States need to start their own volunteer militia's!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Should states that want to leave the union start their own volunteer militia's?
State funded and equipped with absolutely no federal money involved.. I think the answer is yes.
Each state needs a well funded militia , one that can stand against the federal government!--Tyr

[jafar00]

Should states that want to leave the union start their own volunteer militia's?
State funded and equipped with absolutely no federal money involved.. I think the answer is yes.
Each state needs a well funded militia , one that can stand against the federal government!--Tyr

Great idea Tyr. Bring the "Arab Spring" to the USA. :salute:

[logroller]

Many states already have them...of course, they're still under the supreme command of Potus per Article 2, section 2 which states, in part "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; " (emphasis added)

[CSM]

Many states already have them...of course, they're still under the supreme command of Potus per Article 2, section 2 which states, in part "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; " (emphasis added)

Militias, at on point in time in the history of this country, were often funded by private (albeit, wealthy) individuals. They were thus not necessarily aligned with any government at any level. Such an organization today would be viewed with great suspicion, to say the least. There are examples in recent history of how state and federal governments handle private organizations which are a perceived threat (Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.).

[CSM]

Great idea Tyr. Bring the "Arab Spring" to the USA. :salute:


I am skeptical that any Arab/Muslim would be welcomed in such a militia but I could be wrong!

[Gaffer]

Great idea Tyr. Bring the "Arab Spring" to the USA. :salute:

They're already here.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/

[CSM]

They're already here.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/

Say it isn't so!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They're already here.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/


As usual the muslims get a pass. Those people in those camps training are training to kill Americans here yet nothing is done. They should ALL -BE ARRESTED OR ELSE KILLED! This isnt a game, those camps are real and are training to kill us. Why hasnt the government raided those camps? Answer because it gives muslims a pass and no other religion. Ask yourself why ...Citizens need to organise a force to destroy those camps!!! The scum in those camps as well.
To all that havent watched the linked video , do so now and remove the blinders our government has applied!-Tyr

[Gaffer]

Say it isn't so!

It might explain our military training in urban and suburban areas of certain cities.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It might explain our military training in urban and suburban areas of certain cities.

Did you see that they have and train with exsplosives!!?? No religious protection allows for that!!! With no raids on those camps we can see whats coming here soon!! They are training to wreck havoc and take over here when we have a breakdown. Those camps must be destroyed and those people arrested. Yet the opposite will happen , our government will protect them! And people will shrug their shoulders and ignore it.. Citizens must organise to stop this threat because government is a willing ally with the muslims.-Tyr

[CSM]

Well, Obama did say he wanted a civilian force equipped and trained equivalently to the US military. Maybe this is it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, Obama did say he wanted a civilian force equipped and trained equivalently to the US military. Maybe this is it.

They are setting up a network of training camps for when their population hits the magic number. Instead of our government shutting them down they let a foreign terrorist come here and do this ! This is far, far worse that Fast/Furious and the embassy attack fiasco combined !
TOLD ALL YOU PEOPLE OBAMA IS A MUSLIM IN HIDING!--Tyr

[fj1200]

TOLD ALL YOU PEOPLE OBAMA IS A MUSLIM IN HIDING!--Tyr

Would Bush be one as well since the video was posted less than a month after BO took office?


Posted Feb 18, 2009

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would Bush be one as well since the video was posted less than a month after BO took office?

I do care who allows it , they are at fault. If it was Bush then f-him too.
You are under a mistaken impression if you think my loyalty is not directly to the Constiitution and the nation rather than to any party or any leader.-Tyr

[fj1200]

I do care who allows it , they are at fault. If it was Bush then f-him too.
You are under a mistaken impression if you think my loyalty is not directly to the Constiitution and the nation rather than to any party or any leader.-Tyr

I missed where you declared Bush a Muslim-in-hiding then.

[Gaffer]

I said before, there are agents of iran and the brotherhood here just waiting on orders. I expected things to break out in the ME before this, but when it does these groups will go into action and we will see combat here in our own country.

[CSM]

I said before, there are agents of iran and the brotherhood here just waiting on orders. I expected things to break out in the ME before this, but when it does these groups will go into action and we will see combat here in our own country.

Possibly but I don't think this event will trigger it. Not yet, anyway.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I missed where you declared Bush a Muslim-in-hiding then.

That because I did not callBush one and my calling obama one was not simply because of the camps as I've been calling him one for years. Do try to catch up, this explaining stuff you should already know from reading my posts is getting tiresome real quick. Also your replies lack substance and rarely impart new information on the topic. Now for example you have diverted away from the muslim training camps onto me and my posts instead by interjecting Bush into the mix. . Bush isnt president and isnt running any of those camps in case you missed that. Your diversions are getting to be too often your only reply.Thats getting old real fast too.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Possibly but I don't think this event will trigger it. Not yet, anyway.

Perhaps not but let 'em establish a few hundred more camps here and train a couple more years and we will see the trainied fighters from those camps ready to take action here, murdering our citizens and obama wants that to happen IMHO.-TYR

[Gaffer]

Possibly but I don't think this event will trigger it. Not yet, anyway.

I don't expect the Israeli conflict with hamas to effect this. I'm thinking along the lines of iran who has threatened there will be attacks on US shores if they are attacked. They can't reach the US from there but they can use agents here.

[fj1200]

That because I did not callBush one and my calling obama one was not simply because of the camps as I've been calling him one for years. Do try to catch up, this explaining stuff you should already know from reading my posts is getting tiresome real quick. Also your replies lack substance and rarely impart new information on the topic. Now for example you have diverted away from the muslim training camps onto me and my posts instead by interjecting Bush into the mix. . Bush isnt president and isnt running any of those camps in case you missed that. Your diversions are getting to be too often your only reply.Thats getting old real fast too.-Tyr

That you have a double standard and that you yourself don't impart any new information in 95% of your posts is amusing to me. So do you have evidence that BO is "running those camps"? Quite possibly if some non-government whistleblowers got the secret video do you think that the FBI is also aware of their existence and is monitoring them quite closely?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That you have a double standard and that you yourself don't impart any new information in 95% of your posts is amusing to me. So do you have evidence that BO is "running those camps"? Quite possibly if some non-government whistleblowers got the secret video do you think that the FBI is also aware of their existence and is monitoring them quite closely?

Sure, monitoring them by giving them years to train recruits. Thats some kind of monitoring....
most folks would call that aiding..-Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

Great idea Tyr. Bring the "Arab Spring" to the USA. :salute:

Jafar... Do you know why we have a Second Amendment in our Constitution?

It's there for when Government forgets about the 1st Amendment..

[logroller]

Sure, monitoring them by giving them years to train recruits. Thats some kind of monitoring....
most folks would call that aiding..-Tyr
Most people are wrong then. Aiding (and abetting) is an affirmative act. Meaning, doing nothing is not aiding. If someone was lying in the street bleeding and I stood there watching, I certainly haven't given them aid. I think you mean negligence.
Btw, did you notice the guy in the video said the US as well as many state constitutions protect their organizing and training a militia. Thats true as long as its private I gather; but I believe public drilling is prohibited. It is alarming, but thankfully I live in one of the last bastions of conservatism in California. Still issuing concealed carry permits in my county. I forget the statistic about how many guns are in the us, something like 9 guns for every ten people-- I'm sure there's plenty of patriots ready and willing to defend this country if some yahoos get to acting crazy. I don't think we're at that point, but when and if it comes, preparations need to be made... food, water, medical supplies, logistics etc., not guns and ammo, there's plenty of that. But how long do you think America can remain responsive without transportation? What happens when medical facilities are overburdened? The key is organization and there's a lot out there already-- but everybody needs to do their part. It starts with taking the necessary precautions so that, in the event of an emergency, you minimize your own risk. I could show you some statistics, but I think it comes as no surprise that most deaths during a disaster, whether natural or as a result of belligerance, come from lack of food water shelter and medical care.
I'm a vetted volunteer for the hazardous response team in my county, which is an interagency partnership between fema,the state and county-- republicanism at work! So in the unlikely event of broad scale chemical release that overwhelms public servants, I get to take samples and help coordinate neutralization efforts. Others would set up triage, others focus on containment, communication with other agencies etc. My point is that not everyone needs to take up arms to defend this nation, and really very few in the grand scheme of public defense.
Martial law should be the last thing one should prepare for, not the first. We do have police, over half a million of em-- and i know they take public threats very seriously. I see it as my duty to not be a burden to them and assist them If possible. Toting a gun around "defending my country" would more likely be seen as a potential threat, not a help, but rather a hinderance and would distract them and their resources from those persons who really are a threat.

[jafar00]

Jafar... Do you know why we have a Second Amendment in our Constitution?

It's there for when Government forgets about the 1st Amendment..

So that means that if the people setting up these supposed terrorist training camps are US citizens, then they have a 2nd amendment right to do so?

[Voted4Reagan]

So that means that if the people setting up these supposed terrorist training camps are US citizens, then they have a 2nd amendment right to do so?

See Jafar... this is where you dont understand how our Constitution works and most likely you never will.

The Second Amendment gives the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. (Rifles, Shotguns, Pistols) So the "terrorist" camps of these militias will hold the usual assortment of hunting Rifles, Shotguns and LEGALLY AVAILABLE Semi-Automatic Assault rifles that can be purchased at any gun store. That is what these militias will have. They'll be out deep in the woods and away from the General population.


now...lets take GAZA for instance...

A MILITIA CAMP in GAZA ( Or any other Muslim Country) will have AUTOMATIC Rifles, Rocket Launchers, Long range Rockets, RPG's, Hand grenades, Plastic Explosives, Artillery Rounds, Mines, and Machine Guns. It will be located in a civilian population area in close proximity to other people.


now.... Who are you calling Terrorists?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Most people are wrong then. Aiding (and abetting) is an affirmative act. Meaning, doing nothing is not aiding. If someone was lying in the street bleeding and I stood there watching, I certainly haven't given them aid. I think you mean negligence.
Btw, did you notice the guy in the video said the US as well as many state constitutions protect their organizing and training a militia. Thats true as long as its private I gather; but I believe public drilling is prohibited. It is alarming, but thankfully I live in one of the last bastions of conservatism in California. Still issuing concealed carry permits in my county. I forget the statistic about how many guns are in the us, something like 9 guns for every ten people-- I'm sure there's plenty of patriots ready and willing to defend this country if some yahoos get to acting crazy. I don't think we're at that point, but when and if it comes, preparations need to be made... food, water, medical supplies, logistics etc., not guns and ammo, there's plenty of that. But how long do you think America can remain responsive without transportation? What happens when medical facilities are overburdened? The key is organization and there's a lot out there already-- but everybody needs to do their part. It starts with taking the necessary precautions so that, in the event of an emergency, you minimize your own risk. I could show you some statistics, but I think it comes as no surprise that most deaths during a disaster, whether natural or as a result of belligerance, come from lack of food water shelter and medical care.
I'm a vetted volunteer for the hazardous response team in my county, which is an interagency partnership between fema,the state and county-- republicanism at work! So in the unlikely event of broad scale chemical release that overwhelms public servants, I get to take samples and help coordinate neutralization efforts. Others would set up triage, others focus on containment, communication with other agencies etc. My point is that not everyone needs to take up arms to defend this nation, and really very few in the grand scheme of public defense.
Martial law should be the last thing one should prepare for, not the first. We do have police, over half a million of em-- and i know they take public threats very seriously. I see it as my duty to not be a burden to them and assist them If possible. Toting a gun around "defending my country" would more likely be seen as a potential threat, not a help, but rather a hinderance and would distract them and their resources from those persons who really are a threat.

Being willing and able to defend ones life and property is never wrong! It would be a great aid to local authorities not a hinderance. We saw how well the cops in New Orleans responded, didnt we? The broke laws, murder a few people and went about illegally confiscating citizen's guns! Nobody has authority to come to my home , demand my guns and threaten force to take them, if they do I'll kill them. Just that simple. Perhaps you do not understand what a patriot is my friend. In simple terms a patriot will be an armed citizen that simply will not allow himself to be enslaved or disarmed by illegal and Unconstitutional authorities. Until the 2nd amendment is repealed any confiscation of legal arms from citizens is ILLEGAL.. The cops in New Orleans had zero authority to confiscate those guns. I would have shot anybody, if I had been there and they tried to take mine.
All fine that you volunteer and suggest keeping emergency supplies but if nobody is willing to fight for whats right and our freedoms , should a major civil unrest turn violent , then what good would it be to save yourself just to become a slave? Perhaps your concept of freedom and mine are too far apart. I seem to be 100% with the founders and their intent when they risked their all to create the greatest nation on earth. Too many others it seems merely want to live in any state of degradation regardless.--Tyr

[jafar00]

See Jafar... this is where you dont understand how our Constitution works and most likely you never will.

The Second Amendment gives the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. (Rifles, Shotguns, Pistols) So the "terrorist" camps of these militias will hold the usual assortment of hunting Rifles, Shotguns and LEGALLY AVAILABLE Semi-Automatic Assault rifles that can be purchased at any gun store. That is what these militias will have. They'll be out deep in the woods and away from the General population.


now...lets take GAZA for instance...

A MILITIA CAMP in GAZA ( Or any other Muslim Country) will have AUTOMATIC Rifles, Rocket Launchers, Long range Rockets, RPG's, Hand grenades, Plastic Explosives, Artillery Rounds, Mines, and Machine Guns. It will be located in a civilian population area in close proximity to other people.


now.... Who are you calling Terrorists?

But you said the the 2nd amendment is there for when the govt forgets about the 1st. All terrorists (or freedom fighters if you like) are fighting against a govt using terrorism to force the govt into submission. In that regard there is no difference between when you call terrorists and what you call a militia going out to defend the 1st amendment.

[jimnyc]

But you said the the 2nd amendment is there for when the govt forgets about the 1st. All terrorists (or freedom fighters if you like) are fighting against a govt using terrorism to force the govt into submission. In that regard there is no difference between when you call terrorists and what you call a militia going out to defend the 1st amendment.

We are talking about potentially protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government. When V4R speaks of Hamas for example, and the weapons they have - what government is it they are fighting when they lob non-stop rockets into a civilian populace in Israel? The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is who they target. If one targets a legitimate tyrannical government, or occupying troops, I suppose they are defending their country or fighting back. When groups go out of their way to target civilians, well, they are terrorists. Legitimate freedom fighters or militias won't be out there trying to kill innocent civilians to get a point across.

[aboutime]

But you said the the 2nd amendment is there for when the govt forgets about the 1st. All terrorists (or freedom fighters if you like) are fighting against a govt using terrorism to force the govt into submission. In that regard there is no difference between when you call terrorists and what you call a militia going out to defend the 1st amendment.


jafar. The OBL master of distortion, hatred, and little comprehension that happily twists words to meet his ignorant demands.

[fj1200]

Sure, monitoring them by giving them years to train recruits. Thats some kind of monitoring....
most folks would call that aiding..-Tyr

So... no evidence?

[fj1200]

jafar. The OBL master of distortion, hatred, and little comprehension that happily twists words to meet his ignorant demands.

Twisting words or challenging a premise?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So... no evidence?

Just a bit dense arent ya? Over 8 years of "monitoring " with no action taken against those camps is the evidence !
Funny, how you missed that..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They're already here.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/

They have one camp in Texas. Why hasnt the Texas Rangers shut down that camp? The states do not have to wait on federal approval. The federal government is a willing ally thanks to CAIR. At least 8 years of monitoring but no camps shut down! How many thousands have been trained? Allowing that training to go on for at least 8 years is aiding and abetting by any standard IMHO.-Tyr

[logroller]

They have one camp in Texas. Why hasnt the Texas Rangers shut down that camp? The states do not have to wait on federal approval. The federal government is a willing ally thanks to CAIR. At least 8 years of monitoring but no camps shut down! How many thousands have been trained? Allowing that training to go on for at least 8 years is aiding and abetting by any standard IMHO.-Tyr
your opinion doesn't count for much...IMHO. :dance:
Not that mine does either though, right?
how about you state the legal standard for aiding and abetting. Then show evidential support.
I believe I have already refuted the premise a priori; but I'd love to see the support for your argument.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

your opinion doesn't count for much...IMHO. :dance:
Not that mine does either though, right?
how about you state the legal standard for aiding and abetting. Then show evidential support.
I believe I have already refuted the premise a priori; but I'd love to see the support for your argument.

Why should I if my opinion counts so little to you or anybody else? Does one really need to discuss common sense reality as if they are lawyers?
I resized your most accurate point in your post so you'd remember it vividly amigo.. . Any reason you think I should try to convince you of what I know to be true? Especially when I have a few previous encounters in memory of our little debates.
You see dude your opinion counts no more than mine because the truth does not depend on how eloquently either one of us can post.
8 long years and they have trained how many hundreds or how many thousands in those camps? How is not allowing that a form of aiding? Lets just say they allow another 8 years and why not they allowed the first 8 years!! Then would it be aiding if they allowed 16 years of training? What number is the cut off point to stop it?
How many thousands should our government let them train ?
Got answers or is your opposition just made because I am the OP?
We need no law degrees to use common sense. We need no justification to state our opinions as citizens and exspress our wishes.
Seems our government found plenty of reasons to go in and break up any other religious groups and many were not doing the para-military training this group is doing!-Tyr

[logroller]

Why should I if my opinion counts so little to you or anybody else? Does one really need to discuss common sense reality as if they are lawyers?
I resized your most accurate point in your post so you'd remember it vividly amigo.. . Any reason you think I should try to convince you of what I know to be true? Especially when I have a few previous encounters in memory of our little debates.
You see dude your opinion counts no more than mine because the truth does not depend on how eloquently either one of us can post.
8 long years and they have trained how many hundreds or how many thousands in those camps? How is not allowing that a form of aiding? Lets just say they allow another 8 years and why not they allowed the first 8 years!! Then would it be aiding if they allowed 16 years of training? What number is the cut off point to stop it?
How many thousands should our government let them train ?
Got answers or is your opposition just made because I am the OP?
We need no law degrees to use common sense. We need no justification to state our opinions as citizens and exspress our wishes.
Seems our government found plenty of reasons to go in and break up any other religious groups and many were not doing the para-military training this group is doing!-Tyr
I'm merely asked for you to offer support for your opinion using legal methodology. I dont have a law degree. I use google. If you wish to refrain from legal discussion, id suggest you do not speak in legal terms, ie aiding and abetting, standards etc. As I'm sure you are aware, you posted this in the US Constitution section. That's a law; as such, its consideration is inherently legal. Scotus gives the legal reasoning for their opinions. Agree or disagree, at least it's proferred. I offered the constitutional text regarding militias, as well as the legal concerns of aiding and abetting. You failed to even respond to those facts; yet you claim truth is what you have spoke to.
You claim truth, but truth is faith-based. I have little faith in you, as you I-- thats why I asked you to offer logical support based in legal terms-- because i assume most people have more faith in the law than you or me. If you want to speak about opinions on current events, there's a section for that. Although, given the context of a policy debate site, I'm doubtful there's any reasonable expectation that legal consideration shoukd be refrained from. Regardless, if you think you can post "IMHO" after a blatantly false statement and not get called on it, you're mistaken.
As for these camps, lets say a few hundred may have been trained, perhaps even a few thousand. But even that number pales in comparison to the half a million armed civilian militiamen. Not to mention, I went to the gun club and saw no less than 50 armed and responsible citizens; and with several thousand members, how much of a threat are these camp members, really?
Additionally, the guy in the video said these camps were constitutional under state and federal law. Care to dispute that with facts and evidence, or just more opinion?

[gabosaurus]

Los Angeles has had volunteer militias for years. They are called "gangs."

[fj1200]

Just a bit dense arent ya? Over 8 years of "monitoring " with no action taken against those camps is the evidence !
Funny, how you missed that..-Tyr

I didn't miss it, in fact it's direct evidence against your claim.


They have one camp in Texas. Why hasnt the Texas Rangers shut down that camp? The states do not have to wait on federal approval. The federal government is a willing ally thanks to CAIR. At least 8 years of monitoring but no camps shut down! How many thousands have been trained? Allowing that training to go on for at least 8 years is aiding and abetting by any standard IMHO.-Tyr

Tell us why please, without the conspiratorial ranting though. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm merely asked for you to offer support for your opinion using legal methodology. I dont have a law degree. I use google. If you wish to refrain from legal discussion, id suggest you do not speak in legal terms, ie aiding and abetting, standards etc. As I'm sure you are aware, you posted this in the US Constitution section. That's a law; as such, its consideration is inherently legal. Scotus gives the legal reasoning for their opinions. Agree or disagree, at least it's proferred. I offered the constitutional text regarding militias, as well as the legal concerns of aiding and abetting. You failed to even respond to those facts; yet you claim truth is what you have spoke to.
You claim truth, but truth is faith-based. I have little faith in you, as you I-- thats why I asked you to offer logical support based in legal terms-- because i assume most people have more faith in the law than you or me. If you want to speak about opinions on current events, there's a section for that. Although, given the context of a policy debate site, I'm doubtful there's any reasonable expectation that legal consideration shoukd be refrained from. Regardless, if you think you can post "IMHO" after a blatantly false statement and not get called on it, you're mistaken.
As for these camps, lets say a few hundred may have been trained, perhaps even a few thousand. But even that number pales in comparison to the half a million armed civilian militiamen. Not to mention, I went to the gun club and saw no less than 50 armed and responsible citizens; and with several thousand members, how much of a threat are these camp members, really?

