example
Uh-huh, so you've totally abandoned you're original claim and we're down to checking the legality of any given act or group at the state level as though we'd never wasted time with your original claim that cotus banned these groups? You've wasted all this time to get from your original claim, which you yourself refuted, to 'check local and state laws as there may be restrictions in place regarding the presentation of one's self as a military force of some type or the gathering of armed persons'?

I don't recall anyone here ever denying that some jurisdictions might laws about that. In fact, I'd go so far as to say everyone probably assumed D.C and California would have something on the books, given their general positions regarding firearms.


the authority to bar such activity by statute is the domain of the states

See, that's not what you said before. You said it was covered by COTUS and the States had no say in the matter either way since it falls squarely and solely to congress. Since you've totally abandoned your original claim and you're down to arguing that some jurisdictions might have laws about guns, groups of armed persons, or whatever else the local authorities are scared of (which nobody has doubted in this thread), I'm not seeing any reason to waste any more time on you.

[Gunny]

What the? First of all, you're wrong about everything.

National Guard troops train right alongside full time Army members when it comes to boot camp, advanced training and summer drills. Through the year on their once a month training yes they train with other National Guard units, but when they go to schools and such they are the same training done by the same people as full time military.

Same with equipment, in some cases they buy military surplus, in many other instances though they buy front line brand new equipment, in fact many times National Guard units are BETTER equipped then their regular Army counterparts.

As for WHO joins the National Guard, what an insult you just threw out there. Weekend warrior? We may as well further generalize that the Marines usually get idiots who weren't smart enough to get into the Navy. It is just as true. Just because a person chooses to join a branch of the military that is supposed to primarily protect their own state does not mean they are any less dedicated than full time militaries, or that they are any worse trained.

Actually, I'm not wrong. I am well-aware Guard troops go to Army basic and AIT. Going to regular Army schools and basic is NOT the same as training with the regular Army and "doing the same thing". I've never seen a Guard unit better equipped than regulars. Seen quite a few with hand-me-downs though.

You appear to have missed the part where I said "not all". Like it or not, the opinion I posted is a generally held opinion by active duty regulars. Stop trying to shoot the messenger and try reading the message. I didn't invent it.

I doubt you could say anything about jarheads I haven't heard, so big deal. Fact is though, you have to have a 50 AFQT on the ASVAB to get in the Corps. A 35 will get you in the Army/Guard, and if you're prior active duty, you don't even have to pass the ASVAB and the Guard will take you.

[ConHog]

Actually, I'm not wrong. I am well-aware Guard troops go to Army basic and AIT. Going to regular Army schools and basic is NOT the same as training with the regular Army and "doing the same thing". I've never seen a Guard unit better equipped than regulars. Seen quite a few with hand-me-downs though.

You appear to have missed the part where I said "not all". Like it or not, the opinion I posted is a generally held opinion by active duty regulars. Stop trying to shoot the messenger and try reading the message. I didn't invent it.

I doubt you could say anything about jarheads I haven't heard, so big deal. Fact is though, you have to have a 50 AFQT on the ASVAB to get in the Corps. A 35 will get you in the Army/Guard, and if you're prior active duty, you don't even have to pass the ASVAB and the Guard will take you.



You're entirely wrong about the ASVAB Gunny.

Air Force 36
Army 31
Marines 32
Navy 35

and ALL branches have exceptions.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/a/asvabminimum.htm


50 lol the Corp wishes.

[logroller]

Well, no more or less than the people are allowed to print their own currency . . .

You should understand federal preemption and the principle of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius".

Saying "Congress shall have the power" does in fact mean nobody else does . . .

except when it says it doesn't--using phrases like 'reserved to the States'


There is nothing to "restore".

Under the Constitution the people never possessed any authority to organize themselves as militia without any organizational structure and command from their state and the federal government.

That constitutionally established militia authority has been completely extinguished since 1903 and presently no governmental entity, federal or state, possesses any authority to muster, organize, train or deploy the general population / citizenry as militia.



State Defensive Forces are fabrications of Congress and have zero connection to the constitutional militia as set-out in Art I, § 8, cl's. 15 & 16.

I could argue that all laws, including those codified in the Constitution, are 'fabrications of Congress'; but this would undermine the very authority by which a constitutional militia is meant to defend; therein offering an explanation as to why the people's right to bear arms was declared necessary to well-regulated militia.


Those forces are nothing but a bone thrown to the states to make up for Congress (and SCOTUS) completely extinguishing state militia powers.


Really?
The Congress shall have the power . . .

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:



The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. We the People have completely surrendered the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia and the powers of appointing the command and creating and implementing a training regimen.

The general citizenry are the "unorganized militia" and will forever remain that with no legal means of becoming organized except for joining the National Guard.

You seem to have conflicting statements here. Laws given States the authority to of training and appointing officers fabrications, but they remain a force. You say State militias are 'bones' thrown to the states, yet the necessary qualities, the very essence of organized militias (Organizational commanders and training pursuant to a regulated militia) are reserved to the States-- How can it be both a quasi-authority/power, when it is codified in the very document which grants the authority/power to begin with?