How many of those 50 armed citizens were there training using exsplosives and methods of how to kill security guards by throating cutting or strangling from behind, etc??? While you gloss over the real murdering activities these muslim radicals are training for I do not. You havent changed , still the same shill you were before you left. Still posting lame excuses to defend muslims as you did before. Then you attempt to belittle the training of such muslim terrorists with, belittling the number of them that are trained comparing it to our half million armed civilian militiamen! As if allowing the training is justified because we have superior numbers ! You even think like a terrorist sympathiser, for we hear such lame responses about Hamas and other terrorists groups when ISRAEL BLASTTS THEIR SORRY MURDERING ASSES WITH SUPERIOR WEAPONS AND TECHNOLOGY! You present no true wish to properly examine this and find out why our government has given them 8 years to train. All you seek to do is discredit me by any method possible, is that what your little vacation from here was all about? I need not your advice on where or how I post, see the Constitution on freedom of speech. I asked Gaffer a question specific about why the Texas Rangers have not taken action to shut down that terrorist training camp in Texas and you come on attempting to defend our government allowing 8 years of terrorist training right here on American soil. Piss off, I will not debate such outrageous behaviour with you . You are still a shill. And I think quite possibly you are a muslim too, because you seek every chance possible to defend them and attack those that oppose them.. . Or else you are just an avowed muslim appeasor,which is just as bad in my book ..
Our government attacked and murdered a few Christian groups that were doing far less para-military type training but now when its muslims doing far worse they get 8 years and running to keep on training murderers which you try to defend! Your true colors come forth everytime Islam is attacked for its hatred and campaign of worldwide murder and your posts yet again reveal that dedication! --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I didn't miss it, in fact it's direct evidence against your claim.

Bullshat, it direct proof of the fact our government has taken no action and has allowed hundreds or thousands of radical muslims to be trained to murder!-Tyr



Tell us why please, without the conspiratorial ranting though. :)

The facts and the video are not ranting. Your silly demand that I present more is whats insane. I am not there investigation,but obvious to anybody that 8 years is far too long to allow this crap and that it is insane to allow that many terrorists to be trained! 8 years and still running, for how many more years and how many more trained terrorist murderers?----Tyr


What you miss is our government has taken far ,far more drastic actions for far , far less reason but here again absolutely refuses to do so when The party is muslims. Its this very special exemption that points to a very grave reality. That our government has allied with them in some manner AND FOR SOME INSANE REASON BE IT OUT OF FEAR OR OTHERWISE IMHO.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Bullshat, it direct proof of the fact our government has taken no action and has allowed hundreds or thousands of radical muslims to be trained to murder!

I didn't say I disagreed. I asked for evidence that BO was "running those camps."

The facts and the video are not ranting. Your silly demand that I present more is whats insane. I am not there investigation,but obvious to anybody that 8 years is far too long to allow this crap and that it is insane to allow that many terrorists to be trained! 8 years and still running, for how many more years and how many more trained terrorist murderers?

I didn't say the video was ranting. I merely asked why the Texas Rangers hadn't shut them down?

What you miss is our government has taken far ,far more drastic actions for far , far less reason but here again absolutely refuses to do so when The party is muslims. Its this very special exemption that points to a very grave reality. That our government has allied with them in some manner AND FOR SOME INSANE REASON BE IT OUT OF FEAR OR OTHERWISE IMHO.

Do you have evidence of the "exemption"? Besides the circumstantial kind?

[revelarts]

Muslims training in camps in the U.S. are Real. If we think they are doing it without the full knowledge of the Feds and State we're not thinking clearly.
When folks looked into the Oklahoma City Bombing Militia group they found just as many agents and informants mixed in the crowd as there were real Militia nutjobs. Some knew about the others, some didn't.

Bush knew about these training camps, Obama knows about them, the CIA FBI ATF NSA etc etc know about them. Unless they all drop the ball, or some small faction of the gov't decides to use them for their own purposes, or the gov't trys some fast and furious BS. these people are phone call away from a homeland drone strike or arrest.

But as i mentioned before, If the terrorist really want to put fear in American people and shut down the country or turn it into a police state overnight for Obama or Romney or whoever. it would not be hard. As Jesse Ventura mentioned he and a team of 12 snipers in 6 cities across the U.S. could shut down DC, NewYork, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, LA and Kansas city with just rifles.

It's a wonder to me that it hasn't been done already, It's another reason why I question the seriousness of the Alquida/terrorist threat. And if you notice every one of the FBI sting operations in the U.S. involves some bungling ignorant novice, lead by the nose, terrorist wanna be , not someone from these training camps, (or Iranian sleeper) who's a serious self motivated threat.

strange world

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I didn't say I disagreed. I asked for evidence that BO was "running those camps."


I didn't say the video was ranting. I merely asked why the Texas Rangers hadn't shut them down?


Do you have evidence of the "exemption"? Besides the circumstantial kind?

Do you see any evidence after 8 years that anybody has tried to stop the training of murdering terrorists in those camps? Or that the magicboy BO is on the case now? 8 years of being allowed to train muslim terrorist murderers is far more than circumstantial pedro. Some of which have already been caught doing their dirty work here in USA. YET WE ALLOW THE CAMPS TO FLOURISH AND PROSPER. Thats more "aiding" than it is --"monitoring"--- by any reasonable standard...Exactly how many more years of "monitoring" would be enough? Ten, twenty or 40? Enough that they can train many tens of thousands!??-TYR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Muslims training in camps in the U.S. are Real. If we think they are doing it without the full knowledge of the Feds and State we're not thinking clearly.
When folks looked into the Oklahoma City Bombing Militia group they found just as many agents and informants mixed in the crowd as there were real Militia nutjobs. Some knew about the others, some didn't.

Bush knew about these training camps, Obama knows about them, the CIA FBI ATF NSA etc etc know about them. Unless they all drop the ball, or some small faction of the gov't decides to use them for their own purposes, or the gov't trys some fast and furious BS. these people are phone call away from a homeland drone strike or arrest.

But as i mentioned before, If the terrorist really want to put fear in American people and shut down the country or turn it into a police state overnight for Obama or Romney or whoever. it would not be hard. As Jesse Ventura mentioned he and a team of 12 snipers in 6 cities across the U.S. could shut down DC, NewYork, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, LA and Kansas city with just rifles.

It's a wonder to me that it hasn't been done already, It's another reason why I question the seriousness of the Alquida/terrorist threat. And if you notice every one of the FBI sting operations in the U.S. involves some bungling ignorant novice, lead by the nose, terrorist wanna be , not someone from these training camps, (or Iranian sleeper) who's a serious self motivated threat.

strange world

Some trained in these camps have already been caught here doing their dirty deeds. Yet 8 years later the camps still exist and are growing. We should -ALL- be asking why this is so!! --Tyr

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/special-investigative-reports/muslim-terrorist-training-camps-in-north-america

They own this mountain and they know it, and there is nothing we can do about it but move, and we can’t even do that. Who wants to buy property next to that?”http://www.debatepolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/gilani1.jpg
Jamaat al Fuqra, a terrorist organization founded by Sheik Mubarek Ali Shah Gilani, the Islamic cleric Daniel Pearl was attempting to interview when he was kidnapped, and a group that has been linked to over two-dozen murders and fire-bombings inside the U.S., maintains active training compounds inside the United States. Perhaps the largest – and their operational headquarters, is situated on 70 acres nestled in a remote and heavily secluded area on the western edge of the Catskill Mountains in New York state, about 40 miles southeast of Binghamton, NY.

[Voted4Reagan]

Los Angeles has had volunteer militias for years. They are called "gangs."

Another Idiotic Statement by the Self-Proclaimed Smartest Woman on DP.

Gangs in LA have killed Have killed how many people Gabby?

How many crimes have they committed?

Seems like these Volunteer Militia Groups have not broken any laws.... but you'll make fun of Gang Member killing people and committing 10's of thousands of crimes a year.

Maybe you should join one of those GANGS in Los Angeles Gabby.....

You do know how women are inducted in to them right?

All the men in the gang get a turn with her...

weather she wants them to or not....

[gabosaurus]

Another Idiotic Statement by the Self-Proclaimed Smartest Woman on DP.

Gangs in LA have killed Have killed how many people Gabby?

How many crimes have they committed?

Seems like these Volunteer Militia Groups have not broken any laws.... but you'll make fun of Gang Member killing people and committing 10's of thousands of crimes a year.

Maybe you should join one of those GANGS in Los Angeles Gabby.....

You do know how women are inducted in to them right?

All the men in the gang get a turn with her...

weather she wants them to or not....

More proof that you slept through all your English classes in school. :rolleyes:

Militias are adult street gangs. With the same common purpose.

[logroller]

How many of those 50 armed citizens were there training using exsplosives and methods of how to kill security guards by throating cutting or strangling from behind, etc??? While you gloss over the real murdering activities these muslim radicals are training for I do not. You havent changed , still the same shill you were before you left. Still posting lame excuses to defend muslims as you did before. Then you attempt to belittle the training of such muslim terrorists with, belittling the number of them that are trained comparing it to our half million armed civilian militiamen! As if allowing the training is justified because we have superior numbers ! You even think like a terrorist sympathiser, for we hear such lame responses about Hamas and other terrorists groups when ISRAEL BLASTTS THEIR SORRY MURDERING ASSES WITH SUPERIOR WEAPONS AND TECHNOLOGY! You present no true wish to properly examine this and find out why our government has given them 8 years to train. All you seek to do is discredit me by any method possible, is that what your little vacation from here was all about? I need not your advice on where or how I post, see the Constitution on freedom of speech. I asked Gaffer a question specific about why the Texas Rangers have not taken action to shut down that terrorist training camp in Texas and you come on attempting to defend our government allowing 8 years of terrorist training right here on American soil. Piss off, I will not debate such outrageous behaviour with you . You are still a shill. And I think quite possibly you are a muslim too, because you seek every chance possible to defend them and attack those that oppose them.. . Or else you are just an avowed muslim appeasor,which is just as bad in my book ..
Our government attacked and murdered a few Christian groups that were doing far less para-military type training but now when its muslims doing far worse they get 8 years and running to keep on training murderers which you try to defend! Your true colors come forth everytime Islam is attacked for its hatred and campaign of worldwide murder and your posts yet again reveal that dedication! --Tyrif you have a specific question for a poster, use the private messaging system; you post public, I'm free to respond. I've stated what I have done to participate in the protection of my community. What have you done, specifically? Not a damn thing but run you mouth near as I can tell... Accuse me of whatever, but you cant debate to save your life. The only thing you have is an overinflated opinion of yourself. Not a skill set. Laughable. Your a hack. Naturally you won't debate me because I'd spank you. When faced with logical argument you fall back on your opined "truth", refuted with the slightest inspection.

[fj1200]

Do you see any evidence after 8 years that anybody has tried to stop the training of murdering terrorists in those camps? Or that the magicboy BO is on the case now? 8 years of being allowed to train muslim terrorist murderers is far more than circumstantial pedro. Some of which have already been caught doing their dirty work here in USA. YET WE ALLOW THE CAMPS TO FLOURISH AND PROSPER. Thats more "aiding" than it is --"monitoring"--- by any reasonable standard...Exactly how many more years of "monitoring" would be enough? Ten, twenty or 40? Enough that they can train many tens of thousands!??-TYR

So that would be two administrations monitoring the activity, both Democrat and Republican. You may want to look more into the legal definition of "aiding" and I would certainly like to know what we know through our monitoring. But they like to keep that stuff secret.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

if you have a specific question for a poster, use the private messaging system; you post public, I'm free to respond. I've stated what I have done to participate in the protection of my community. What have you done, specifically? Not a damn thing but run you mouth near as I can tell... Accuse me of whatever, but you cant debate to save your life. The only thing you have is an overinflated opinion of yourself. Not a skill set. Laughable. Your a hack. Naturally you won't debate me because I'd spank you. When faced with logical argument you fall back on your opined "truth", refuted with the slightest inspection.

How about pointing out where I ever stated that you were not fre to respond. Iam free to openly post my observations of your replies here and now and about those past posts that you busted your ass trying to defend Islam. That clearly reveals you are a dumbshit that is either muslim or muslim lover, both are bad. You couldnt spank anything except your monkey there Hoss. THE FACT THAT YOU ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO DEFEND THE DAMN SCUM REVEALS YOUR STRIPE PEDRO! Too bad for you is the fact I dont have a damn PC bone in my body and always point out lying appeasors like you. I have no need to post what I have done for my community. That you did just reveals you like to brag about it while many of us do it and never speak about it. Remember your extreme arrogance is what defeated your ass before and sent you on a self-exiled vacation to mend your ego wounds. Careful , a repeat may be just around the corner . I've defeated in real life well over a hundred like you. Men that try to make up for not really being a real man by other pathetic means. The big one is trying to appear to be a genius by using google but never giving credit for that use. Who gives a shit about who is a better debater? The TRUTH trumps all that flowery speech. That you do not know that simple fact speaks volumes about your true character not the character you attempt to portray here. I saw through that false face my second day reading here just like I did about Conhog. I post truth and let it stand, those who reject it mean nothing to me and I seek nobody's admiration here unlike you who's ego graves it.-:laugh2:
You defend murdering scum ,you are scum. Fact..--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/longcore/longcore15.1.html

Patrick Henry did not say "Give me safety and security or give me death."
3. There is seemingly very little interest in the general populace or the state governments to revitalize state militias. But there is interest coming from a restless citizenry about state secession. We must tie the two together into an inseparable bundle, as one relies upon the other.
4. Here is a forecast of how secession and militias will likely play out.

a. Economic meltdown, bank holidays, hyperinflation
b. Societal chaos, riots, rampant crime
c. Washington declares martial law and tries to clamp down
d. The grave crisis jolts states out of their slumber, and secessions begin
e. States NOW begin reformulating their militias
f. The citizenry, in full panic mode, get very focused on liberty issues
g. The United States goes the way of the Soviet Union and dissolves

<TBODY>

<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginHeight=0 src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=1413413080" frameBorder=0 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>


</TBODY>
This is an extremely exciting time in which to live in America. The people of the nation have been lulled to sleep over generations. The tyranny laid upon them is destructive, and any type of destructive force is based in low energy. Happily, freedom and liberty are creative forces of a very high energy level. Just like light dispels darkness, so too will liberty eventually win over tyranny. People will be drawn to the energy of liberty.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So that would be two administrations monitoring the activity, both Democrat and Republican. You may want to look more into the legal definition of "aiding" and I would certainly like to know what we know through our monitoring. But they like to keep that stuff secret.

I borrowed this quote from another thread. The subject is hamas and its islamic terrorist actions.-Tyr




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Kathianne http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=593869#post593869)
Whatever the grievances, US 'occupation', Western oil companies, Israel/Palestinian conflict, the Muslims claim to 'understand' but not 'support' the terrorists. Hint: 'Understanding and not condemning is SUPPORT.'






And that's EXACTLY what I said about someone who says they won't condemn Hamas but "don't support" them. Not condemning them and leaving them to their ways IS supporting them, no matter how one slices and dices it.



"The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it."




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/progress.gif http://www.debatepolicy.com/clear.gif Reply With Quote (http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=593871) http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/multiquote_40b.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=593871)Thanks (http://www.debatepolicy.com/post_thanks.php?do=post_thanks_add&p=593871&securitytoken=1353364394-69d1fd4ff6a6d506c3afbad5d722d3e02f64927e) <!--http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/reputation-40b.png--> (http://www.debatepolicy.com/reputation.php?do=addreputation&p=593871)<!-- http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/report-40b.png --> (http://www.debatepolicy.com/report.php?p=593871)

Remove Your Thanks (http://www.debatepolicy.com/post_thanks.php?do=post_thanks_remove_user&p=593871)
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jimnyc For This Useful Post:

aboutime (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2272) (Today),Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8) (Today),Tyr-Ziu Saxnot (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2275) (Today)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That principle Jim cited could easily apply to 8 years of government "monitoring" of terrorist training camps here in USA with no action taken to stop the training of many hundreds or thousands of terrorists!. How many years allowing it to continue would constitute aiding? Seems like more than three years starts getting into that realm IMHO. And it still goes on now with no end in sight.. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

More proof that you slept through all your English classes in school. :rolleyes:

Militias are adult street gangs. With the same common purpose.

Your declaration is pure silliness on parade. So do American militia groups set up drug smuggling and drug sales?
Do they engage in crimes as a way of life?

How about these muslims, are they gooooooood guys Gabby?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/35-jamaat-al-fuqra-terror-training-camps-still-operating-in-the-us.html

Jihad Watch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/)
35 Jamaat al-Fuqra "terror training camps" still operating in the U.S.
When this report was brought to our attention, we checked the date twice. This story has been going on for many years (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/09/jihadists-training-in-rural-america.html), and what is most noteworthy is how little seems to have changed each time it resurfaces. "35 terror training camps now operating inside U.S.," from World Net Daily (http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/381953/), January 2:

WASHINGTON – A radical jihadist group responsible for nearly 50 attacks on American soil is operating 35 terrorist training camps across the nation, but the U.S. government refuses to include the organization on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorists.


I like this man's reply on how to deal with those terorist training camps!--Tyr
What do you think gabby , is it a good ideal??
The fourth option is the hardest. Federal law prohibits private militias in the U.S. They do exist, and they get away with it because they can simply claim to be part of the 'unregulated militia' that is acknowledged by Federal law to exist within the citizenry. That claim is often bogus, especially when these groups have membership requirements that go beyond that of the law, such as a requirement that the members all belong to a particular religion. So, in summary, these groups belonging to Jamaat ul-Fuqra are private militias and can be prosecuted as such, but doing so would consequently strengthen the legal standing of the 'unregulated militia' and this is something that gun control advocates simply will not allow.
So, yes, let's put up a map on the internet and add the video. Old media will not likely cover the story. Most localities have one or more email newsletters these days, so find the ones close to the camps and see if they will carry the story. And yes, go to undaunted's site and prepare. But absent political will to equate all jihad with illegal acts there is little else that can be done.

[logroller]

Jihadwatch? The only source of info is I'm a f'ing drone.com. The gov't watches these guys and in the unlikely case they try anything they'd be quickly dispatched. That's the truth of the matter, irregardkess of what some rabble rouser's opinion may be, is Militias do exist and they do so under the color of law; not vigilantism. If a militia deviates from the solemn duty to country, they are enemies of state. that goes for terrorist cells and self proclaimed patriots who act outside of the vested authority bestowed upon our government. Whoever thinks otherwise is a damned fool and traitor to country and will be crushed by gov't with the overwhelming consent of the people. We exist under God and law, not rhetoric and hyperbole. The rule of law is just and I support that 100%; i even participate, unlike some others who talk a lot but do nothing.

[logroller]

How about pointing out where I ever stated that you were not fre to respond. Iam free to openly post my observations of your replies here and now and about those past posts that you busted your ass trying to defend Islam. That clearly reveals you are a dumbshit that is either muslim or muslim lover, both are bad. You couldnt spank anything except your monkey there Hoss. THE FACT THAT YOU ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO DEFEND THE DAMN SCUM REVEALS YOUR STRIPE PEDRO! Too bad for you is the fact I dont have a damn PC bone in my body and always point out lying appeasors like you. I have no need to post what I have done for my community. That you did just reveals you like to brag about it while many of us do it and never speak about it. Remember your extreme arrogance is what defeated your ass before and sent you on a self-exiled vacation to mend your ego wounds. Careful , a repeat may be just around the corner . I've defeated in real life well over a hundred like you. Men that try to make up for not really being a real man by other pathetic means. The big one is trying to appear to be a genius by using google but never giving credit for that use. Who gives a shit about who is a better debater? The TRUTH trumps all that flowery speech. That you do not know that simple fact speaks volumes about your true character not the character you attempt to portray here. I saw through that false face my second day reading here just like I did about Conhog. I post truth and let it stand, those who reject it mean nothing to me and I seek nobody's admiration here unlike you who's ego graves it.-:laugh2:
You defend murdering scum ,you are scum. Fact..--Tyr
you implied my post was not welcome. That discussing the law and wishing to debate militia formation and its legal basis was not worthy of discussion. Don't split hairs here-- the fact is I posted facts which are indisputable and undermine your entire premise that militias (which already exist) need to be formed. You're toasted dude. Your ego prevents you from admitting so.

Please show me where I defended murder? I have not. Rarely do I even defend killing; whereas you revel in it.
Training a militia in guerrilla warfare is not against US law. I defend the Law and that scares you because you know i wont be persuaded by your emotional appeals. You fail to admit that despite repeated evidence to the fact, including my quoting of the us constitution and the admonition from the video. you claiming otherwise is delusional. I'm against the Waco shit and ruby ridge too. But the fact it happened doesn't mean it needs to happen again. Wrong is wrong. You seem to think wrong is right when it fits your agenda-- genocide. That's the truth in what you seek. And grand inquisition. You secretly dance it around with your rhetoric, but I see you for what you are-- A murderous coward. And all experience shows that your type always lose...making you a loser.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

you implied my post was not welcome. That discussing the law and wishing to debate militia formation and its legal basis was not worthy of discussion. Don't split hairs here-- the fact is I posted facts which are indisputable and undermine your entire premise that militias (which already exist) need to be formed. You're toasted dude. Your ego prevents you from admitting so.

Please show me where I defended murder? I have not. Rarely do I even defend killing; whereas you revel in it.
Training a militia in guerrilla warfare is not against US law. I defend the Law and that scares you because you know i wont be persuaded by your emotional appeals. You fail to admit that despite repeated evidence to the fact, including my quoting of the us constitution and the admonition from the video. you claiming otherwise is delusional. I'm against the Waco shit and ruby ridge too. But the fact it happened doesn't mean it needs to happen again. Wrong is wrong. You seem to think wrong is right when it fits your agenda-- genocide. That's the truth in what you seek. And grand inquisition. You secretly dance it around with your rhetoric, but I see you for what you are-- A murderous coward. And all experience shows that your type always lose...making you a loser.

Now you are cooking pedro. Spit out that venom baby. You defended the terrorists and there camps so dont try to crawlfish now. I do not dance secretly or by any other means. I dare say that I am the most outspoken member at this site. I only limit my words to say within the rules of this forum and wish that I didnt have to even do that! Never murdered anybody but True I have always been a fighter and even worked as one as a young man. You havent proved a damn thing Hoss except that you do not like my calling you what you are. I see your little self-exiled vacation wasnt long enough for you to learn that your EGO and Arrogance does not defeat all comers. I preside over no inquisition and I post links to back up my opinions, after that I favor letting those that actually read my words and those in the links make up their own minds. Only delusional crap I see is your thinking you proved something other than your hidden anger from our past encounters. I am not here alive and posting now because I lose fights. What scares you is that other real patriots exist like me. A great many far better men than I but I do my best. You couldnt outsmart me if your life depended on it. I ridiculed the dumbass ideal that our government has spent over 8 years monitoring these radicals training other terrorists to murder and ridicule the very concept that isnt aiding. I even asked how many more years to allow the training is "monitoring" and when would it be aiding by -NOT TAKING PROPER ACTION-??? HOW ABOUT IT HOSS, HOW MANY YEARS ?? That questions highlights the absurdity of calling it "monitoring" when its giving consent by inaction!!! I call that aiding myself!!!!!! You prove over and over again your zeal to defend by any means possible the muslims and that is clear to anybody that reads your posts past and present. You defend murdering terrorist scum , then you are no better than they are. Your bed Hoss, you made it , now lie in it..-Tyr

[logroller]

Now you are cooking pedro. Spit out that venom baby. You defended the terrorists and there camps so dont try to crawlfish now. I do not dance secretly or by any other means. I dare say that I am the most outspoken member at this site. I only limit my words to say within the rules of this forum and wish that I didnt have to even do that! Never murdered anybody but True I have always been a fighter and even worked as one as a young man. You havent proved a damn thing Hoss except that you do not like my calling you what you are. I see your little self-exiled vacation wasnt long enough for you to learn that your EGO and Arrogance does not defeat all comers. I preside over no inquisition and I post links to back up my opinions, after that I favor letting those that actually read my words and those in the links make up their own minds. Only delusional crap I see is your thinking you proved something other than your hidden anger from our past encounters. I am not here alive and posting now because I lose fights. What scares you is that other real patriots exist like me. A great many far better men than I but I do my best. You couldnt outsmart me if your life depended on it. I ridiculed the dumbass ideal that our government has spent over 8 years monitoring these radicals training other terrorists to murder and ridicule the very concept that isnt aiding. I even asked how many more years to allow the training is "monitoring" and when would it be aiding by -NOT TAKING PROPER ACTION-??? HOW ABOUT IT HOSS, HOW MANY YEARS ?? That questions highlights the absurdity of calling it "monitoring" when its giving consent by inaction!!! I call that aiding myself!!!!!! You prove over and over again your zeal to defend by any means possible the muslims and that is clear to anybody that reads your posts past and present. You defend murdering terrorist scum , then you are no better than they are. Your bed Hoss, you made it , now lie in it..-Tyr you're here posting because you enjoy talking trash; hiding from debate behind your rhetoric and false allegations. You fail at even basic reading comprehension. I've already gjven the defintion of aiding and abetting, with an over-simplified example-- yet you repeat the same false opinion. Let me know when you're ready for a debate. Until then, I'll just keep pointing out your fallacies that need correcting. Not that I expect you to understand, you can't even figure out google near as I can tell.

[logroller]

More proof that you slept through all your English classes in school. :rolleyes:

Militias are adult street gangs. With the same common purpose.
Street gangs are distinguished by identifying themselves by a street name. criminal gangs are distinguished by their engagement in criminal activity. Militias are not necessarily. The only thing gangs and militias share is group affiliation for a common purpose and, possibly, similar dress, use of symbols, and/or regular association and other signs shared identity. Militias are armed. Gangs need not be.

[Drummond]

Having fun, Logroller ?

Tyr, of course, doesn't need any input from me in your argument with him. That said ... from the 'I Take My Stand, You ?' thread .. I've seen THIS ..

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36912-I-take-my-stand-you&p=594043#post594043


I didn't mention Obama. That you resolved that from my allegation only corroborates the truth in your treachery against the United States of America.

This accuses Tyr of treachery against his country. The wording, regardless of precise context, is clear.

And I for one say that this goes way too far.

Try this EVER again, and your post will be immediately reported. Is that clear ?

By the way, I see you have an issue with JihadWatch. Why ? Is it because they produce material not in keeping with your worldview ?

If I asked you to provide a list of information sites you were pleased to 'preapprove' for us, let me ask .. would the vast majority be Left-leaning in their biases ?

[jimnyc]

I have NO doubt whatsoever about Drummond's respect for America, which seems similar to my respect for his country. I think we are the best of allies, and not for a NY minute do I think he has any ill thoughts towards our country, for our country, and that's from others doing so or himself. I don't mean this as a way of getting involved between 2 people who disagree and want to vent, but only my opinion towards Drummond.

[jimnyc]

I have NO doubt whatsoever about Drummond's respect for America, which seems similar to my respect for his country. I think we are the best of allies, and not for a NY minute do I think he has any ill thoughts towards our country, for our country, and that's from others doing so or himself. I don't mean this as a way of getting involved between 2 people who disagree and want to vent, but only my opinion towards Drummond.

ooops. I see the post was directed at Tyr! LOL The same stands, I don't think Tyr wishes any type of harm whatsoever to America and I believe he loves his country immensely. I'm not so sure he's very loving of non-peaceful Muslims, or Muslims who might wish harm to America, and I think he's awfully "vocal" about his disdain for Muslims, but that would be towards individuals and not America.

Ok, peace out, don't want to offend anyone, rather the opposite!

[fj1200]

Try this EVER again, and your post will be immediately reported. Is that clear ?

:snicker:

[logroller]

Having fun, Logroller ?

Tyr, of course, doesn't need any input from me in your argument with him. That said ... from the 'I Take My Stand, You ?' thread .. I've seen THIS ..

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36912-I-take-my-stand-you&p=594043#post594043



This accuses Tyr of treachery against his country. The wording, regardless of precise context, is clear.

And I for one say that this goes way too far.

Try this EVER again, and your post will be immediately reported. Is that clear ?

By the way, I see you have an issue with JihadWatch. Why ? Is it because they produce material not in keeping with your worldview ?

If I asked you to provide a list of information sites you were pleased to 'preapprove' for us, let me ask .. would the vast majority be Left-leaning in their biases ?
Just report it then; I don't heed nor need your caution. Why should I take heed of what you find offensive when you have shown me no such consideration. I have been called a liar lib terrorist sympathizer supportive of murder. I find that to be "too far", but its not against the rules. tyr 's appearance here has, not coincidently, precipitated the increase in that style of conduct-- so turnabout is FairPlay. if you don't like what I say -- feel free to ignore me. But I will not refrain.

[gabosaurus]

Try this EVER again, and your post will be immediately reported. Is that clear ?


http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2004261072683939226_rs.jpg

[jimnyc]

Just report it then; I don't heed nor need your caution. Why should I take heed of what you find offensive when you have shown me no such consideration. I have been called a liar lib terrorist sympathizer supportive of murder. I find that to be "too far", but its not against the rules. tyr 's appearance here has, not coincidently, precipitated the increase in that style of conduct-- so turnabout is FairPlay. if you don't like what I say -- feel free to ignore me. But I will not refrain.

I will say, for the most part it is just words on the screen. I only spoke up to add my opinion. You are correct in that it's not against the rules. When people say things like what was directed at Tyr, or what you're referring to, I believe most people know it's another person trolling the other. Only when accusations become "real" and said factually would I intervene.

And for the record, I see you as neither a liberal or a terrorist sympathizer, nor supporting of murder. :lol:

[aboutime]

More proof that you slept through all your English classes in school. :rolleyes:

Militias are adult street gangs. With the same common purpose.


Gabby. We may have slept through English classes, as you seem to insist. Yet, unlike you. We didn't sleep through History classes, on those days when the American Revolution was discussed, and the MILITIAS of the separate states united under the leadership of one George Washington to become the American Army.

If they were street gangs, as you say. You are the one with the LEARNING problem.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE=logroller;594035]you implied my post was not welcome. That discussing the law and wishing to debate militia formation and its legal basis was not worthy of discussion. Don't split hairs here-- the fact is I posted facts which are indisputable and undermine your entire premise that militias (which already exist) need to be formed. You're toasted dude. Your ego prevents you from admitting so.

Please show me where I defended murder? I have not. Rarely do I even defend killing; whereas you revel in it.
Training a militia in guerrilla warfare is not against US law. QUOTE]

So now after viewing the video of muslim camps training how to murder security guards, use exsplosives you dare to call those muslim groups-- "militia"--!! Here is a defibition and explaination of militia. -Tyr]



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
mi·li·tia

<INPUT class=au title="Listen to the pronunciation of militia" type=button> noun \mə-ˈli-shə\
<IFRAME style="POSITION: static; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 24px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 15px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=I0_1353714740140 title=+1 tabIndex=0 vspace=0 marginHeight=0 src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv&count=false&size=small&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Fmilitia&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.0HxxGW6voJY.O% 2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DAQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs %3DAItRSTOihXPyBQtGcJiX7P2nMJCfrXvpYw#_methods=onP lusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_re nderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1353714740140&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com" frameBorder=0 width="100%" allowTransparency name=I0_1353714740140 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no hspace=0></IFRAME>

<fb:like class="fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" show_faces="false" layout="button_count" send="false" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" width="90" font=""><IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 71px; HEIGHT: 20px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" id=f3faeb7f280fac4 class=fb_ltr title="Like this content on Facebook." src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=178450008855735&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2F connect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D17%23cb%3Df2f 75a7fdc608fe%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mer riam-webster.com%252Ff748cd209190ef%26domain%3Dwww.merr iam-webster.com%26relation%3Dparent.parent&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Fmilitia&node_type=link&width=90&layout=button_count&colorscheme=light&show_faces=false&send=false&extended_social_context=false" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency name=f2ff67e02c89b3 scrolling=no></IFRAME></fb:like>

Definition of MILITIA

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military (http://www.debatepolicy.com/military) service

2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service http://www.debatepolicy.com/styles/default/images/reference/external.jpg

Origin of MILITIA

Latin, military service, from milit-, miles First Known Use: 1625



MILITIA

The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.
The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
15. 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.
Under the clauses of the constitution, the following points have been decided.If congress had chosen, they might by law, have considered a militia man, called into the service ot the United States, as being, from the time of such call, constructively in that service, though not actually so, although he should not appear at the place of rendezvous. But they have not so considered him, in the acts of congress, till after his appearance at the place of rendezvous; previous to that, a fine was to be paid for the delinquency in not obeying the call, which fine was deemed an equivalent for his services, and an atonement for disobedience.The militia belong to the states respectively, and are subject, both in their civil and military capacities, to the jurisdiction and laws of the state, except so far as these laws are controlled by acts of congress, constitutionally made.
It is presumable the framers of the constitution contemplated a full exercise of all the powers of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; nevertheless, if congress had declined to exercise them, it was competent to the state governments respectively to do it. But congress has executed these powers as fully as was thought right, and covered the whole ground of their legislation by different laws, notwithstanding important provisions may have been omitted, or those enacted might be beneficially altered or enlarged.After this, the states cannot enact or enforce laws on the same subject. For although their laws may not be directly repugnant to those of congress, yet congress, having exercised their will upon the subject, the states cannot legislate upon it. If the law of the latter be the same, it is inoperative; if they differ, they must, in the nature of things, oppose each other, so far as they differ. Thus if an act of congress imposes a fine, and a state law fine and imprisonment for the same offence, though the latter is not repugnant, inasmuch as it agrees with the act of the congress, so far as the latter goes, and add another punishment, yet the wills of the two legislating powers in relation to the subject are different, and cannot subsist harmoniously together. The same legislating power may impose cumulative punishments; but not different legislating powers. Therefore, where the state governments have, by the constitution, a concurrent power with the national government, the former cannot legislate on any subject on which congress has acted, although the two laws are not in terms contradictory and repugnant to each other. Where congress prescribed the punishment to be inflicted on a militia man, detached and called forth, but refusing to march, and also provided that courts martial for the trial of such delinquent's, to be composed of militia officers only, should be held and conducted in the manner pointed out by the rules and articles of war, and a state had passed a law enacting the penalties on such delinquents which the act of congress prescribed, and directing lists of the delinquents to be furnished to the comptroller of the United States and marshal, that further proceeding might take place according to the act of congress, and providing for their trial by state courts martial, such state courts martial have jurisdiction. Congress might have vested exclusive jurisdiction in courts martial to be held according to their laws, but not having done so expressly, their jurisdiction is not exclusive.
Although congress have exercised the whole power of calling out the militia, yet they are not national militia, till employed in actual service; and they are not employed in actual service, till they arrive at the place of rendezvous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did you get that those religious , para-military muslim indoctrination camps are militia, training to defend the respective states or the nation? You seem to like to play fast and loose with words. Those camps are training to defend Islam stupido! Thus they are not militia!!! You thought that you got by with that deceit but I was busy with other things and just now got back to your bullshit reply. Here in USA they arent militia if they are training to defend a religion. No definition of militia speaks of training to fight to defend a religion (Islam). You lie and you are caught at it! You tried to make the scum legit by that lie! -Tyr

[logroller]

Training a militia in guerrilla warfare is not against US law.


So now after viewing the video of muslim camps training how to murder security guards, use exsplosives you dare to call those muslim groups-- "militia"--!! Here is a defibition and explaination of militia. -Tyr

MILITIA

The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.
The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
15. 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.
Under the clauses of the constitution, the following points have been decided.If congress had chosen, they might by law, have considered a militia man, called into the service ot the United States, as being, from the time of such call, constructively in that service, though not actually so, although he should not appear at the place of rendezvous. But they have not so considered him, in the acts of congress, till after his appearance at the place of rendezvous; previous to that, a fine was to be paid for the delinquency in not obeying the call, which fine was deemed an equivalent for his services, and an atonement for disobedience.The militia belong to the states respectively, and are subject, both in their civil and military capacities, to the jurisdiction and laws of the state, except so far as these laws are controlled by acts of congress, constitutionally made.
It is presumable the framers of the constitution contemplated a full exercise of all the powers of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; nevertheless, if congress had declined to exercise them, it was competent to the state governments respectively to do it. But congress has executed these powers as fully as was thought right, and covered the whole ground of their legislation by different laws, notwithstanding important provisions may have been omitted, or those enacted might be beneficially altered or enlarged.After this, the states cannot enact or enforce laws on the same subject. For although their laws may not be directly repugnant to those of congress, yet congress, having exercised their will upon the subject, the states cannot legislate upon it. If the law of the latter be the same, it is inoperative; if they differ, they must, in the nature of things, oppose each other, so far as they differ. Thus if an act of congress imposes a fine, and a state law fine and imprisonment for the same offence, though the latter is not repugnant, inasmuch as it agrees with the act of the congress, so far as the latter goes, and add another punishment, yet the wills of the two legislating powers in relation to the subject are different, and cannot subsist harmoniously together. The same legislating power may impose cumulative punishments; but not different legislating powers. Therefore, where the state governments have, by the constitution, a concurrent power with the national government, the former cannot legislate on any subject on which congress has acted, although the two laws are not in terms contradictory and repugnant to each other. Where congress prescribed the punishment to be inflicted on a militia man, detached and called forth, but refusing to march, and also provided that courts martial for the trial of such delinquent's, to be composed of militia officers only, should be held and conducted in the manner pointed out by the rules and articles of war, and a state had passed a law enacting the penalties on such delinquents which the act of congress prescribed, and directing lists of the delinquents to be furnished to the comptroller of the United States and marshal, that further proceeding might take place according to the act of congress, and providing for their trial by state courts martial, such state courts martial have jurisdiction. Congress might have vested exclusive jurisdiction in courts martial to be held according to their laws, but not having done so expressly, their jurisdiction is not exclusive.
Although congress have exercised the whole power of calling out the militia, yet they are not national militia, till employed in actual service; and they are not employed in actual service, till they arrive at the place of rendezvous.

Where did you get that those religious , para-military muslim indoctrination camps are militia, training to defend the respective states or the nation? You seem to like to play fast and loose with words. Those camps are training to defend Islam stupido! Thus they are not militia!!! You thought that you got by with that deceit but I was busy with other things and just now got back to your bullshit reply. Here in USA they arent militia if they are training to defend a religion. No definition of militia speaks of training to fight to defend a religion (Islam). You lie and you are caught at it! You tried to make the scum legit by that lie! -Tyr

I got it from gaffer. Re: Arab spring , as an example an upstart revolutionary militia. Perhaps I mischaracterized his response as genuine.

They're already here.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/

But I didnt say they were legit, i said they werent illegal; and perhoas they arent. so while we're at it. Did you know all legitimate domestic militias answer, ultimately, to the CiC? Else they're not a legitimate militia. Odds are, those Muslim groups wouldnt answer to the call of Congress or the prez, so they're bogus, I'll concede that point to you.

But more fair use violation Tyr. That was a nice passage from http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m110.htm

So, you believe these militias you claim the states need to create, when called into actual duty by Congress and being commanded by the President would be...
... one that can stand against the federal government!--Tyr Seems a daft POV to take, but one which you wholly embrace.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I got it from gaffer. Re: Arab spring , as an example an upstart revolutionary militia. Perhaps I mischaracterized his response as genuine.

Gaffer didnt call them legitimate militias, I believe his referenced them as muslim terrorist groups already here training.-Tyr


But I didnt say they were legit, i said they werent illegal; and perhoas they arent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you said they were militia. They are not, now when confronted with it you attempt to further play on words to cover your deceit. You called them militia in an attempt to legitimise them Hoss. Stop thinking everybody is as dumb and dishonorable as you are. I already stated how you often attempt to defend muslims but try to do so without showing how much of a damn appeasor you are. You used that word and tried to paint those murdering scum as militias because a great many Americans support militias because our nation was founded by the unification of state militias into the Revolutionary War army that won our Independence. In short, you lied and now try to weasel out of your lie after being called on it. Pitiful actually but hey I feel your pain, defending murdering scum is a very hard job, tis it not?-Tyr

[logroller]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you said they were militia. They are not, now when confronted with it you attempt to further play on words to cover your deceit.
is this me covering my deceit. By conceding ???


....so they're bogus, I'll concede that point to you.



So what of the militias you call for in the OP, those one's which can stand against the Feds---Are they legitimate militias? Not by the definition you ripped offproffered.

PS, you might want to check the rules regarding posting in all one color other than black.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

is this me covering my deceit. By conceding ???



So what of the militias you call for in the OP, those one's which can stand against the Feds---Are they legitimate militias? Not by the definition you ripped offproffered.

PS, you might want to check the rules regarding posting in all one color other than black.


I stated those militia's should be formed to protect the states rights and the Constitution, to take us back to it because obama subverts it. Under that premise, that of casting off an illegal and tyrannical federal government those militia's are legal and just according to the Constitution! You just want to ignore the foundation for such militia's as well as the right of the states to protect state sovereignty and their citizens against an oppressive and corrupted, treasonous government.

Say, when did you become a mod here? THATS RIGHT, YOU ARENT , SO TAKE YOUR ADVICE ABOUT MY USE OF COLOR AND SHOVE IT GADFLY. I do not use color all the time but can and will use it on occasion. It seems to me that you have an authority complex going along with your highly inflated ego !
BY THE WAY, CONSIDER HIS-- -Tyr

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/skoda-75-mm-mountain-howitzer.html


THE SKODA 75-MM MOUNTAIN HOWITZER*

<!-- P CLASS="tttmain" --><!-- P CLASS="tttmainnoindent" -->
This weapon is the standard pack howitzer of both the Italian Army and the Austrian divisions of the German army, and was developed at the Skoda plant either during or shortly after the First World War. The Austrians call it the 75-mm Howitzer <NOBR>Geb. K 15</NOBR> (Gebirgskanone) - mountain cannon or gun; the Italians refer to it as the 75/13 mountain howitzer. (Italian ordnance follows the practice of designating their guns as indicated, which here means that 75 mm times 13 mm equals the length in calibers).
A brief description follows:
a. General
<TBODY>
Caliber

75/13 (2.97 in)


Weight

1,350 lbs


Length




Overall

126 in


Tube

38.5 in


Muzzle velocity (charge IV)

1,270 f/s (not confirmed U.S. tests)


Traverse

6°


Elevation

50°


Depression

-10°


Rifling

28 lands and grooves RH twist


Tube

Monobloc with heavy jacket


Equilibrators

Spring pusher


Recoil mechanism

Hydro-spring


Ammunition

Hollow charge; HE (semifixed)


Weight HE projectile

12 lbs


Weight HC projectile

11.4 lbs


Range

7,250 yds (not confirmed U.S. tests)

</TBODY>

[logroller]

I stated those militia's should be formed to protect the states rights and the Constitution, to take us back to it because obama subverts it. Under that premise, that of casting off an illegal and tyrannical federal government those militia's are legal and just according to the Constitution! You just want to ignore the foundation for such militia's as well as the right of the states to protect state sovereignty and their citizens against an oppressive and corrupted, treasonous government.