[LuvRPgrl]

By throwing them in jail????

You cant throw me in jail. I wont go.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Uh-huh, so you've totally abandoned you're original claim and we're down to checking the legality of any given act or group at the state level as though we'd never wasted time with your original claim that cotus banned these groups?

Again, reading comprehension is the foundation of effective debate. My original statement was (that you quoted and replied to) was:


Under the Constitution the people never possessed any authority to organize themselves as militia without any organizational structure and command from their state and the federal government.



So, it is still my claim that the Constitution's specific grants of power to Congress and the states to call-up, organize, train, and deploy the citizens as militia preempts any other entity (including the people) from exercising those powers. It was a common theme in my statements:


Once the Constitution was established and law was enacted in conformance with the Constitution's militia clauses (Militia Act of 1792) the "local militias" whatever they might have been, were moot. The powers of organizing, training, calling up and deploying the citizens as militia was fully contained within federal and state powers . . .

The people have retained no powers to organize militia for as long as the Constitution is in force.



And to address your new invented position for me, as I said above:


"Extra-constitutional is not necessarily illegal [or now your new twist, "banned"]; it just means that when the government hammer comes down, you have no a), authority of law to justify your actions, or b), a claimable immunity for your actions (i.e., claiming the protections of a provision of the Bill of Rights)."

Someday you might learn about federal preemption and the interpretive canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius; until then enjoy stumbling in ignorance.


You've wasted all this time to get from your original claim, which you yourself refuted, to 'check local and state laws as there may be restrictions in place regarding the presentation of one's self as a military force of some type or the gathering of armed persons'? . . .

I don't recall anyone here ever denying that some jurisdictions might laws about that.

Except you, repeatedly and often. To my mention of Presser upholding laws (that's state laws) forbidding citizens from engaging in armed drill outside state authority you went off on a tangent about forced sterilization . . . Now you want to cry foul because state laws are being discussed; are you really that obtuse?

Your position that, "You have not yet shown that there is any law forbidding the formation of the groups themselves, the keeping of arms by private citizens, their adoption of structure and titles modeled after those of military forces or any other group, or their practicing military-style readiness and small-unit drills . . ." is demonstrably false and you are profoundly and irreconcilably wrong.


See, that's not what you said before. You said it was covered by COTUS and the States had no say in the matter either way since it falls squarely and solely to congress. Since you've totally abandoned your original claim and you're down to arguing that some jurisdictions might have laws about guns, groups of armed persons, or whatever else the local authorities are scared of (which nobody has doubted in this thread), I'm not seeing any reason to waste any more time on you.

States had no say in the matter??? Another invented position for me! It has always been my position that clause 16's grant of powers to Congress, "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia" and to the states, "appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" meant that the states retained the local control, direction and training of the militia. That stepped grant of power to the states allows them to enact state laws disallowing citizens from creating their own paramilitary / militia groups operating outside the legal authority of those state militia powers. Presser affirmed these state laws and thus established federal law on the subject. The subject has not been revisited.

You said repeatedly no laws exist that forbid citizens from assembling armed for drill outside of governmental law / regulation, there are plenty. You again and again misrepresent what I say and mis-characterize my arguments and you ridiculously declare victory over the strawmen you introduce.

I don't mind a energetic, lively debate but you are dishonest and fallacious and not worth a second more of my time. It is much too late to blame me, the messenger, for your ignorance for it is clear that you are the one changing your positions and that you have failed to rebut a single point of my argument or sustain / substantiate a single point of your argument. There really isn't anything left for me to say and there is nothing you can say to redeem your position.

It is at this juncture that I say I'm done with you and now dismiss you.

Buh-bye http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aktion/action-smiley-066.gif

[ConHog]

You cant throw me in jail. I wont go.

We both know how that would end up playing out.

[logroller]

You cant throw me in jail. I wont go.

:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

We both know how that would end up playing out.NOT reallly, I have ditched cops on numerous occasions. Until you are willing to give a somewhat detailed description, i I just dodged you and am not in jail.

[ConHog]

NOT reallly, I have ditched cops on numerous occasions. Until you are willing to give a somewhat detailed description, i I just dodged you and am not in jail.

Yeah, I in noway believe you. No one can outrun a radio.


Everyone get a load of the Bandit here...............

[Gaffer]

Are we gonna have a high speed chase here? Cool. Get the chopper ready boys, we got a runner.

[ConHog]

Are we gonna have a high speed chase here? Cool. Get the chopper ready boys, we got a runner.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2gev9fNb0E&feature=related

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah, I in noway believe you. No one can outrun a radio.