Uh, no. That is not congenial with the Constitution. Your own source confirms Congress can call those militias in defense of the US, and Article II section 2 states the president is CiC of those militias. Sorry dude. It's in the constitution, black and white. Deny it all you want, but that's the fact of the matter. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to do as you wish, even open rebellion and revolution as the founders did, but that would be in contravention to the Constitution of the United States of America, not in defense of it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Uh, no. That is not congenial with the Constitution. Your own source confirms Congress can call those militias in defense of the US, and Article II section 2 states the president is CiC of those militias. Sorry dude. It's in the constitution, black and white. Deny it all you want, but that's the fact of the matter. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to do as you wish, even open rebellion and revolution as the founders did, but that would be in contravention to the Constitution of the United States of America, not in defense of it.

You are insane to say that our Constitution prevents or denies that the citizens have the right and duty to defend against a tyrannical oppressive corrupt federal government when the founders did exactly that against the King to create this nation and did so in creating that very Constitution!! Additionally gave us the 2ND amendment for the express purpose of defending our lives , property and the Consitution, not necessarily the government because they knew that the government could easily be the enemy of the people!!
Now you would have us believe that we have no legal recourse because of the Constitution when its primary purpose was to protect the citizens and the states while limiting Central government.
Government can not call up the militia's when its the enemy dude. I stated that the states should form state militia's to prevent the Federal government from destroying the Republic, which obama is all about. Get a clue, do you have to have a 2 by 4 upside tha head to see tha light?.. --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

There is a LOT of difference between what happened in the 1700s and what is happening today. You would have to be really ignorant not to realize that.

[logroller]

You are insane to say that our Constitution prevents or denies that the citizens have the right and duty to defend against a tyrannical oppressive corrupt federal government when the founders did exactly that against the King to create this nation and did so in creating that very Constitution!! Additionally gave us the 2ND amendment for the express purpose of defending our lives , property and the Consitution, not necessarily the government because they knew that the government could easily be the enemy of the people!!
Now you would have us believe that we have no legal recourse because of the Constitution when its primary purpose was to protect the citizens and the states while limiting Central government.
Government can not call up the militia's when its the enemy dude. I stated that the states should form state militia's to prevent the Federal government from destroying the Republic, which obama is all about. Get a clue, do you have to have a 2 by 4 upside tha head to see tha light?.. --Tyr

When the founders did that against the King, they committed treason against the Crown. That was their right, just as your wishing to oppose what you see as tyranny is your right. But that right is not protected by, nor afforded to you by, the Constitution. Our founders believe that was a right given to us by our creator, and I agree. They further discussed that governments are formed by people to secure those rights. Our founders created the constitution as the basis for our government. in it, they discussed the powers (and limits) of congress, the president, the courts and the states. Militias were, in fact, mentioned in the Constitution. Do you deny that? You even provided a source which quoted the text, and I have provided additional text from the Constitution, written by those same founders. Now you wish to create militias outside federal authority when the constitution clearly states militias can be called up by Congress (ie federal government) in defense of country, and under command of the President (that's federal government too).

Your belief that the People have a right to oppose, even militarily, the federal govt is true, but its not validated by the Constitution.(I've already shown where militias can be called forth by the federal government, repeatedly) Show me where in the Constitution it says "states can form militias to oppose a tyrannical federal government."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When the founders did that against the King, they committed treason against the Crown. That was their right, just as your wishing to oppose what you see as tyranny is your right. But that right is not protected by, nor afforded to you by, the Constitution. Our founders believe that was a right given to us by our creator, and I agree. They further discussed that governments are formed by people to secure those rights. Our founders created the constitution as the basis for our government. in it, they discussed the powers (and limits) of congress, the president, the courts and the states. Militias were, in fact, mentioned in the Constitution. Do you deny that? You even provided a source which quoted the text, and I have provided additional text from the Constitution, written by those same founders. Now you wish to create militias outside federal authority when the constitution clearly states militias can be called up by Congress (ie federal government) in defense of country, and under command of the President (that's federal government too).

Your belief that the People have a right to oppose, even militarily, the federal govt is true, but its not validated by the Constitution.(I've already shown where militias can be called forth by the federal government, repeatedly) Show me where in the Constitution it says "states can form militias to oppose a tyrannical federal government."

Obviously, the founders fully intended for the citizens to have the legal right to protect themselves from government--ANY GOVERNMENT-, as they had just finished a war began for that very reason! When they included the Second amendment it was for this purpose to defend against any enemy foreign or domestic.The very ideal that they wrote the Constitution but omitted in it the legality of casting off a tyranical government is absurd. The concept and creation of the 2nd amendment itself bears witness to the logic and the reality of that..
The spirit and purpose of the Constitution is that of protecting the citizens even over that of protecting the STATE. Thomas Jefferson alludes to this often and spoke of refreshing the TREE OF LIBERTY...-Tyr
(1) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html







Thomas Jefferson Quotes




The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html)

More (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )Thomas Jefferson (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html) Quotes






Read more at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html#skGYBE0yIFvJv1GH.99



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff411888.html)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )Thomas Jefferson (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff411888.html)


Read more at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#MeDzA5Sq7qFD4pFB.99


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Constitution) is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms). It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-1)[2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-2) and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Dictum), the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-3) In McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago), 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/library/militia/2-1.html


2.1 Who and what is the Free Militia?
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vise and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is not virtue." — Barry Goldwater, 1964 Republican nominee for president

"I promise to defend and observe the Constitutional liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights for all American citizens by example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary." — From the oath of office for the Free Militia
2.1.1 Who, what, when, where, why, and how?
Who is the Free Militia?
The Free Militia is composed of private citizens who carry on normal civilian lives. While some members may have former police or military experience, they are presently civilians simply exercising their right to keep and bear arms and form militias.
What is the Free Militia?
The Free Militia is a locally organized body of armed American citizens committed to defending their Constitutional liberties. We call it "free" for two reasons. First, it is free or independent from the control of any local, state, or federal government. Second, our whole purpose is to defend our freedoms. So, the Free Militia acts freely to defend freedom. We also call it a "militia" for two reasons. First, we are a military organization. Our purpose is, if necessary, to defend our liberties by force of arms. Second, we are a militia in the sense that we are composed of private citizens instead of professional soldiers. Hence, the Free Militia is a combat team of private citizens.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also consider this---TYR
http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m107_howitzer.php
M-107 175mm Self-propelled Gun

The M-107 entered service with the U.S. Army in the early 1960s, gradually replacing the M53 155mm Self-Propelled Gun (http://www.debatepolicy.com/id_photos_m53_sp_gun.php). It was developed as the T235 prototype by Pacific Car and Foundry Company (PACCAR, Inc.), standardized as the M107 in 1962. The full nomenclature is Gun, Field Artillery, Self-Propelled: 175-MM, M107 (from TM 9-2300-216-10, Operator's Manual). The M-107 is also sometimes referred to as a howitzer or cannon. The gun itself, mounted on the M107 chassis, is the Cannon, 175mm, M113 fitted to an M158 mount.
The M-107 175mm Self-propelled gun fired a 174-pound projectile almost 33 kilometers. This impressive range made it a valuable weapon for providing an umbrella of protection over large areas. The large spade at the rear is hydraulically operated. When lowered it keeps the vehicle in place as the gun is fired, opposing the massive recoil.

[revelarts]

Concerning Miltia V President V Constitution.

I'd say the constitutional thing for the Militias and the Military to do If/since a president gives unconstitutional orders, is to disobey the unconstitutional orders.
A president cannot claim constitutional authority to do unconstitutional acts.
Its ever soldiers duty to fulfill his oath to the Constitution. not any and all orders of the president.

[aboutime]

Concerning Miltia V President V Constitution.

I'd say the constitutional thing for the Militias and the Military to do If/since a president gives unconstitutional orders, is to disobey the unconstitutional orders.
A president cannot claim constitutional authority to do unconstitutional acts.
Its ever soldiers duty to fulfill his oath to the Constitution. not any and all orders of the president.


Gotta differ with ya revelarts: Read the following. "Orders of the President" do apply.

§ 502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation)) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) and the orders of the officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_(armed_forces)) appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice). So help me God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God)."
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States), the Secretary of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense), any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Gotta differ with ya revelarts: Read the following. "Orders of the President" do apply.

§ 502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation)) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) and the orders of the officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_(armed_forces)) appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice). So help me God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God)."
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States), the Secretary of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense), any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

Sorry my friend but I have to disagree . Look at that oath again, the first thing listed to defend in that oath is the Constitution. Thats because the founders intended the Constitution to take precedent over all others! For they knew that Presidents come and go but the Constitution remains! A soldier's first oath is to the Constitution and the nation, in that order, the President and his orders take third place when they infringe or attempt to subvert the first two.. Any unlawful, Unconsitutional order should be disobeyed even by a soldier. God gave us brains and when a president proves to be subverting the Constitution the founders clearly would not want or set up a system that allows that--they didnt!! For they knew the weakness of man, any man== even a President.
See they list the Constitution first and clarified by stating "enemies, foreign and domestic" that would include a A PRESIDENT TOO. NOW WE CLEARLY HAVE OUR FIRST PRESIDENBT THAT SUBVERTS THE CONSTITUTION AND ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE NATION.
Constitution and Nation first ,even for a soldier.. Thats why the Constitution is listed --FIRST-- IN THE OATH.
The founders were brilliant and careful men , they listed our Constitution first for a reason. It has not the vices of men, of a President. It serves THE PEOPLE , THE CITIZENS , THE NATION ONLY -- NOT --GREED OR LUST FOR POWER!
ANY PRESIDENT NO MATTER WHAT PARTY
THAT ISSUES UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS MUST NOT BE OBEYED, GOD GAVE US BRAINS FOR A REASON.
The government fears that our soldiers will not fire upon our citizens in a revolt. They fear because they know should a revolt occur it will be because they are Unconstitutional and attempting to destroy either the nation, the Constitution or the Rule of Law! Obama attempts now to destroy all three!!

OUR FOUNDERS GAVE NO MAN ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND LICENSE TO DESTROY THAT WHICH INSURES OUR LIBERTIES!! NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT!!!--Tyr

[aboutime]

Sorry my friend but I have to disagree . Look at that oath again, the first thing listed to defend in that oath is the Constitution. Thats because the founders intended the Constitution to take precedent over all others! For they knew that Presidents come and go but the Constitution remains! A soldier's first oath is to the Constitution and the nation, in that order, the President and his orders take third place when they infringe or attempt to subvert the first two.. Any unlawful, Unconsitutional order should be disobeyed even by a soldier. God gave us brains and when a president proves to be subverting the Constitution the founders clearly would not want or set up a system that allows that--they didnt!! For they knew the weakness of man, any man== even a President.
See they list the Constitution first and clarified by stating "enemies, foreign and domestic" that would include a A PRESIDENT TOO. NOW WE CLEARLY HAVE OUR FIRST PRESIDENBT THAT SUBVERTS THE CONSTITUTION AND ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE NATION.
Constitution and Nation first ,even for a soldier.. Thats why the Constitution is listed --FIRST-- IN THE OATH.
The founders were brilliant and careful men , they listed our Constitution first for a reason. It has not the vices of men, of a President. It serves THE PEOPLE , THE CITIZENS , THE NATION ONLY -- NOT --GREED OR LUST FOR POWER!
ANY PRESIDENT NO MATTER WHAT PARTY
THAT ISSUES UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS MUST NOT BE OBEYED, GOD GAVE US BRAINS FOR A REASON.
The government fears that our soldiers will not fire upon our citizens in a revolt. They fear because they know should a revolt occur it will be because they are Unconstitutional and attempting to destroy either the nation, the Constitution or the Rule of Law! Obama attempts now to destroy all three!!

OUR FOUNDERS GAVE NO MAN ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND LICENSE TO DESTROY THAT WHICH INSURES OUR LIBERTIES!! NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT!!!--Tyr




I totally agree with you. But...you seem to have missed this sentence (quoted from above)
I didn't make this up. Just copied it verbatim from it's source. And. I repeated that oath personally...Five times while re-enlisting.
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) and the orders of the officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_(armed_forces)) appointed over me,



Taking the oath, as I did. I took the ENTIRE OATH. Not just the first, or last part. But the Entire Oath.

[revelarts]

I go with Tyr here even though i don't think the oath was written in the 1700's.
His point of the constitution being 1st and the priority. And "against enemies foreign and domestic" does not EXCLUDE the president. And it's a matter of legal president that's was reenforced by the Nuremberg trails that illegal and immoral orders by a head of state LEGALLY can and should be refused by all soldiers.
And Common sense tells us that if your boss tells you to
steal from the office
or lie on a reports to corporate
or overthrow other corporate departments jurisdiction,
that you have a choice of whether to obey the order or not.
No matter if it is your boss or not. He's a crook and if you've got integrity you won't do it.
How much more should a soldiers or Miltia members commitment be to the constitution?
The president IS a dictator if the oath or the constitution is conscrewed to give any president a blank check over all of the armed forces.

This goes back to an issue iv'e harped on many times, Libya and the "150 times" presidents have sent troops/military support into war without congressional approval. It's always unconstitutional.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I go with Tyr here even though i don't think the oath was written in the 1700's.
His point of the constitution being 1st and the priority. And "against enemies foreign and domestic" does not EXCLUDE the president. And it's a matter of legal president that's was reenforced by the Nuremberg trails that illegal and immoral orders by a head of state LEGALLY can and should be refused by all soldiers.
And Common sense tells us that if your boss tells you to
steal from the office
or lie on a reports to corporate
or overthrow other corporate departments jurisdiction,
that you have a choice of whether to obey the order or not.
No matter if it is your boss or not. He's a crook and if you've got integrity you won't do it.
How much more should a soldiers or Miltia members commitment be to the constitution?
The president IS a dictator if the oath or the constitution is conscrewed to give any president a blank check over all of the armed forces.

This goes back to an issue iv'e harped on many times, Libya and the "150 times" presidents have sent troops into war without congressional approval. It's always unconstitutional.

I wholeheartedly agree that presidents are not to be obeyed when they do or force Unconstitutional acts to be carried out! No other president even came close to doing that as OBAMA does now! In fact, its a core part of his agenda. His constant refusal to obey his sworn oath of office is treason. As such he should not be obeyed and he should be impeached! Yet the fooools have voted him in again, proving that ignorance and bribes---vote buying-- trumps the Rule of Law when its the President doing so. At least at this point in time thats true!
Bodes catastrophic for our nation and will have to be addressed if we are to survive as a Constitutionally based Representative Republic! Should it not be addressed and rectified it will lead to a drastic and fundamental change in our government and that change will be at the exspense of our liberties , securities , wealth and overall prosperity now and for generations to come.
Our nation is actually in a crisis mode that is not realised because media propaganda and government public education has failed the citizens!
I note that my friend aboutime served our nation honorably and does realise that the President can be wrong and can be judged accordingly.. --Tyr

[revelarts]

Tyr, it's not just Obama, and the left man.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ejvyDn1TPr8?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5Y32D1kPkJc?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/olMgDk9yCM4?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[aboutime]

I go with Tyr here even though i don't think the oath was written in the 1700's.
His point of the constitution being 1st and the priority. And "against enemies foreign and domestic" does not EXCLUDE the president. And it's a matter of legal president that's was reenforced by the Nuremberg trails that illegal and immoral orders by a head of state LEGALLY can and should be refused by all soldiers.
And Common sense tells us that if your boss tells you to
steal from the office
or lie on a reports to corporate
or overthrow other corporate departments jurisdiction,
that you have a choice of whether to obey the order or not.
No matter if it is your boss or not. He's a crook and if you've got integrity you won't do it.
How much more should a soldiers or Miltia members commitment be to the constitution?
The president IS a dictator if the oath or the constitution is conscrewed to give any president a blank check over all of the armed forces.

This goes back to an issue iv'e harped on many times, Libya and the "150 times" presidents have sent troops/military support into war without congressional approval. It's always unconstitutional.


Tyr. What you must remember about that OATH is. Once in Uniform. You are sworn to Obey the President. It's not a choice. If you disagree with the Orders of the President. The UCMJ kicks in, and your military career, or service can be terminated, or you are punished for disobeying orders. Not something anyone wants to happen. Nor does anyone honestly want a BCD...Bad Conduct Discharge.

[gabosaurus]

I totally disagree. The Constitution was written at a much different time than the present. We are no longer threatened by Indian attacks, foreign invaders or internal subversives protecting the rights of The Crown.

The U.S. populace no longer needs an "armed militia." We already have several -- street gangs, organized crime, white supremacists and terror organizations of all kinds. We don't need armed citizens groups taking to the streets simply because they disagree with election results.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I totally disagree. The Constitution was written at a much different time than the present. We are no longer threatened by Indian attacks, foreign invaders or internal subversives protecting the rights of The Crown.

The U.S. populace no longer needs an "armed militia." We already have several -- street gangs, organized crime, white supremacists and terror organizations of all kinds. We don't need armed citizens groups taking to the streets simply because they disagree with election results.



Sure thing gabby. The world is now just one huge sweet potato pie , topped with marshmellows. With no evil and dangerous threats now as was represented back then. Right gabby?
And state militias are no different than those groups that you named above.:rolleyes:
This is the level of discussion that you are capable of!! Pathetic really but all that "smartness" must give you blinding comfort on a cold dark lonely night..:laugh:--Tyr

[revelarts]

... What you must remember about that OATH is. Once in Uniform. You are sworn to Obey the President. It's not a choice. If you disagree with the Orders of the President. The UCMJ kicks in, and your military career, or service can be terminated, or you are punished for disobeying orders. Not something anyone wants to happen. Nor does anyone honestly want a BCD...Bad Conduct Discharge.

Not something to take lightly, disobeying an order, but seems to me that men and women that sign up to protect the constitution/country with their lives might think about a line in the sand where a BCD is a part of the price you pay for doing the right thing for your country.

[aboutime]

Sure thing gabby. The world is now just one huge sweet potato pie , topped with marshmellows. With no evil and dangerous threats now as was represented back then. Right gabby?
And state militias are no different than those groups that you named above.:rolleyes:
This is the level of discussion that you are capable of!! Pathetic really but all that "smartness" must give you blinding comfort on a cold dark lonely night..:laugh:--Tyr


Gabby. If you feel so confident, and find no reason to depend on fellow citizens who are willing to Defend you, where you live.
Then you should advertise your address, across the Internet. And see whether you'd prefer a neighbor with a Gun coming to your aid, or one of those Gang members...coming to STEAL your stuff, and maybe even Ending your Medical Record.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. What you must remember about that OATH is. Once in Uniform. You are sworn to Obey the President. It's not a choice. If you disagree with the Orders of the President. The UCMJ kicks in, and your military career, or service can be terminated, or you are punished for disobeying orders. Not something anyone wants to happen. Nor does anyone honestly want a BCD...Bad Conduct Discharge.

Should never be cause for a soldier to have to disobey an order but what would the UMCJ say to do about obeying a direct order that was illegal according to its own regulations? I am under the impression that the soldier is instructed by the UMCJ not to carry out that order regardless of the rank of the person giving it. !
Say a Captain orders you to just shoot down in cold blood a family of innocent civilians, what to do?
Myself, I'd turn my gun on the officer and order him to give up his weapon instead. -Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Should states that want to leave the union start their own volunteer militia's?
State funded and equipped with absolutely no federal money involved.. I think the answer is yes.
Each state needs a well funded militia , one that can stand against the federal government!--Tyr

I thought each state had one already????? However I think they do get Fed money and equipment. Why not keep the stuff from the Feds?

[gabosaurus]

Not something to take lightly, disobeying an order, but seems to me that men and women that sign up to protect the constitution/country with their lives might think about a line in the sand where a BCD is a part of the price you pay for doing the right thing for your country.

If I am not mistaken, members of the military always take and obey orders from their superiors. The POTUS is the Commander in Chief.
Several servicemen deserted or refused to ship out when the U.S. invaded Iraq. They felt the war was wrong. They were all discharged and prosecuted.
Doing the right thing for your country is a good thing for civilians. The military follow orders.

[Robert A Whit]

Most people are wrong then. Aiding (and abetting) is an affirmative act. Meaning, doing nothing is not aiding. If someone was lying in the street bleeding and I stood there watching, I certainly haven't given them aid. I think you mean negligence.
Btw, did you notice the guy in the video said the US as well as many state constitutions protect their organizing and training a militia. Thats true as long as its private I gather; but I believe public drilling is prohibited. It is alarming, but thankfully I live in one of the last bastions of conservatism in California. Still issuing concealed carry permits in my county. I forget the statistic about how many guns are in the us, something like 9 guns for every ten people-- I'm sure there's plenty of patriots ready and willing to defend this country if some yahoos get to acting crazy. I don't think we're at that point, but when and if it comes, preparations need to be made... food, water, medical supplies, logistics etc., not guns and ammo, there's plenty of that. But how long do you think America can remain responsive without transportation? What happens when medical facilities are overburdened? The key is organization and there's a lot out there already-- but everybody needs to do their part. It starts with taking the necessary precautions so that, in the event of an emergency, you minimize your own risk. I could show you some statistics, but I think it comes as no surprise that most deaths during a disaster, whether natural or as a result of belligerance, come from lack of food water shelter and medical care.
I'm a vetted volunteer for the hazardous response team in my county, which is an interagency partnership between fema,the state and county-- republicanism at work! So in the unlikely event of broad scale chemical release that overwhelms public servants, I get to take samples and help coordinate neutralization efforts. Others would set up triage, others focus on containment, communication with other agencies etc. My point is that not everyone needs to take up arms to defend this nation, and really very few in the grand scheme of public defense.
Martial law should be the last thing one should prepare for, not the first. We do have police, over half a million of em-- and i know they take public threats very seriously. I see it as my duty to not be a burden to them and assist them If possible. Toting a gun around "defending my country" would more likely be seen as a potential threat, not a help, but rather a hinderance and would distract them and their resources from those persons who really are a threat.

Where are you in CA?

I am ex Army. I am 74. If trouble comes and I can help save this state, I will use my arms.

We are not in the same condition we were in the Army. We may be rusty on tactics. But if we can't help, what could those never trained in combat do? It's us or nobody.

Well, I am sure some hunters would rush to help also.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I thought each state had one already????? However I think they do get Fed money and equipment. Why not keep the stuff from the Feds?

Well , you do have a point but attempting to just keep stuff may be a good way to get fired upon. If states leave in an orderly and legal way , by petioning and then voting to do so without undue provacation would be the path to follow. Building state funded militias over the next few years is my suggestion. States need to keep some of the tax money that the Feds just piss away and steal, maybe just not pay it in. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Should never be cause for a soldier to have to disobey an order but what would the UMCJ say to do about obeying a direct order that was illegal according to its own regulations? I am under the impression that the soldier is instructed by the UMCJ not to carry out that order regardless of the rank of the person giving it. !
Say a Captain orders you to just shoot down in cold blood a family of innocent civilians, what to do?
Myself, I'd turn my gun on the officer and order him to give up his weapon instead. -Tyr


Tyr. Totally agree with you. BUT. We began talking about the President, and obeying the orders of the President.

Of course. That Captain ordering someone to murder a family would be an illegal order to begin with. And no doubt. Might happen, but other than hypothetically....WHEN?

I posted the OATH. I obeyed that oath. No officer, and the President(s) during my time in the navy NEVER ordered me to do anything Illegal, or against my Oath.

I do not like to deal with Hypotheticals at all. WHAT IF'S, are a joke.

[logroller]

Obviously, the founders fully intended for the citizens to have the legal right to protect themselves from government--ANY GOVERNMENT-, as they had just finished a war began for that very reason! When they included the Second amendment it was for this purpose to defend against any enemy foreign or domestic.The very ideal that they wrote the Constitution but omitted in it the legality of casting off a tyranical government is absurd. The concept and creation of the 2nd amendment itself bears witness to the logic and the reality of that..
The spirit and purpose of the Constitution is that of protecting the citizens even over that of protecting the STATE. Thomas Jefferson alludes to this often and spoke of refreshing the TREE OF LIBERTY...-Tyr
(1) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html







Thomas Jefferson Quotes




The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html)

More (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )Thomas Jefferson (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html) Quotes






Read more at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html#skGYBE0yIFvJv1GH.99



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff411888.html)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )Thomas Jefferson (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff411888.html)


Read more at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#MeDzA5Sq7qFD4pFB.99


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Constitution) is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms). It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-1)[2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-2) and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Dictum), the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-3) In McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago), 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/library/militia/2-1.html


2.1 Who and what is the Free Militia?
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vise and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is not virtue." — Barry Goldwater, 1964 Republican nominee for president

"I promise to defend and observe the Constitutional liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights for all American citizens by example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary." — From the oath of office for the Free Militia
2.1.1 Who, what, when, where, why, and how?
Who is the Free Militia?
The Free Militia is composed of private citizens who carry on normal civilian lives. While some members may have former police or military experience, they are presently civilians simply exercising their right to keep and bear arms and form militias.
What is the Free Militia?
The Free Militia is a locally organized body of armed American citizens committed to defending their Constitutional liberties. We call it "free" for two reasons. First, it is free or independent from the control of any local, state, or federal government. Second, our whole purpose is to defend our freedoms. So, the Free Militia acts freely to defend freedom. We also call it a "militia" for two reasons. First, we are a military organization. Our purpose is, if necessary, to defend our liberties by force of arms. Second, we are a militia in the sense that we are composed of private citizens instead of professional soldiers. Hence, the Free Militia is a combat team of private citizens.


That was a great post tyr. Seems we have come to an agreement on the People having a right to form free militias. But a free militia is NOT the State militia you premised in the OP. State militias are specified in the Constitution as answerable to Congress and then the President, while free militias are not-- So I could accept they (free militias, defined as having no allegiance to locality, state, or nation) may fall under the authority of Amendment X as a right reserved to the People, preserved by Amendment II.
Seeing as how you gave me a rundown on canons, Here's this-- it reminded me of you--
Gouverneur Morris, founding father-- "...An overweening vanity leads the fond many, each man against the conviction of his own heart, to believe or affect to believe, that militia can beat veteran troops in the open field and even play of battle. This idle notion, fed by vaunting demagogues, alarmed us for our country, when in the course of that time and chance, which happen to all, she should be at war with a great power."
;)

Where are you in CA?

I am ex Army. I am 74. If trouble comes and I can help save this state, I will use my arms.

We are not in the same condition we were in the Army. We may be rusty on tactics. But if we can't help, what could those never trained in combat do? It's us or nobody.

Well, I am sure some hunters would rush to help also.
I've no doubt your expertise would be indispensable. But consider this:
General George Washington said to Congress "To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows...if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter."

I'm thinking Washington knew a thing or two about winning a war for independence.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That was a great post tyr. Seems we have come to an agreement on the People having a right to form free militias. But a free militia is NOT the State militia you premised in the OP. State militias are specified in the Constitution as answerable to Congress and then the President, while free militias are not-- So I could accept they (free militias, defined as having no allegiance to locality, state, or nation) may fall under the authority of Amendment X as a right reserved to the People, preserved by Amendment II.
Seeing as how you gave me a rundown on canons, Here's this-- it reminded me of you--
Gouverneur Morris, founding father-- "...An overweening vanity leads the fond many, each man against the conviction of his own heart, to believe or affect to believe, that militia can beat veteran troops in the open field and even play of battle. This idle notion, fed by vaunting demagogues, alarmed us for our country, when in the course of that time and chance, which happen to all, she should be at war with a great power."
;)

I've no doubt your expertise would be indispensable. But consider this:
General George Washington said to Congress "To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows...if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter."

I'm thinking Washington knew a thing or two about winning a war for independence.

Washington knew that the new nation needed a standing trained army and the words he spoke were true and set to insure that . However the war was won by militias hobbled together in a rapidly trained army that was damn lucky to even survive long enough to eventually win. And that win came with France's help , along with an arrogant overconfident Brit commander..
As too my suggestion that the states form militias there is no Constitutional disagreement with that. As the purpose of the militias would be the protection of the Constitution and people of each state. If and when each state left the union the militia would be there to defend the state against any enemy foreign and/or domestic.
States rights insured, complete with the Constitution and Bill of Rights insured in the process. No firing upon the Feds but being prepared should the Feds take that grave action upon themselves to instigate.
See how much better it is when you find yourself agreeing with me? ;)--Tyr

[logroller]

Washington knew that the new nation needed a standing trained army and the words he spoke were true and set to insure that . However the war was won by militias hobbled together in a rapidly trained army that was damn lucky to even survive long enough to eventually win. And that win came with France's help , along with an arrogant overconfident Brit commander..
As too my suggestion that the states form militias there is no Constitutional disagreement with that. As the purpose of the militias would be the protection of the Constitution and people of each state. If and when each state left the union the militia would be there to defend the state against any enemy foreign and/or domestic.
States rights insured, complete with the Constitution and Bill of Rights insured in the process. No firing upon the Feds but being prepared should the Feds take that grave action upon themselves to instigate.
See how much better it is when you find yourself agreeing with me? ;)--Tyr
Well I hate risk messing up such a good thing, but A state cannot legally secede on its own accord-- you understand that, right?

[revelarts]

"Legally" the constitutions been broken bent and ignored left and right. I'm not sure why state Secession precedence is sacrosanct over abiding by the constitution.

but concerning the general problem where looking at
militia v fed troops
where in a position that the founders wanted us to avoid.

the problem standing armies under the control of the president to be used against the citizens.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Antifederalist papers X Brutus

"The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.

We are informed, in the faithful pages of history, of such events frequently happening. — Two instances have been mentioned in a former paper. They are so remarkable, that they are worthy of the most careful attention of every lover of freedom. — They are taken from the history of the two most powerful nations that have ever existed in the world; and who are the most renowned, for the freedom they enjoyed, and the excellency of their constitutions: — I mean Rome and Britain...."


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png anti-federalist papers the federal farmer

I see so many men in American fond of a standing army, and especially among those who probably will have a large share in administering the federal system; it is very evident to me, that we shall have a large standing army as soon as the monies to support them can be possibly found. An army is not a very agreeable place of employment for the young gentlemen of many families.

...we all agree, that a large standing army has a strong tendency to depress and inslave the people.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Anti Federalist the Federal Farmer quotes the states Constitutions

•Massachusetts: "And as in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature."
•Pennsylvania & North Carolina: "And as standing armies in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up."
•Maryland & Delaware: "That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept without consent of the legislature."



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Pennsylvania dissenters
...when a numerous standing army shall render opposition vain...
A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes, and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power."

Many are beginning to see that it was a wise concern.




But to some that still sounds over the top.
And want to claim the president should always be obeyed by that standing army.

Most early Americans thought otherwise.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well I hate risk messing up such a good thing, but A state cannot legally secede on its own accord-- you understand that, right?

It can if it does and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not take action against it. As to the Spirit of the Constitution, should a state or states choose to leave in order to better protect the Constitution from being destroyed by a rogue government it would be legal because government elected officials are required to swear allegiance to the Constitution. When they refuse to do that , to honor that oath and instead attack the Constitution defending our Constitution is a citizen's duty, therfore a state's duty..
Our founders gave no immunity to the President if he betrays his oath and his duty. Gave no immunity when attempting to destroy the Constitution by citing the Constitutional requirements when the government becomes the nation's enemy. Obviously should its highest and most powerful guardian turn on it , WE THE PEOPLE , ARE DUTY BOUND TO TAKE ACTION. They didnt make damn sure we had a 2nd amendment for weekend turkey shoots amigo..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"Legally" the constitutions been broken bent and ignored left and right. I'm not sure why state Secession precedence is sacrosanct over abiding by the constitution.

but concerning the general problem where looking at
militia v fed troops
where in a position that the founders wanted us to avoid.

the problem standing armies under the control of the president to be used against the citizens.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Antifederalist papers X Brutus

"The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.

We are informed, in the faithful pages of history, of such events frequently happening. — Two instances have been mentioned in a former paper. They are so remarkable, that they are worthy of the most careful attention of every lover of freedom. — They are taken from the history of the two most powerful nations that have ever existed in the world; and who are the most renowned, for the freedom they enjoyed, and the excellency of their constitutions: — I mean Rome and Britain...."


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png anti-federalist papers the federal farmer
I see so many men in American fond of a standing army, and especially among those who probably will have a large share in administering the federal system; it is very evident to me, that we shall have a large standing army as soon as the monies to support them can be possibly found. An army is not a very agreeable place of employment for the young gentlemen of many families.

...we all agree, that a large standing army has a strong tendency to depress and inslave the people.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Anti Federalist the Federal Farmer quotes the states Constitutions
•Massachusetts: "And as in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature."
•Pennsylvania & North Carolina: "And as standing armies in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up."
•Maryland & Delaware: "That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept without consent of the legislature."



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Pennsylvania dissenters
...when a numerous standing army shall render opposition vain...
A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes, and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power."

Many are beginning to see that it was a wise concern.




But to some that still sounds over the top.
And want to claim the president should always be obeyed by that standing army.

Most early Americans thought otherwise.

The Constitution was to stand the test of time, as men are weak and come and go. They seek power ,even ultimate power at the people's exspense wheras the Constitution has no such vice! Presidents are temporary--the Constitution is permanent. At least that was the intent and spirit written into the document. Obama is just another arrogant ,lying bastard. He serves only himself and his agenda not that of WE THE PEOPLE. --Tyr

[logroller]

It can if it does and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not take action against it. As to the Spirit of the Constitution, should a state or states choose to leave in order to better protect the Constitution from being destroyed by a rogue government it would be legal because government elected officials are required to swear allegiance to the Constitution. When they refuse to do that , to honor that oath and instead attack the Constitution defending our Constitution is a citizen's duty, therfore a state's duty..
Our founders gave no immunity to the President if he betrays his oath and his duty. Gave no immunity when attempting to destroy the Constitution by citing the Constitutional requirements when the government becomes the nation's enemy. Obviously should its highest and most powerful guardian turn on it , WE THE PEOPLE , ARE DUTY BOUND TO TAKE ACTION. They didnt make damn sure we had a 2nd amendment for weekend turkey shoots amigo..-Tyr
If a majority of the States agreed, then yes. Otherwise, the many states would take action, as per Congress and the Constitution. Secession by a minorty has been tried, and was brutally crushed-- fact. The SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION regarding secession was decided by SCOTUS in 1869.A state cannot secede without either the consent or overthrow of the Union-- that's what SCOTUS said-- so per article 3 of the constitution, that's the supreme law of the land. Fact!

as for no immunity for prez-- no doubt! Two means of removing a president were provided by the Constitution, election and impeachment.
A majority of WE THE PEOPLE reelected the president; As did a majority of the many States. Fact.
so that leaves impeachment of the pres. That should be your rally cry, not secession.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If a majority of the States agreed, then yes. Otherwise, the many states would take action, as per Congress and the Constitution. Secession by a minorty has been tried, and was brutally crushed-- fact. The SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION regarding secession was decided by SCOTUS in 1869.A state cannot secede without either the consent or overthrow of the Union-- that's what SCOTUS said-- so per article 3 of the constitution, that's the supreme law of the land. Fact!

as for no immunity for prez-- no doubt! Two means of removing a president were provided by the Constitution, election and impeachment.
A majority of WE THE PEOPLE reelected the president; As did a majority of the many States. Fact.
so that leaves impeachment of the pres. That should be your rally cry, not secession.

And it is, I have called for his impeachment and conviction for the treason that he committs. It will never happen because our government is too corrupt and obama is too protected by Presidential office and the globalists. -Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by logroller http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=598451#post598451)
If a majority of the States agreed, then yes. Otherwise, the many states would take action, as per Congress and the Constitution. Secession by a minorty has been tried, and was brutally crushed-- fact. The SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION regarding secession was decided by SCOTUS in 1869.A state cannot secede without either the consent or overthrow of the Union-- that's what SCOTUS said-- so per article 3 of the constitution, that's the supreme law of the land. Fact!

as for no immunity for prez-- no doubt! Two means of removing a president were provided by the Constitution, election and impeachment.
A majority of WE THE PEOPLE reelected the president; As did a majority of the many States. Fact.
so that leaves impeachment of the pres. That should be your rally cry, not secession.






And it is, I have called for his impeachment and conviction for the treason that he committs. It will never happen because our government is too corrupt and obama is too protected by Presidential office and the globalists. -Tyr

I know that TX case he is talking about. It was over Bonds used to fund the civil war for TX.

I know of several errors by the USSC and in my opinion this is one more example.

Dredd Scott turns out to be an error given the constitution declares men are equal and free.

The difference for the South was that the public voted to stay or leave. Most that voted did leave. Some voted to remain in the union. When the will of the people living in ways they hate, they have the right to be free.

Abe the invader was under no obligation to invade VA and kill hundreds of thousands of people.

[logroller]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png






I know that TX case he is talking about. It was over Bonds used to fund the civil war for TX.

I know of several errors by the USSC and in my opinion this is one more example.

Dredd Scott turns out to be an error given the constitution declares men are equal and free.

The difference for the South was that the public voted to stay or leave. Most that voted did leave. Some voted to remain in the union. When the will of the people living in ways they hate, they have the right to be free.

Abe the invader was under no obligation to invade VA and kill hundreds of thousands of people.


If I was to come up with a list of SCOTUS errors, neither of those would make it IMHO. Dred Scott was consistent with not only the beliefs, but the actual actions of many of the founding statesmen. They clearly didnt intend blacks to be citizens under the constitution (the whole 3/5 thing and all) besides, It was amended and the case never saw precedent. And if you're looking for evidence of 'Abe the invader', or rather "Abe the blockader", I'd refer you to the prize cases (1863), not Texas v white-- I think they got that one (texas v.) right, or rather, more perfect :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Constitution was to stand the test of time, as men are weak and come and go. They seek power ,even ultimate power at the people's exspense wheras the Constitution has no such vice! Presidents are temporary--the Constitution is permanent. At least that was the intent and spirit written into the document. Obama is just another arrogant ,lying bastard. He serves only himself and his agenda not that of WE THE PEOPLE. --Tyr

^^^^^^^^^^ Recent events just further prove this post!!--Tyr

[ConHog]

Should states that want to leave the union start their own volunteer militia's?
State funded and equipped with absolutely no federal money involved.. I think the answer is yes.
Each state needs a well funded militia , one that can stand against the federal government!--Tyr

Oh lawd

I mean lawd that idea isn't even worthy of an actual discussion.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh lawd

I mean lawd that idea isn't even worthy of an actual discussion.




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37807-States-need-to-start-their-own-volunteer-militia-s!!&goto=newpost) http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png States need to start their own volunteer militia's!! (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37807-States-need-to-start-their-own-volunteer-militia-s!!)Started by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2275-Tyr-Ziu-Saxnot), 11-15-2012 11:37 PM <dl class="pagination" id="pagination_threadbit_37807" style="margin-top: 0.25em; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px; position: relative; display: inline-block;"><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37807-States-need-to-start-their-own-volunteer-militia-s!!)2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37807-States-need-to-start-their-own-volunteer-militia-s!!/page2)3 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37807-States-need-to-start-their-own-volunteer-militia-s!!/page3)...8 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37807-States-need-to-start-their-own-volunteer-militia-s!!/page8)</dd></dl>







Replies: 105 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=37807)
Views: 1,279

<dl class="threadlastpost td" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 8.74px; padding-bottom: 8.74px; padding-left: 20.609375px; float: left; clear: right; width: 237.125px; height: 29.52px; font-size: 11px; color: rgb(62, 62, 62);"><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">ConHog (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2163-ConHog)
</dd><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Today, 12:11 AM http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/lastpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37807-States-need-to-start-their-own-volunteer-militia-s!!&p=607958#post607958)




I see and that is why it has 8 pages , 105 replies and 1279 views. Because its so unworthy of consideration. Got any more brilliant pronouncements??</dd></dl>

[fj1200]

I mean lawd that idea isn't even worthy of an actual discussion.


I see and that is why it has 8 pages , 105 replies and 1279 views. Because its so unworthy of consideration. Got any more brilliant pronouncements??[/COLOR]


... one that can stand against the federal government!

Because the premise is faulty. No foreign armies 'can stand' against the Federal government so there is no reason to believe that any individual state can.

[taft2012]

Each state needs a well funded militia , one that can stand against the federal government!--Tyr

Taking a military stand against the federal government would be a lot more complicated today than it was in 1860. In addition to armed individual volunteers you'd need; a permanent standing military organization in place at the time of activation, artillery, aircraft, missiles, missile defenses, and in the case of coastline states - ships to protect ports and shipping lanes.

Ironically, the states most likely to attempt this already have the lowest tax rates in the county. An attempt to arm themselves to last even a week against the military might of the United States would elevate them to the highest taxed states in the nation. To protect themselves from a big-spending, massive, intrusive, and confiscatory federal government, these states governments would have to become big-spending, massive, intrusive and confiscatory entities themselves.

At the end of the American Civil War, the governor of Georgia tried to recall his state's troops to protect Georgia from marauding bands of Union cavalry. It stands today as evidence that as long ago as 1865, the notion of state's rights applied to defense is folly, and the "common defense" is the only way to go.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Because the premise is faulty. No foreign armies 'can stand' against the Federal government so there is no reason to believe that any individual state can.

Who says it has to be a single state? If its bad enough for Texas to leave she will not be alone in doing so.
The premise of this thread was that states now need to dedicate funds to start their own militia's. Having done that the foundation for being able to leave would already be there. Civil war was North vs. South and the resources were on the side of the North. That's not necessarily true now.
Really , no government can stand against us?? How about 4 years from now when obama has us 22 trillion in debt and cuts run massive and rampant across the board on our military?
Thinking ahead apparently isn't your strong suit.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Taking a military stand against the federal government would be a lot more complicated today than it was in 1860. In addition to armed individual volunteers you'd need; a permanent standing military organization in place at the time of activation, artillery, aircraft, missiles, missile defenses, and in the case of coastline states - ships to protect ports and shipping lanes.