Everyone get a load of the Bandit here...............Motorcycle into sewer tunnels, GONE in sixty seconds. Motorcycle into parking structure, out 0f sight of the chopper, quick switch of clothes, hide the bike, and walk out. Its been done.
Cops arent usually all that bright. The only group of people stupider than them are the criminals, no offense gaffer, I think you are one of the exceptions.
. Criminals are really, really stupid. If the cops run into a smart criminal, they wont catch him, who was that guy who hijacked a plane and jumped out, oh yea, cooper. Look how lo9ng it took them to catch the unabomber, and the green river killer.\
so, pal, even if o you did catch me, I wont go voluntarily, if you tell me to put my hands anywhere, I will flip y0u the bird. If you tell me to turn around, I will bend over and do a dump in public. So, smart ass, whatcha gonna do now?

[fj1200]

Don't taze me bro'.

So you're that guy.

[ConHog]

Motorcycle into sewer tunnels, GONE in sixty seconds. Motorcycle into parking structure, out 0f sight of the chopper, quick switch of clothes, hide the bike, and walk out. Its been done.
Cops arent usually all that bright. The only group of people stupider than them are the criminals, no offense gaffer, I think you are one of the exceptions.
. Criminals are really, really stupid. If the cops run into a smart criminal, they wont catch him, who was that guy who hijacked a plane and jumped out, oh yea, cooper. Look how lo9ng it took them to catch the unabomber, and the green river killer.\
so, pal, even if o you did catch me, I wont go voluntarily, if you tell me to put my hands anywhere, I will flip y0u the bird. If you tell me to turn around, I will bend over and do a dump in public. So, smart ass, whatcha gonna do now?

Me? I'd shoot you in the head and toss a burner on top of the corpse. But, I'm an asshole like that.

[J.T]

Motorcycle into sewer tunnels, GONE in sixty seconds. Motorcycle into parking structure, out 0f sight of the chopper, quick switch of clothes, hide the bike, and walk out. Its been done.
Cops arent usually all that bright. The only group of people stupider than them are the criminals, no offense gaffer, I think you are one of the exceptions.
. Criminals are really, really stupid. If the cops run into a smart criminal, they wont catch him, who was that guy who hijacked a plane and jumped out, oh yea, cooper. Look how lo9ng it took them to catch the unabomber, and the green river killer.\
so, pal, even if o you did catch me, I wont go voluntarily, if you tell me to put my hands anywhere, I will flip y0u the bird. If you tell me to turn around, I will bend over and do a dump in public. So, smart ass, whatcha gonna do now?

You're a real badass on the internet, aint ya?

[LuvRPgrl]

Me? I'd shoot you in the head and toss a burner on top of the corpse. But, I'm an asshole like that.

Hey, Im shakin now,,,,you scare me....

uh, so you are saying the Mich militia wouldnt be able to stand up to the feds?

[LuvRPgrl]

You're a real badass on the internet, aint ya?

as you

[Gunny]

You're entirely wrong about the ASVAB Gunny.

Air Force 36
Army 31
Marines 32
Navy 35

and ALL branches have exceptions.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/a/asvabminimum.htm


50 lol the Corp wishes.

Really? I was stationed at a MEPS for 2 years after my grandfather passed I used to administer the SOB. Want to try again? My main job was ENTNAC so I saw EVERYTHING that came down the hall.

Want to let this go, or what? I said what I have to say. If you want to push it we can.

Try bearing this in mind: You're in the AK Nat'l Guard. If you go back up, you can see there are plenty of states that don't even have one. Don't assume where you are is the same as anywhere else.

As far as the Corps goes, back off. You couldn't keep up.

Again, let it go.

[ConHog]

Really? I was stationed at a MEPS for 2 years after my grandfather passed I used to administer the SOB. Want to try again? My main job was ENTNAC so I saw EVERYTHING that came down the hall.

Want to let this go, or what? I said what I have to say. If you want to push it we can.

Try bearing this in mind: You're in the AK Nat'l Guard. If you go back up, you can see there are plenty of states that don't even have one. Don't assume where you are is the same as anywhere else.

As far as the Corps goes, back off. You couldn't keep up.

Again, let it go.


First of all, you're getting a little angry there. Second of all, I posted a link to the actual information. Third of all Arkansas is AR and Alaska is AK, and finally, my Ranger tab says that I could in fact keep up with you Marines well maybe not today, but back in the day I could have.

[avatar4321]

Local defense of what? Who would this militia want to point their weapons at?

Why would they want to point their weapons at someone?

Militias are just citizens who gather together to defend themselves when necessary. Hopefully, they would never be needed. But We should be trained for the times when they are.

[avatar4321]

What? You don't want the NSA looking in on you in this thread?

Key wordss, my friends. :laugh:

I know you are currently banned, But bans usually dont last forever around here so I will respond to you.

Why would we be afraid of the NSA looking in on this thread? We aren't trying to subvert our nation. We are trying to restore it. We are not trying to go to war, we are trying to prevent it by making sure people learn their duties to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[avatar4321]

Instead of militia, maybe they can call it Man Scouts. Two, three, and four finger salutes are already taken...I propose the official Man Scout salute be of the one finger variety. Hell...might even be able to get some federal funding for uniforms and such.

your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[avatar4321]

You cant throw me in jail. I wont go.

I would go to jail if it will in some way restore the Republic.

When a government creates laws that are unrighteous, then the righteous end up behind bars. Suffering for their people.