Ironically, the states most likely to attempt this already have the lowest tax rates in the county. An attempt to arm themselves to last even a week against the military might of the United States would elevate them to the highest taxed states in the nation. To protect themselves from a big-spending, massive, intrusive, and confiscatory federal government, these states governments would have to become big-spending, massive, intrusive and confiscatory entities themselves.

At the end of the American Civil War, the governor of Georgia tried to recall his state's troops to protect Georgia from marauding bands of Union cavalry. It stands today as evidence that as long ago as 1865, the notion of state's rights applied to defense is folly, and the "common defense" is the only way to go.

Common defense is the way to go but if the federal government has been subverted and forces another revolution other ways may be the only option,at least until the corrupt and illegal government has been vanquished. -Tyr

[taft2012]

Common defense is the way to go but if the federal government has been subverted and forces another revolution other ways may be the only option,at least until the corrupt and illegal government has been vanquished. -Tyr

I understand that.

The question is; How are states going to pay for this ability without becoming precisely what they are trying to separate themselves from in the first place?

Jafar's buddies learned that the "They have guns, and *WE* have guns too! So we will fight them!" attitude doesn't carry too far when airplanes are carpet bombing and missiles are coming in from a continent away.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I understand that.

The question is; How are states going to pay for this ability without becoming precisely what they are trying to separate themselves from in the first place?

Jafar's buddies learned that the "They have guns, and *WE* have guns too! So we will fight them!" attitude doesn't carry too far when airplanes are carpet bombing and missiles are coming in from a continent away.

Patriots do not want a fight. Not because we fear it so much but rather because we know the great costs that will come from it should one be forced upon us. There are not any "overs" once a person or persons are D E A D ..
Obvious to me that obama prepares for one and has no concern at all about the costs(financial and in human life)! His mission from day one has been to divide and conquer. He, the puppet, has played his role well.-Tyr

[ConHog]

Because the premise is faulty. No foreign armies 'can stand' against the Federal government so there is no reason to believe that any individual state can.

and the fact that states already have state "militias"

no need to form new ones, just work to get the stupid law allowing the President to federalize them repealed.

Although personally I have come to believe that IF something did happen, and paranoia aside it won't, that the NG of each state would side with their states and refuse any orders to the contrary.

[fj1200]

Who says it has to be a single state? If its bad enough for Texas to leave she will not be alone in doing so.
The premise of this thread was that states now need to dedicate funds to start their own militia's. Having done that the foundation for being able to leave would already be there. Civil war was North vs. South and the resources were on the side of the North. That's not necessarily true now.


My point remains for multiple states, any number of states do not have the same firepower as the Feds. If states are going to break away it won't be because of military might on the part of the several states.


Really , no government can stand against us?? How about 4 years from now when obama has us 22 trillion in debt and cuts run massive and rampant across the board on our military?
Thinking ahead apparently isn't your strong suit.-Tyr

:rolleyes: You should try thinking with your head rather than your constant paranoia.

[ConHog]

My point remains for multiple states, any number of states do not have the same firepower as the Feds. If states are going to break away it won't be because of military might on the part of the several states.



:rolleyes: You should try thinking with your head rather than your constant paranoia.

Apparently it isn't , because we could cut our military in half and still have the most powerful military in the world , by a factor of 3.

And of course that is totally ignoring the fact that Obama has already had 4 years in power in which he has made nary a cut in military spending.

[revelarts]

IMO How ever it worked or didn't work it would be a horrible nasty mess. We've seen in Iraq, Afghan and Viet Nam that a defensive war can be unending no matter what the stretch of the aggressor. Even with the horror sci-fi weapons available it'd still be bad. Seems to me it'd end up with the rank and files soldiers, police, the middle class and poor citizens taking the biggest hits in blood and housing while the high socialist/nazi minded political tools and breacrats, the judges, the big corporate leaders and bankers sit back in Aruba or in bunkers calling the shots figuring out how to divide the spoils after the fighting done.

The better solutions IMO are State Nullification, Oath keepers type sheriffs, police and military, and private sector strikes, tax revolts. ALL peaceful. and ignoring the Feds . and defying the feds by NOT cooperating in areas we don't agree. Like Abolitionist. The Soviet Union Collapses, no WAR needed.
Throwing our selves against the tools of the machine.
Some State legislators are already doing Nullification selectively disobeying/overriding unconstitutional federal regs.
the police and soldiers in oath keepers and others as well have vowed not to obey unconstitutional orders and don't mind figuring out what that is by read the constitution on there own.
Suppliers, Truckers refusing to supply the feds in minor ways consistently could cripple them.
What if tech guys refused to fix the computers are the IRS. Not to mentioned viruses against the feds. Or the Gas station owners refused to gas up cars of the ATF, FBI Etc or grocers refuse to sell to them. people refusing at various/all point to cooperate.
If folks are willing to think about fighting the feds shouldn't civil disobedience and bureaucratic sabotage be tried 1st.
Many of you guys know far better than me that war is Sh!TY. it's not something to toss around lightly.

[ConHog]

IMO How ever it worked or didn't work it would be a horrible nasty mess. We've seen in Iraq, Afghan and Viet Nam that a defensive war can be unending no matter what the stretch of the aggressor. Even with the horror sci-fi weapons available it'd still be bad. Seems to me it'd end up with the rank and files soldiers, police, the middle class and poor citizens taking the biggest hits in blood and housing while the high socialist/nazi minded political tools and breacrats, the judges, the big corporate leaders and bankers sit back in Aruba or in bunkers calling the shots figuring out how to divide the spoils after the fighting done.

The better solutions IMO are State Nullification, Oath keepers type sheriffs, police and military, and private sector strikes, tax revolts. ALL peaceful. and ignoring the Feds . and defying the feds by NOT cooperating in areas we don't agree. Like Abolitionist. The Soviet Union Collapses, no WAR needed.
Throwing our selves against the tools of the machine.
Some State legislators are already doing Nullification selectively disobeying/overriding unconstitutional federal regs.
the police and soldiers in oath keepers and others as well have vowed not to obey unconstitutional orders and don't mind figuring out what that is by read the constitution on there own.
Suppliers, Truckers refusing to supply the feds in minor ways consistently could cripple them.
What if tech guys refused to fix the computers are the IRS. Not to mentioned viruses against the feds. Or the Gas station owners refused to gas up cars of the ATF, FBI Etc or grocers refuse to sell to them. people refusing at various/all point to cooperate.
If folks are willing to think about fighting the feds shouldn't civil disobedience and bureaucratic sabotage be tried 1st.
Many of you guys know far better than me that war is Sh!TY. it's not something to toss around lightly.

I gotta better idea, how about just start electing better leaders at ALL levels. You know work WITHIN the system. The system isn't broke , some people have just gotten results they don't like. Honestly, tough shit, better luck getting what you want next time, but the reality is when 200 million people are voting , not everyone is going to be happy.

[fj1200]

The better solutions IMO are State Nullification, Oath keepers type sheriffs, police and military, and private sector strikes, tax revolts. ALL peaceful. and ignoring the Feds . and defying the feds by NOT cooperating in areas we don't agree. Like Abolitionist. The Soviet Union Collapses, no WAR needed.

Not enough and would bring some unpleasantness especially as vast swaths of the population in even "secessionist" states would not agree.


I gotta better idea, how about just start electing better leaders at ALL levels. You know work WITHIN the system. The system isn't broke , some people have just gotten results they don't like. Honestly, tough shit, better luck getting what you want next time, but the reality is when 200 million people are voting , not everyone is going to be happy.

Arguably it is. And has been since the Senate and the House no longer have competing viewpoints. Repeal the 17th and require State appointment of Senators.

[ConHog]

Not enough and would bring some unpleasantness especially as vast swaths of the population in even "secessionist" states would not agree.



Arguably it is. And has been since the Senate and the House no longer have competing viewpoints. Repeal the 17th and require State appointment of Senators.


I agree with you about the 17th.

That means the system is in need of minor repairs. it is not broken.

Personally to, I would like to return to a time where the runner up in the Presidential race became VP, that gives you more of a balanced view in the executive IMHO.

[fj1200]

I agree with you about the 17th.

That means the system is in need of minor repairs. it is not broken.

Personally to, I would like to return to a time where the runner up in the Presidential race became VP, that gives you more of a balanced view in the executive IMHO.

Broken can take a lot of time to show the breakage. :poke:

Meh on the VP, there's no sense in that view IMO. I think more importantly we need to require a run-off for every Federal election, even POTUS electors, where the winner doesn't get 50% +1. That would encourage third parties and virtually guarantee a FL won't happen again.

[ConHog]

Broken can take a lot of time to show the breakage. :poke:

Meh on the VP, there's no sense in that view IMO. I think more importantly we need to require a run-off for every Federal election, even POTUS electors, where the winner doesn't get 50% +1. That would encourage third parties and virtually guarantee a FL won't happen again.

Okay, if were going to go that route.

Let's dump the electoral college and go with a straight vote.

If America can directly and instantaneously elect America's Next Idol, I think we can safely assume the technology is there to do the same with the President.

Of course I would also send Congressmen home to their home states and have them do everything via teleconference as well, including voting.

And the reason I say that about the VP is b/c for one thing I believe that we consistently get VPs who shouldn't be in charge of anything b/c its largely a ceremonial position that no one with any brains wants. The VP should be more involved with the administration than they are and have been currently and having the "top guy" from the opposing "team" helping shape the administration certainly couldn't be a bad thing.

[fj1200]

Okay, if were going to go that route.

Let's dump the electoral college and go with a straight vote.

If America can directly and instantaneously elect America's Next Idol, I think we can safely assume the technology is there to do the same with the President.

Of course I would also send Congressmen home to their home states and have them do everything via teleconference as well, including voting.

And the reason I say that about the VP is b/c for one thing I believe that we consistently get VPs who shouldn't be in charge of anything b/c its largely a ceremonial position that no one with any brains wants. The VP should be more involved with the administration than they are and have been currently and having the "top guy" from the opposing "team" helping shape the administration certainly couldn't be a bad thing.

Well we did have to make something out of this thread.

I completely disagree about ditching the EC. The people do not elect the POTUS, the States elect the POTUS and removing it has the same effect of the 17th. Whether the technology exists to do it the question becomes SHOULD we and I state emphatically that we should not.

I agree on the Congress except that the Federal government has grown so large that they should probably take back some of what they have delegated to the Executive and move from oversight :laugh: and towards managing.

There is no Constitutional role for the VEEP other than to remain a sentient being.

My crazy thought has been to eliminate the Unitary Executive and split into a domestic POTUS and a foreign Minister POTUS; an elected Secretary of State if you will who would be the CiC for the military and a few of the cabinets. Staggered elections of course.

[ConHog]

Well we did have to make something out of this thread.

I completely disagree about ditching the EC. The people do not elect the POTUS, the States elect the POTUS and removing it has the same effect of the 17th. Whether the technology exists to do it the question becomes SHOULD we and I state emphatically that we should not.

I agree on the Congress except that the Federal government has grown so large that they should probably take back some of what they have delegated to the Executive and move from oversight :laugh: and towards managing.

There is no Constitutional role for the VEEP other than to remain a sentient being.

My crazy thought has been to eliminate the Unitary Executive and split into a domestic POTUS and a foreign Minister POTUS; an elected Secretary of State if you will who would be the CiC for the military and a few of the cabinets. Staggered elections of course.



you are wrong about the constitutional powers of the veep. He is the President of the US Senate and therefor votes in the case of a tie. Among other duties.

[fj1200]

you are wrong about the constitutional powers of the veep. He is the President of the US Senate and therefor votes in the case of a tie. Among other duties.

That and certify electors. My mistake. :poke:

[ConHog]

That and certify electors. My mistake. :poke:

indeed. and in fact some, and I'm not sure how I feel about this one, argue that the VP isn't even part of the executive branch instead it is part of the legislative branch, and THAT is why originally the second vote getter for POTUS became Veep. Because the Veep is the President of the Senate. In which case makes you wonder why they didn't have two separate elections, but certainly that bolsters my argument that we should return to that method.

[fj1200]

^For a ceremonial role in case of a tie? too much thought wasted on that. It more speaks to the original role of the States appointing Senators IMO.

EDIT:

Of course giving the voters a choice to NOT vote for an idiot like Biden does have its advantages. I rate your idea a :thumbsup:

[ConHog]

^For a ceremonial role in case of a tie? too much thought wasted on that. It more speaks to the original role of the States appointing Senators IMO.

His role isn't ceremonial, he is SUPPOSED to be the President of the Senate, which probably requires him you know being there when the Senate meets rather than be running around nodding his head and saying "fuck yeah" every time the POTUS so much as farts.

We're agreed about the original role of the Senate. They need to be reverted back to speaking for the states rather than for the people.

or more precisely rather than for fat cats.

That's another thing I'd eliminate campaign contributions as we know them. Want to contribute, great put it in the pot and money will be doled out evenly.

[fj1200]

His role isn't ceremonial, he is SUPPOSED to be the President of the Senate, which probably requires him you know being there when the Senate meets rather than be running around nodding his head and saying "fuck yeah" every time the POTUS so much as farts.

We're agreed about the original role of the Senate. They need to be reverted back to speaking for the states rather than for the people.

or more precisely rather than for fat cats.

That's another thing I'd eliminate campaign contributions as we know them. Want to contribute, great put it in the pot and money will be doled out evenly.

"Bucket of warm spit." :gavel:

Apparently fat cats and state corruption were the original impetus for the 17th. Another populist movement that results in more of what they were against in the first place.

And no. Money is speech and shouldn't be stifled. I posted a Scalia bit on the Citizens United decision a while back and he defended it against the specter of unlimited speech of corporate owned media, as example. I'll see if I can find it.

[logroller]

His role isn't ceremonial, he is SUPPOSED to be the President of the Senate, which probably requires him you know being there when the Senate meets rather than be running around nodding his head and saying "fuck yeah" every time the POTUS so much as farts.

We're agreed about the original role of the Senate. They need to be reverted back to speaking for the states rather than for the people.

or more precisely rather than for fat cats.

That's another thing I'd eliminate campaign contributions as we know them. Want to contribute, great put it in the pot and money will be doled out evenly.
Besides the fact we'd need a constitutional amendment to override the citizens united ruling; this has some potential-- but what constitutes evenly? Perhaps it could be based on state returns on primaries? Where the electoral value of each state constitutes a share of the sum. Would still give a hefty advantage to the incumbant, ESP where they run unopposed. I'd have to look at the numbers more closely.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well we did have to make something out of this thread.


This thread is about the need for state militias, not your blatherings or your attempts to not only derail the thread but brag about doing so as well. It was doing fine until you guys decided to ff it up.
State militia's are needed to be independent of the Federal government because it , the FED, is most likely the power that will have to be opposed by the states.
Back on topic or is that too much to ask?
You want to start a thread on how our government should be reorganized go ahead but this isn't it.--Tyr

[fj1200]

This thread is about the need for state militias, not your blatherings or your attempts to not only derail the thread but brag about doing so as well. It was doing fine until you guys decided to ff it up.
State militia's are needed to be independent of the Federal government because it , the FED, is most likely the power that will have to be opposed by the states.
Back on topic or is that too much to ask?
You want to start a thread on how our government should be reorganized go ahead but this isn't it.--Tyr

This from someone who brings BO into practically every thread. :poke:

Besides, IMO we debunked militias challenging the Feds and moved on to actual solutions.

[mundame]

I like this idea. Form state militias, and collect all the citizens' assault rifles for its armory. The original militias DID have central armories: that's what they defended at Concord-Lexington.

Then lock the armory door so teen psychos can't use them in school and mall shootings. In the case of the State needing defense, they can assemble all the 70-year-old men who own these assault rifles and march them out.

This could work! It could stop the rampage shootings! :laugh:

[red states rule]

I like this idea. Form state militias, and collect all the citizens' assault rifles for its armory. The original militias DID have central armories: that's what they defended at Concord-Lexington.

Then lock the armory door so teen psychos can't use them in school and mall shootings. In the case of the State needing defense, they can assemble all the 70-year-old men who own these assault rifles and march them out.

This could work! It could stop the rampage shootings! :laugh:

Now if you would please tell me how you would ensure criminals would turn in their guns for storage? Your idea would be as effective a "Gun Free Zones" are http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/gun-free-cartoon-3.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9553

Matthew Davis sent the email moments after the Supreme Court ruling to numerous new media outlets and limited government activists with the headline: “Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?”

He stressed that he wasn't calling for armed rebellion but added his own personal note to the email, saying, “… here’s my response. And yes, I mean it.”

He said he was writing with an "eye toward asking at what point the Republic is in peril."

“There are times government has to do things to get what it wants and holds a gun to your head," Davis said. "I’m saying at some point, we have to ask the question when do we turn that gun around and say no and resist.

"Was the American Revolution justified?”

Davis said the key word was “justified,” adding that a peaceful resolution toward changing the law is the goal. He said rebellion often is the end result of people who get backed against a wall and wondered when that might occur when it comes to the Obamacare ruling.

"If government can mandate that I pay for something I don't want, then what is beyond its power?" he wrote. "If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, than has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified? God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired."

Davis said he wasn't calling for violence, rather he was pointing out that historically that is what has occurred at times in America. He compared armed rebellion to a situation where the government cannot get your money by way of liens or seizure of bank accounts is coming to arrest you for not paying an unconstitutional tax.

“You can’t have people walking with lattes and signs and think the object of your opposition is going to take you seriously,” Davis said. “Armed rebellion is the end point of that physical confrontation.”

Here’s his email:

Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?

Implicit in Benjamin Franklin's fabled response at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention was a dire warning: That the Republic would one day devolve into tyranny unless we the people prevented it.

In 2008, we the people elected Barack Obama as president, and the 100-year progressive trek to tyranny begun in 1912 with Woodrow Wilson's election was complete. It cannot be said too many times — for the purposes of emphasis and clarity — that the Constitution was possible ONLY AFTER the American Revolution; and that the war itself would not have been possible without the collective agreement, as so eloquently articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that the course of human events will sometimes justify one group of people to sever themselves from their oppressors.

In other words, America itself was possible only after its people summoned the will to risk their lives and their futures — as well as those of their children — for a freedom they did not enjoy but knew was their gift from God. Along with their desire to be free came their willingness to engaged in armed rebellion for their freedom.

If government can mandate that I pay for something I don't want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified?

God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired.


Continued.
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17151

[red states rule]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9iR3Yx4xTHY/TpMdduqoEMI/AAAAAAAABzw/3rwLdviXooU/s1600/gunfreezone.jpg

[cadet]

https://unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9553

Matthew Davis sent the email moments after the Supreme Court ruling to numerous new media outlets and limited government activists with the headline: “Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?”

He stressed that he wasn't calling for armed rebellion but added his own personal note to the email, saying, “… here’s my response. And yes, I mean it.”

He said he was writing with an "eye toward asking at what point the Republic is in peril."

“There are times government has to do things to get what it wants and holds a gun to your head," Davis said. "I’m saying at some point, we have to ask the question when do we turn that gun around and say no and resist.

"Was the American Revolution justified?”

Davis said the key word was “justified,” adding that a peaceful resolution toward changing the law is the goal. He said rebellion often is the end result of people who get backed against a wall and wondered when that might occur when it comes to the Obamacare ruling.

"If government can mandate that I pay for something I don't want, then what is beyond its power?" he wrote. "If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, than has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified? God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired."

Davis said he wasn't calling for violence, rather he was pointing out that historically that is what has occurred at times in America. He compared armed rebellion to a situation where the government cannot get your money by way of liens or seizure of bank accounts is coming to arrest you for not paying an unconstitutional tax.

“You can’t have people walking with lattes and signs and think the object of your opposition is going to take you seriously,” Davis said. “Armed rebellion is the end point of that physical confrontation.”

Here’s his email:

Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?

Implicit in Benjamin Franklin's fabled response at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention was a dire warning: That the Republic would one day devolve into tyranny unless we the people prevented it.

In 2008, we the people elected Barack Obama as president, and the 100-year progressive trek to tyranny begun in 1912 with Woodrow Wilson's election was complete. It cannot be said too many times — for the purposes of emphasis and clarity — that the Constitution was possible ONLY AFTER the American Revolution; and that the war itself would not have been possible without the collective agreement, as so eloquently articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that the course of human events will sometimes justify one group of people to sever themselves from their oppressors.

In other words, America itself was possible only after its people summoned the will to risk their lives and their futures — as well as those of their children — for a freedom they did not enjoy but knew was their gift from God. Along with their desire to be free came their willingness to engaged in armed rebellion for their freedom.

If government can mandate that I pay for something I don't want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified?

God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired.


Continued.
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17151

This guy, I like this guy. Very peaceful threat.

[red states rule]

http://cdn.twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/best-reason-to-be-anti-gun.jpg

[fj1200]

Matthew Davis sent the email moments after the Supreme Court ruling to numerous new media outlets and limited government activists with the headline: “Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?”

Against whom shall we take up arms?

[tailfins]

Against whom shall we take up arms?

How about recapturing Fort Sumter?

[ConHog]

Against whom shall we take up arms?


anyone who they can blame for their woes.

Crops died out? Libs fault
Lost your job? Libs fault
Creek ran dry? Libs fault

answer ? Rebel against the man.

:laugh2:

[logroller]

How about recapturing Fort Sumter?
...from the park service? Down with the docents!!!

[ConHog]

...from the park service? Down with the docents!!!

would be an easy victory. Just distract them with a picnic basket snatching bear and the park is yours




The South will rise again!!!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Against whom shall we take up arms?

Those destroying the authority of the Constitution. Those destroying our freedoms. Those that would enslave us and deny us even our basic rights.
Thanks for posting on topic.
State militia's will be required to protect state rights and individual citizen rights. Its coming down to that because the huge Federal government has now decided that Executive Orders are preferred over and better than Congressional actions (used to be called laws).. Now we are being acclimated to obama decrees, otherwise known as Executive Orders. Dictatorial decrees by a fancy name are still dictatorial. -Tyr

[ConHog]

Those destroying the authority of the Constitution. Those destroying our freedoms. Those that would enslave us and deny us even our basic rights.
Thanks for posting on topic.
State militia's will be required to protect state rights and individual citizen rights. Its coming down to that because the huge Federal government has now decided that Executive Orders are preferred over and better than Congressional actions (used to be called laws).. Now we are being acclimated to obama decrees, otherwise known as Executive Orders. Dictatorial decrees by a fancy name are still dictatorial. -Tyr

no one is destroying anything. You and others are having a hissy fit that you lost an election. Nothing more.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

no one is destroying anything. You and others are having a hissy fit that you lost an election. Nothing more.

Keep on revealing your support for obama. And this thread is about State militia's do we need to have them solely under state authority. Its not about the election or election results. Its about American citizens seizing the chance to try to save their freedoms and basic rights. -Tyr

[ConHog]

Keep on revealing your support for obama. And this thread is about State militia's do we need to have them solely under state authority. Its not about the election or election results. Its about American citizens seizing the chance to try to save their freedoms and basic rights. -Tyr

Please show where I have supported Obama or admit you lied

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Please show where I have supported Obama or admit you lied

right here, go ahead and deny..





ConHog


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=609071#post609071)
Those destroying the authority of the Constitution. Those destroying our freedoms. Those that would enslave us and deny us even our basic rights.
Thanks for posting on topic.
State militia's will be required to protect state rights and individual citizen rights. Its coming down to that because the huge Federal government has now decided that Executive Orders are preferred over and better than Congressional actions (used to be called laws).. Now we are being acclimated to obama decrees, otherwise known as Executive Orders. Dictatorial decrees by a fancy name are still dictatorial. -Tyr



no one is destroying anything. You and others are having a hissy fit that you lost an election. Nothing more.


If saying obama isn't destroying anything is not defending him then birds don't have feathers!!!!

And thats just the one I grabbed from this thread.. --Tyr

[ConHog]

right here, go ahead and deny..





If saying obama isn't destroying anything is not defending him then birds don't have feathers!!!!

And thats just the one I grabbed from this thread.. --Tyr

Failing to agree with you that someone is destroying the nation is NOT defending that person Tyr.

Proof denied.

[fj1200]

Those destroying the authority of the Constitution. Those destroying our freedoms. Those that would enslave us and deny us even our basic rights.
Thanks for posting on topic.
State militia's will be required to protect state rights and individual citizen rights. Its coming down to that because the huge Federal government has now decided that Executive Orders are preferred over and better than Congressional actions (used to be called laws).. Now we are being acclimated to obama decrees, otherwise known as Executive Orders. Dictatorial decrees by a fancy name are still dictatorial. -Tyr

Could you point them out to me?

BTW, EOs have been issued for a couple of hundred years now... but that's not new information now is it.

[ConHog]

Could you point them out to me?

BTW, EOs have been issued for a couple of hundred years now... but that's not new information now is it.

Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.

[Kathianne]

Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.

I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

[Robert A Whit]

Should states that want to leave the union start their own volunteer militia's?
State funded and equipped with absolutely no federal money involved.. I think the answer is yes.
Each state needs a well funded militia , one that can stand against the federal government!--Tyr

Sure.

However this state has Gov. Jerry Brown as gov and he would veto that in a nano second.

Nor would he equip us. We would have to pay for it all ourselves in this case. And we would never be able to buy tanks or heavy weapons.

[ConHog]

I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

I misstyped, of course I meant the Southern States.

And it certainly was an Executive Order, issued BY Lincoln ordering all military personal to free slaves as they came across them rather than return them to their masters.

[fj1200]

Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.

No small stretch there. :laugh:


I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

One could argue...


The Emancipation Proclamation is an order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Proclamation) issued to all segments of the Executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)) (including the Army and Navy) of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) by President Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). It was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Based on the above it's unlikely he had the authority to free the slaves in states that were not in rebellion.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ConHog http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=609174#post609174)
Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.






I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

She hates me saying her name but her point is valid.

An EO applies only to federal employees as controlled by the one branch, the executive.

Many government workers do not work for Obama so they are exempt I believe.

For instance. Say he issues an executive order to your congressmans employees. I can't imagine such an order would stand the test of what prsidents can do.

[fj1200]

She hates me saying her name but her point is valid.

An EO applies only to federal employees as controlled by the one branch, the executive.

Many government workers do not work for Obama so they are exempt I believe.

For instance. Say he issues an executive order to your congressmans employees. I can't imagine such an order would stand the test of what prsidents can do.


Incorrect, it applies to Federal employees enforcement of Federal law or the POTUS direction in this case.

[ConHog]

No small stretch there. :laugh:



One could argue...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Based on the above it's unlikely he had the authority to free the slaves in states that were not in rebellion.

I guess it would have had to have been labeled the Emancipation Executive Order to qualify LOL

[ConHog]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ConHog http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=609174#post609174)
Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.







She hates me saying her name but her point is valid.

An EO applies only to federal employees as controlled by the one branch, the executive.

Many government workers do not work for Obama so they are exempt I believe.

For instance. Say he issues an executive order to your congressmans employees. I can't imagine such an order would stand the test of what prsidents can do.



you are correct sir, and under who's authority does the military lie? Oops that's right, the executive branch.

want another example of an executive order applying to the military??

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/burghardt4.1.1.html

even half in the tank..................... eh never mind.

[fj1200]

I guess it would have had to have been labeled the Emancipation Executive Order to qualify LOL

No way, doesn't rhyme.

[ConHog]

No way, doesn't rhyme.

Good point, but what means free the black man , but rhymes with order?

[fj1200]

Good point, but what means free the black man , but rhymes with order?

:thinking5:

[ConHog]

:thinking5:

Bout as close as I can come is

Free the Nigger Order

that would have been tacky.

[fj1200]

That's a bad ConHog. Bad.

[ConHog]

That's a bad ConHog. Bad.

if you consider the times, it certainly wouldn't be surprising to have found the word nigger in a government document.

[logroller]

Keep on revealing your support for obama. And this thread is about State militia's do we need to have them solely under state authority. Its not about the election or election results. Its about American citizens seizing the chance to try to save their freedoms and basic rights. -Tyr
you're introducing seperate and conflicting arguments. American citizens =\= the states. The people, of course, have a right to resist government intrusion and can form militias in mutual defense; but the constitution precludes states forming militias free of federal authority. You can call for it, but you'd be promoting an activity in conflict with constitution.

[ConHog]

you're introducing seperate and conflicting arguments. American citizens =\= the states. The people, of course, have a right to resist government intrusion and can form militias in mutual defense; but the constitution precludes states forming militias free of federal authority. You can call for it, but you'd be promoting an activity in conflict with constitution.

that's fine as long as it's something HE wants.

Sup Log

[cadet]

you're introducing seperate and conflicting arguments. American citizens =\= the states. The people, of course, have a right to resist government intrusion and can form militias in mutual defense; but the constitution precludes states forming militias free of federal authority. You can call for it, but you'd be promoting an activity in conflict with constitution.

Obama is ignoring the constitution. We should follow his example and do the same... And by doing so, bring back the constitution.

[ConHog]

Obama is ignoring the constitution. We should follow his example and do the same... And by doing so, bring back the constitution.

What the hell kind of logic is that?

But okay, get a state to draw up this militia and then if it survives constitutional challenge go for it.

See that's the part you guys always forget you scream "unconstitutional" regardless of what the SCOTUS has said completely ignoring the fact that the Court has taken the right to decide such matters.

Well , unless SCOTUS rules in your favor , then all of the sudden you remember that that is how things work.

[Kathianne]

No small stretch there. :laugh:



One could argue...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Based on the above it's unlikely he had the authority to free the slaves in states that were not in rebellion.

Nor did he attempt to do so. So he 'freed' those he had no control over. Still not an EO.

[ConHog]

Nor did he attempt to do so. So he 'freed' those he had no control over. Still not an EO.

so what kind of order was it?

[cadet]

This is gonna be a little off topic, but why do we have to have State militias?

why not... for the people militia's...

From where i'm sitting, i could probably make an army. Get in touch with Anynomous... talk to my Reenactment friends (Basically confederates), they'd be willing to do anything, and have the firepower to back it up.
I go through the right channels and could have a good sized force. Small, but what kind of American soldier would fire at a civilian made giant army? They'd basically be firing at the very people they're to protect. And say they come in peacefully enough demanding change...

So... Does it HAVE to be controlled by the state?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/17/executive-orders-is-the-constitution-being-shackled/

The efforts of Olson, Paul and Metcalf over 12 years ago pretty much fell on deaf ears, since the goals have not come to fruition amongst the congressional body.
With this in mind, we must not only look at what foundation has been laid, but what is also progressing. For if we do not, our future has the propensity to turn out bleak, to say the least.
Here are some executive orders one should be troubled by:

Executive Order #10995 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-10995.htm): ”SEC. 6. In carrying out functions under this order, the Director of Telecommunications Management shall consider the following objectives:
(a) Full and efficient employment of telecommunications resources in carrying out national policies;
(b) Development of telecommunications plans, policies, and programs under which full advantage of technological development will accrue to the Nation and the users of telecommunications; and which will satisfactorily serve the national security; sustain and contribute to the full development of world trade and commerce; strengthen the position and serve the best interests of the United States in negotiations with foreign nations; and permit maximum use of resources through better frequency management;
(c) Utilization of the radio spectrum by the Federal Government in a manner which permits and encourages the most beneficial use thereof in the public interest;
(d) Implementation of the national policy of development and effective use of space satellites for international telecommunications services.”
Essentially, this order authorizes the seizure of all telecommunications equipment in the United States.

Executive Order #10997 (http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/10997.htm): “The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering (1) electric power; (2) petroleum and gas; (3) solid fuels; and (4) minerals.”
Essentially, this order allows for the government to seize all energy resources including fuels and sources of fuel, minerals and even power companies.

Executive Order #10998 (http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/10998.htm): ”The Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering: Food resources, farm equipment, fertilizer, and food resource facilities, as defined below; rural fire control; defense against biological warfare, chemical warfare, and radiological fallout pertaining to agricultural activities; and rural defense information and education. These plans and programs shall be designed to develop a state of readiness in these areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States…”
Essentially, this order gives the government the ability to seize all food supplies along with food resources including active farms and farm land.

Executive Order #10999 (http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/10999.htm): ”Development and coordination of over-all policies, plans, and procedures for the provision of a centralized control of all modes of transportation in an emergency for the movement of passenger and freight traffic of all types, and the determination of the proper apportionment and allocation of the total civil transportation capacity, or any portion thereof, to meet over-all essential civil and military needs.”
Essentially, this order gives the government authorization to seize every means of transportation including the privately owned vehicles of citizens along with complete control of highways, roads, seaports and so on.

Executive Order #11000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/11000.htm): ”The Secretary of Labor (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering civilian manpower mobilization, more effective utilization of limited manpower resources including specialized personnel, wage and salary stabilization, worker incentives and protection, manpower resources and requirements, skill development and training, research, labor-management relations, and critical occupations. These plans and programs shall be designed to develop a state of readiness in these areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States…”
This order basically allows the government to conscript Americans to carry out work in a supposed time of national emergency under the command of federal authorities. It even gives them the power to move individuals and “stabilize” salaries by setting them themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting link, very informative and clearly shows the dangers of Executive Orders. Especially those already put into play during obama's first term.
Previous to the listing of those Executive Orders was a very good explanation of how limited E.O'S WERE FIRST INTENDED TO BE AND HOW OBAMA HAS EXPANDED THEM AND THUS GRABBED SO MUCH POWER!-Tyr

[ConHog]

http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/17/executive-orders-is-the-constitution-being-shackled/

The efforts of Olson, Paul and Metcalf over 12 years ago pretty much fell on deaf ears, since the goals have not come to fruition amongst the congressional body.
With this in mind, we must not only look at what foundation has been laid, but what is also progressing. For if we do not, our future has the propensity to turn out bleak, to say the least.
Here are some executive orders one should be troubled by:
Executive Order #10995 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-10995.htm): ”SEC. 6. In carrying out functions under this order, the Director of Telecommunications Management shall consider the following objectives:
(a) Full and efficient employment of telecommunications resources in carrying out national policies;
(b) Development of telecommunications plans, policies, and programs under which full advantage of technological development will accrue to the Nation and the users of telecommunications; and which will satisfactorily serve the national security; sustain and contribute to the full development of world trade and commerce; strengthen the position and serve the best interests of the United States in negotiations with foreign nations; and permit maximum use of resources through better frequency management;
(c) Utilization of the radio spectrum by the Federal Government in a manner which permits and encourages the most beneficial use thereof in the public interest;
(d) Implementation of the national policy of development and effective use of space satellites for international telecommunications services.”

Essentially, this order authorizes the seizure of all telecommunications equipment in the United States.
Executive Order #10997 (http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/10997.htm): “The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering (1) electric power; (2) petroleum and gas; (3) solid fuels; and (4) minerals.”

Essentially, this order allows for the government to seize all energy resources including fuels and sources of fuel, minerals and even power companies.
Executive Order #10998 (http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/10998.htm): ”The Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering: Food resources, farm equipment, fertilizer, and food resource facilities, as defined below; rural fire control; defense against biological warfare, chemical warfare, and radiological fallout pertaining to agricultural activities; and rural defense information and education. These plans and programs shall be designed to develop a state of readiness in these areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States…”

Essentially, this order gives the government the ability to seize all food supplies along with food resources including active farms and farm land.
Executive Order #10999 (http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/10999.htm): ”Development and coordination of over-all policies, plans, and procedures for the provision of a centralized control of all modes of transportation in an emergency for the movement of passenger and freight traffic of all types, and the determination of the proper apportionment and allocation of the total civil transportation capacity, or any portion thereof, to meet over-all essential civil and military needs.”

Essentially, this order gives the government authorization to seize every means of transportation including the privately owned vehicles of citizens along with complete control of highways, roads, seaports and so on.
Executive Order #11000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/11000.htm): ”The Secretary of Labor (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering civilian manpower mobilization, more effective utilization of limited manpower resources including specialized personnel, wage and salary stabilization, worker incentives and protection, manpower resources and requirements, skill development and training, research, labor-management relations, and critical occupations. These plans and programs shall be designed to develop a state of readiness in these areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States…”

This order basically allows the government to conscript Americans to carry out work in a supposed time of national emergency under the command of federal authorities. It even gives them the power to move individuals and “stabilize” salaries by setting them themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting link, very informative and clearly shows the dangers of Executive Orders. Especially those already put into play during obama's first term.
Previous to the listing of those Executive Orders was a very good explanation of how limited E.O'S WERE FIRST INTENDED TO BE AND HOW OBAMA HAS EXPANDED THEM AND THUS GRABBED SO MUCH POWER!-Tyr

your efforts would be better served in trying to get the national guard back under state jurisdiction where they IMHO belong.

Of course that will be tough when we're in the middle of a war, but your odds are better than forming some other militia,which is both unneeded and unconstitutional.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

your efforts would be better served in trying to get the national guard back under state jurisdiction where they IMHO belong.

Of course that will be tough when we're in the middle of a war, but your odds are better than forming some other militia,which is both unneeded and unconstitutional.

No easy way to pull the national guard from its entanglement with the Feds.
Better to start smaller with a totally new organisation and I disagree its not Unconstitutional for states to have militia's.. -Tyr

Why are these people not in jail then?? Could list more but you get the point..

http://kansasstatemilitia.webs.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13983-federalization-of-state-militias-another-attack-on-second-amendment

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13983-federalization-of-state-militias-another-attack-on-second-amendment
In Federalist, No. 46 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm), James Madison wrote that should the unthinkable (to him) happen and the federal government overrun the high fences placed by the states around its constitutional powers, every foxhole in the field of the battle over the exercise of sovereignty would be filled with members of the state militias.
George Washington, perhaps better than anyone, understood that a well-trained but otherwise ad hoc army composed of state militias could be powerful enough to defeat the invading forces of a mighty empire. The general recognized the urgent need for a disciplined, organized, and independent state militia. As the continental commander-in-chief, Washington knew very well that training an army of citizen soldiers — many of whom used their muskets for little more than hunting — was crucial to restoring the freedom of America. In fact, it was the need for a more well-regulated force that compelled Washington to hire Friedrich von Steuben to drill the soldiers of the Continental Army.

[Robert A Whit]

While we beat the proclomation around, who agrees that it was not constitutional?

See, the constitution clearly made slavery legal.

[ConHog]

No easy way to pull the national guard from its entanglement with the Feds.
Better to start smaller with a totally new organisation and I disagree its not Unconstitutional for states to have militia's.. -Tyr

Not that hard, and besides I think if things happened the way you for some reason believe they will that you would find that state national guards would ignore federal orders anyway. No way the Texas National Guard is firing on Texans. Just for example.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not that hard, and besides I think if things happened the way you for some reason believe they will that you would find that state national guards would ignore federal orders anyway. No way the Texas National Guard is firing on Texans. Just for example.

I've already touted that line and was rebuked as being crazy for doing so..
I know elsewhere but if memory serves I was here as well. -Tyr

[ConHog]

I've already touted that line and was rebuked as being crazy for doing so..
I know elsewhere but if memory serves I was here as well. -Tyr

They won't do so. They would reject the order as illegal and refuse.


The National Guard IS exempt from Posse Commitataus , but that changes the moment they become federalized. So once again, IF Obama took control of the Texas National Guard and ordered them into a police action in the US that order would be ILLEGAL.

On the other hand Texas can activate their own national guard and use them in a police action. Just an odd quirk of that law.

[logroller]

Obama is ignoring the constitution. We should follow his example and do the same... And by doing so, bring back the constitution.
By ignoring the constitution, we'll bring it back...:facepalm99:

[ConHog]

By ignoring the constitution, we'll bring it back...:facepalm99:

You mean to tell me you've never broke a law in protest of that law not being strictly enforced? :laugh2:

[logroller]

They won't do so. They would reject the order as illegal and refuse.


The National Guard IS exempt from Posse Commitataus , but that changes the moment they become federalized. So once again, IF Obama took control of the Texas National Guard and ordered them into a police action in the US that order would be ILLEGAL.

On the other hand Texas can activate their own national guard and use them in a police action. Just an odd quirk of that law.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe congress can sanction such actions, just not be pres alone.

[logroller]

You mean to tell me you've never broke a law in protest of that law not being strictly enforced? :laugh2:
Ill try that if i ever get another speeding ticket.

[ConHog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe congress can sanction such actions, just not be pres alone.

Correct, the law allows for their use IF the President requests it and Congress approves. The ONLY federal branch of the military that exempt from this is the Coast Guard.

It's an odd quirk of why even though the task force I worked on had federal agents , we were a state operated task force, otherwise the national guard could not have participated. One of those rare times when federal agents are actually under state jurisdiction.

[logroller]

Had a fed buddy of mine stop by today and he's currently working a Texas border town. He said the corruption is so rampant that he literally feels like he's working a foreign land. The populus, judges, cops... the whole nine. Gotta wonder why martial law isn't declared there.

[ConHog]

Had a fed buddy of mine stop by today and he's currently working a Texas border town. He said the corruption is so rampant that he literally feels like he's working a foreign land. The populus, judges, cops... the whole nine. Gotta wonder why martial law isn't declared there.

I was on the border for about 4 months in 06. it's lawless. Just ridiculous. THere is a federal park in AZ that actually is closed and the sign actually says due to illegal aliens and crime activity the us bureau of parks and recreation is not allowing US citizens to use the park (that info may be a little outdated now)

now why in the fuck is the national guard not in there taking care of that shit?

[logroller]

I was on the border for about 4 months in 06. it's lawless. Just ridiculous. THere is a federal park in AZ that actually is closed and the sign actually says due to illegal aliens and crime activity the us bureau of parks and recreation is not allowing US citizens to use the park (that info may be a little outdated now)

now why in the fuck is the national guard not in there taking care of that shit?
Maybe because they're not using military style weapons to kill kids. Then it'll be top priority nationwide.

[ConHog]

Maybe because they're not using military style weapons to kill kids. Then it'll be top priority nationwide.

Maybe we should start calling them rampage coyotes and ban them.

[logroller]

Maybe we should start calling them rampage coyotes and ban them.acme corp will assuredly be mounting a defense campaign.

[ConHog]

acme corp will assuredly be mounting a defense campaign.

you know what I never could ever figure out about old Wile E? If that sumbitch could afford all that Acme shit, why didn't he just take his happy ass on down to the local restaurant and order off the menu?

[logroller]

you know what I never could ever figure out about old Wile E? If that sumbitch could afford all that Acme shit, why didn't he just take his happy ass on down to the local restaurant and order off the menu?
Principles?

[ConHog]

Principles?

Don't be stupid, he was a liberal. Obviously therefor he had no principles.

[logroller]

Don't be stupid, he was a liberal. Obviously therefor he had no principles.
Wile e coyote a liberal? I don't think acme takes EBT cards...check and mate.:laugh:

[fj1200]

Interesting link, very informative and clearly shows the dangers of Executive Orders. Especially those already put into play during obama's first term.
Previous to the listing of those Executive Orders was a very good explanation of how limited E.O'S WERE FIRST INTENDED TO BE AND HOW OBAMA HAS EXPANDED THEM AND THUS GRABBED SO MUCH POWER!-Tyr

Why are you claiming how BO has "expanded and grabbed" by showing examples from 50 years ago? I'll ignore the claim of EOs first intention when some claim here that they are unconstitutional from the get go.

[red states rule]

I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

Once again the teacher takes the uninformed student to school. Nicely done Kat

[red states rule]

if you consider the times, it certainly wouldn't be surprising to have found the word nigger in a government document.

and it is not surprising to see it in your vocabulary. I for one am not surprised to find out you are a racist

What is next - disgusting Jewish posts?

[fj1200]

Once again the teacher takes the uninformed student to school. Nicely done Kat

Did you happen to miss where it was an Order by the Executive instructing the various Federal branches?

[ConHog]

Did you happen to miss where it was an Order by the Executive instructing the various Federal branches?

well, that's different.

Somehow

[logroller]

I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.
This from sept 1862; despite the nomenclature as a proclamation, it was in fact an order and made mention of executive authority, a

...That on the 1st day of January, A. D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the military and naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and enforce within their respective spheres of service the act and sections above recited.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69782
Additionally, section 9 and 10 specified it to apply to all slaves whose owners were engaged in act of war, treason, aiding and abetting the enemy etc.; which could include any slave regardless of state. Although the militaristic scope permeated the order, in any area among the bordering slave states that could (and likely did) have their slaves escape, there was an assumption of freedom until such time the lawful owner could demonstrate their loyalty to the union. Even then, the order said they'd be compensated for their loss. This provision for compensation, I suspect, was to promote and maintain slave participation against the confederacy-- sort of a post hoc eminent domain.

[ConHog]

This from sept 1862; despite the nomenclature as a proclamation, it was in fact an order and made mention of executive authority, a

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69782
Additionally, section 9 and 10 specified it to apply to all slaves whose owners were engaged in act of war, treason, aiding and abetting the enemy etc.; which could include any slave regardless of state. Although the militaristic scope permeated the order, in any area among the bordering slave states that could (and likely did) have their slaves escape, there was an assumption of freedom until such time the lawful owner could demonstrate their loyalty to the union. Even then, the order said they'd be compensated for their loss. This provision for compensation, I suspect, was to promote and maintain slave participation against the confederacy-- sort of a post hoc eminent domain.

but it was not titled Executive Order 123

so it doesn't count.

:lol:

[Kathianne]

This from sept 1862; despite the nomenclature as a proclamation, it was in fact an order and made mention of executive authority, a

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69782
Additionally, section 9 and 10 specified it to apply to all slaves whose owners were engaged in act of war, treason, aiding and abetting the enemy etc.; which could include any slave regardless of state. Although the militaristic scope permeated the order, in any area among the bordering slave states that could (and likely did) have their slaves escape, there was an assumption of freedom until such time the lawful owner could demonstrate their loyalty to the union. Even then, the order said they'd be compensated for their loss. This provision for compensation, I suspect, was to promote and maintain slave participation against the confederacy-- sort of a post hoc eminent domain.

since when are any EO's encumbent or relevant to areas outside of control of executive? The Emancipation Proclamation was a political pronouncement that change the focus of the war between the states, from one focused on 'Union,' to a focus on 'slavery.' That was a pivotal moment. A significant decree, but not an EO, as n control for directive, indeed, an absence of enforcement for areas under control.

[logroller]

but it was not titled Executive Order 123

so it doesn't count.

:lol: executive fiat by any other name...
Doesn't help you need the Rosetta Stone to read it... henceforth and heretofore this 87th year of our independence. :laugh:

[ConHog]

since when are any EO's encumbent or relevant to areas outside of control of executive? The Emancipation Proclamation was a political pronouncement that change the focus of the war between the states, from one focused on 'Union,' to a focus on 'slavery.' That was a pivotal moment. A significant decree, but not an EO, as n control for directive, indeed, an absence of enforcement for areas under control.

no it was not. It was an order commanding the US military to free any and all slaves encountered during the war rather than return them to their former masters.

Plain and simple.

[ConHog]

executive fiat by any other name...
Doesn't help you need the Rosetta Stone to read it... henceforth and heretofore this 87th year of our independence. :laugh:

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

[Kathianne]

no it was not. It was an order commanding the US military to free any and all slaves encountered during the war rather than return them to their former masters.

Plain and simple.


...all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/emancipa.asp

[ConHog]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/emancipa.asp

correct he was giving his military an order that all slaves in the south were free and they were to act accordingly. Spin it however you like.

[logroller]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/emancipa.asp
As I mentioned earlier, "or designated part of a State" seems to extend beyond Confederate states.

[Kathianne]

As I mentioned earlier, "or designated part of a State" seems to extend beyond Confederate states.

Hmmm, you might make a new legal scholar.

[logroller]

Hmmm, you might make a new legal scholar.
Just what the world needs, another scholastic lawyer.:laugh:
the most concerning aspect to me is who designates such...the CiC?
Proclamation, executive order...it's executive fiat. Doesn't mean it's good or bad, just tends towards being unbridled.

[ConHog]

Just what the world needs, another scholastic lawyer.:laugh:
the most concerning aspect to me is who designates such...the CiC?
Proclamation, executive order...it's executive fiat. Doesn't mean it's good or bad, just tends towards being unbridled.

if you look through history with a few exceptions they were pretty banal until the 20th century

Ex order 1024 the army quartermaster shall henceforth feed Army horses 1 bail of hay per day

crap like that lol

not creating entire federal bureaucracies out of whole cloth

[red states rule]

Back to the topic of this thread





Quotes on the Second AmendmentThe Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

[taft2012]

I misstyped, of course I meant the Southern States.

And it certainly was an Executive Order, issued BY Lincoln ordering all military personal to free slaves as they came across them rather than return them to their masters.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.

[red states rule]

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/9/6/0/3/0/9/gun-control-funny-85841953065.jpeg#gun%20control%20funny

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.

Liberals always have at least double standard and sometimes even triple standards! Regardless of how many standards they employ they are always exempted and treated like the special little Gods they think themselves to be! -Tyr

[ConHog]

Liberals always have at least double standard and sometimes even triple standards! Regardless of how many standards they employ they are always exempted and treated like the special little Gods they think themselves to be! -Tyr

Now Lincoln was a liberal? :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now Lincoln was a liberal? :laugh:

Please show where I used Lincoln's name. You don't get to just add names to my statement when I didn't use them. If I want to name specific people I will do so myself, your attempt to name them for me is ridiculous and asinine.
A bit daft if you ask me and even if you didn't ask me..-:laugh:-Tyr
Your reading comprehension needs help.......

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union.-quote by taft

[ConHog]

Please show where I used Lincoln's name. You don't get to just add names to my statement when I didn't use them. If I want to name specific people I will do so myself, your attempt to name them for me is ridiculous and asinine.
A bit daft if you ask me and even if you didn't ask me..-:laugh:-Tyr

Lincoln WROTE the Emancipation Proclamation. YOU proclaimed it was an example of a double standard that libs use. Therefor YOU called Lincoln a lib.

LOL

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now Lincoln was a liberal? :laugh:

Again just because you are so slow and reading seems to be so very hard for you!! jezz dense much?

Quote by taft,
A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union.

[logroller]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.
No it didn't. Just because it didn't include them doesn't mean they were excluded. You Just noted that "areas" in rebellion were included. That could include parts of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

[mundame]

The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

Sure. I think that's been well documented as having been Lincoln's intention. It did not work, of course: the blacks did not fight the white Southerners. However, they did follow the Northern troops around and sow confusion throughout the South, so it worked well enough from that perpspective.

[gabosaurus]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

[mundame]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

[:-) They are certainly well armed......

If militias were completely voluntary associations, as opposed to state-sanctioned organizations, I don't see why they wouldn't qualify.

[Kathianne]

No it didn't. Just because it didn't include them doesn't mean they were excluded. You Just noted that "areas" in rebellion were included. That could include parts of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

I always saw it as a political move to change the meaning of the war from 'holding the Union' to 'free the slaves.' It did work on that level, nearly all high school grads believe it was the war to free the slaves.

[CSM]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

Just a guess on my part but I highly doubt that any state would would legalize any armed organization that habitually engages in illegal activities. Street gangs do not normally provide public service of any sort and within the legal bounds of society. Then again, maybe you are more familiar with street gangs that do.

[Thunderknuckles]

I totally disagree. The Constitution was written at a much different time than the present. We are no longer threatened by Indian attacks, foreign invaders or internal subversives protecting the rights of The Crown.

The U.S. populace no longer needs an "armed militia." We already have several -- street gangs, organized crime, white supremacists and terror organizations of all kinds. We don't need armed citizens groups taking to the streets simply because they disagree with election results.
Gabby, this seems to be a common theme with liberals opposing the 2nd Amendment and other issues with the Constitution. They tend to think only in terms of NOW. The founding fathers created the Constitution with a consideration of what had transpired before them and what may come in the future. Just because we have no credible threats to our sovereignty now, does not mean that we won't face them in the future. Rome, at its height in the second century AD, was an unchallenged super power. Yet, shortly after that it experienced a slow decline and three centuries later the barbarians came knocking. The moral here is, you have to take the long view with respect to the Constitution. Any broad understanding of human history would reveal that we don't hold a unique place in time.

[ConHog]

I always saw it as a political move to change the meaning of the war from 'holding the Union' to 'free the slaves.' It did work on that level, nearly all high school grads believe it was the war to free the slaves.

That's one thing that irks me. Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so, clearly indicates the war was not about slavery to me.

not on the North's part anyway. :poke:

[Kathianne]

That's one thing that irks me. Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so, clearly indicates the war was not about slavery to me.

not on the North's part anyway. :poke:

and the Emancipation Proclamation changed that.

[fj1200]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

State militias are legal and the illegal actions of street gangs are already illegal. Next.

[logroller]

That's one thing that irks me. Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so, clearly indicates the war was not about slavery to me.

not on the North's part anyway. :poke:
i believe he also said all slave or none. Ill double check, it was a couple years before he was elected.
From the state perspective it was about self-governance, with slavery the impetus. From the union perspective it was about settling disputes (over slavery) between states. Slavery was the lynchpin issue.

[ConHog]

and the Emancipation Proclamation changed that.

No it didn't.

For the North the aim of the war was still to preserve the union, Freeing any slaves encountered along the way simply became an ancillary goal.

You can bet that had the South gotten into a position to be able to forge any kind of end to war other than an unconditional surrender that Lincoln would have put slavery back on the table to get the Union back together.

[Kathianne]

i believe he also said all slave or none. Ill double check, it was a couple years before he was elected.
From the state perspective it was about self-governance, with slavery the impetus. From the union perspective it was about settling disputes (over slavery) between states. Slavery was the lynchpin issue.

He said something to the effect that the country would not stand being 1/2 free and 1/2 slave. Part of the reason for coming out against expansion of slavery into the territories. 'A country cannot be divided against itself.'

[ConHog]

i believe he also said all slave or none. Ill double check, it was a couple years before he was elected.
From the state perspective it was about self-governance, with slavery the impetus. From the union perspective it was about settling disputes (over slavery) between states. Slavery was the lynchpin issue.

No disputing that slavery brought the issues to the forefront.

And you are incorrect about Lincoln, in 1860 the Republican platform was no expansion of slavery but no interference with those states where it already existed. And he followed that.

The actual problems didn't occur until Southern states realized that that policy meant that as the Union grew more non slave states would be added and eventually have the votes in Congress to outlaw slavery. So they wanted some of the new states to be able to have slavery as well to try to stop this.

That is what actually brought on the start of the war, there was never any threat of taking away southern slaves.

Well, not until later of course .

[Kathianne]

No it didn't.

For the North the aim of the war was still to preserve the union, Freeing any slaves encountered along the way simply became an ancillary goal.

You can bet that had the South gotten into a position to be able to forge any kind of end to war other than an unconditional surrender that Lincoln would have put slavery back on the table to get the Union back together.

Wrong, the Emancipation Proclamation garnered a focus on abolition, until that point most thought them extremists. That, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," gaining more readers; the stories of the underground railroad in the North to Canada, etc., All of these were bring abolition to the forefront. The meme changed around 1863.

[Thunderknuckles]

No it didn't.

For the North the aim of the war was still to preserve the union, Freeing any slaves encountered along the way simply became an ancillary goal.
The fact that the South's Agriculture business accounted for about 40% of GDP at the time surely played a role in wanting to preserve the union as well.

[ConHog]

He said something to the effect that the country would not stand being 1/2 free and 1/2 slave. Part of the reason for coming out against expansion of slavery into the territories. 'A country cannot be divided against itself.'

Yes, he gave that speech in 1858, but as a Presidential candidate in 1860 he changed his position to that of the Republican Party which was simply no expansion of slavery.

[ConHog]

The fact that the South's Agriculture business accounted for about 40% of GDP at the time surely played a role in wanting to preserve the union as well.

I don't know that I would dispute that one bit. I think that there various reasons Lincoln was willing to do many things, including ignoring his own moral objections to slavery, in order to preserve the Union.

[Kathianne]

No disputing that slavery brought the issues to the forefront.

And you are incorrect about Lincoln, in 1860 the Republican platform was no expansion of slavery but no interference with those states where it already existed. And he followed that.

The actual problems didn't occur until Southern states realized that that policy meant that as the Union grew more non slave states would be added and eventually have the votes in Congress to outlaw slavery. So they wanted some of the new states to be able to have slavery as well to try to stop this.

That is what actually brought on the start of the war, there was never any threat of taking away southern slaves.

Well, not until later of course .

Hmm, I really thought the Southern realization that with no Southern votes, Lincoln was still going to be elected. The 'peculiar institution' and the counting of population for elections, in Article 1, Section 2 had come home to roost. (Changed by 14th amendment during Reconstruction.)

[ConHog]

Wrong, the Emancipation Proclamation garnered a focus on abolition, until that point most thought them extremists. That, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," gaining more readers; the stories of the underground railroad in the North to Canada, etc., All of these were bring abolition to the forefront. The meme changed around 1863.

It certainly did, and certainly as President Lincoln could have ignored that and pushed through an agreement of surrender which included the preservation of slavery.

Now , the question of whether that would have lasted and if the 13th would have been passed if that had been the case is an interesting one. Personally I believe the country was heading in that direction either way; but the fact that Lincoln above all else wanted an end to the war is a historical fact.

[ConHog]

Hmm, I really thought the Southern realization that with no Southern votes, Lincoln was still going to be elected. The 'peculiar institution' and the counting of population for elections, in Article 1, Section 2 had come home to roost. (Changed by 14th amendment during Reconstruction.)

I'm missing your point here. Southern States didn't vote against Lincoln because of his policy of no expansion of slavery which meant that there equality in Congress as group would slowly be eroded.

They were NOT against him because he advocated abolishing slavery altogether, because in 1860 he certainly did not. Or more correctly he did not publicly. Privately he did abhor slavery, or so history tells us.

[Kathianne]

It certainly did, and certainly as President Lincoln could have ignored that and pushed through an agreement of surrender which included the preservation of slavery.

Now , the question of whether that would have lasted and if the 13th would have been passed if that had been the case is an interesting one. Personally I believe the country was heading in that direction either way; but the fact that Lincoln above all else wanted an end to the war is a historical fact.

By 1863 slavery was done, all the Emancipation Proclamation did was put the focus on why the bloody was was going to go on. It was also clear that your 'possible solution' was never possible, the Confederacy wasn't about to join the Union again, 'with slavery.' They'd already been faced with no political solution to the federal government regarding the election of Lincoln. No, the Confederacy had to be defeated.

[Kathianne]

I'm missing your point here. Southern States didn't vote for Lincoln because of his policy of no expansion of slavery which meant that there equality in Congress as group would slowly be eroded.

They were NOT against him because he advocated abolishing slavery altogether, because in 1860 he certainly did not. Or more correctly he did not publicly. Privately he did abhor slavery, or so history tells us.

Geez, have you never looked at the results of the 1860 election? Not one Southern electoral vote for Lincoln, I'm not digging up all the stats, but he wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states. There was a de facto revolt and raising of Confederacy prior to that election. The South knew their reality, either a separate state or the 'peculiar institution' was going to die. So they chose war.

[Thunderknuckles]

I don't know that I would dispute that one bit. I think that there various reasons Lincoln was willing to do many things, including ignoring his own moral objections to slavery, in order to preserve the Union.
No need to. I'm more in agreement with you on this issue. The South wanted to preserve slavery because it was core to its agricultural success and the North sure as hell wasn't going to let go of a vast portion of the nation's overall wealth. Can you imagine if the sources of 40% of our current GDP threatened to secede? That would be catastrophic.

[ConHog]

By 1863 slavery was done, all the Emancipation Proclamation did was put the focus on why the bloody was was going to go on. It was also clear that your 'possible solution' was never possible, the Confederacy wasn't about to join the Union again, 'with slavery.' They'd already been faced with no political solution to the federal government regarding the election of Lincoln. No, the Confederacy had to be defeated.

My personal opinion is that slavery was dead by 1860, just no one realized it yet, and it was going to be a slow death. But the signs were there as the industrial era came of age.

It's also not clear that the South would have returned to the Union without a complete and total surrender. In fact it's quite ambiguous about whether they would have or not. What's NOT ambigous is that until the end of his life Lincoln championed uniting the Nation once again.

This is proven by the fact that he did not cave to his miltary advisers who wanted to punish the south before allowing them back in the union. Instead he used a softer touch in order to reunite the country in spirit as well as name.

[cadet]

Would ya'll shut up about the dang war?
http://www.civilwar.si.edu/timeline.html

^south didn't like Lincoln, tried succession. Lincoln thought one way to get more troups would be to free slaves, (Helped encourage black to join in the war on the north side, also got his view of slavery)
Plenty of the north was against it, as well as the south.
North blocked all supplies and fought until the south gave up.

Done and done, war not about slavery, about not liking the president. If you hadn't noticed all the secession things going around this election, it could have very well been the same thing this time.



There, done, BACK ON TOPIC.
The only way to get militia's back is to get out of a state of war, and until we leave the middle east, we have no way to fight that.
when we're not at war it SHOULD revert back to states having their own little military. (at least so far as i've read that's the way it's supposed to work)
Grant it, there's no chance of that. Uncle sam got his fingers in something and there's no way they're coming out. Nothing more permanent then a temporary gov't solution.

[Kathianne]

My personal opinion is that slavery was dead by 1860, just no one realized it yet, and it was going to be a slow death. But the signs were there as the industrial era came of age.

It's also not clear that the South would have returned to the Union without a complete and total surrender. In fact it's quite ambiguous about whether they would have or not. What's NOT ambigous is that until the end of his life Lincoln championed uniting the Nation once again.

This is proven by the fact that he did not cave to his miltary advisers who wanted to punish the south before allowing them back in the union. Instead he used a softer touch in order to reunite the country in spirit as well as name.

Slavery would have been killed, voluntarily or not. The South chose, not. There is no doubt that the South wouldn't have returned with or without slavery, without defeat. While Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were generous, he did nothing to stop Sherman's march through the South and the scorched earth policy. Lincoln had come to realize that only through total defeat, could Reconstruction help unify. I've no doubt that his assassination led to the failure of Reconstruction and the next 100 years of civil rights going no where.

[ConHog]

Slavery would have been killed, voluntarily or not. The South chose, not. There is no doubt that the South wouldn't have returned with or without slavery, without defeat. While Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were generous, he did nothing to stop Sherman's march through the South and the scorched earth policy. Lincoln had come to realize that only through total defeat, could Reconstruction help unify. I've no doubt that his assassination led to the failure of Reconstruction and the next 100 years of civil rights going no where.

you are once again either purposely or through a lack of understanding , misconstruing what I said.

I VERY clearly said that IF the South would have ever been in a position to negotiate a surrender that included keeping slavery Lincoln would have agreed to it.

I did NOT claim that Lincoln was running around offering to let the South keep slavery if they surrendered.

Those are two entirely different arguments Kath.


As for Sherman's March , much like Truman's disgust at having to use atom bombs it was a decision that Lincoln felt great remorse at having to make .

By that time it was obvious that the South would never come to the negotiating table without a completely military surrender, and so sure when one surrenders unconditionally one gets no say in the surrender and so slavery was finished.

Prior to late 1862 early 1863 the Civil War was thought of as sort of a novelty that would last a little while and be done. Certainly many in the South believed that the North would realize there error and capitulate to the question of slavery. At that point if the South could have gotten the upper hand and got Lincoln to the negotiating table, I believe they would have gotten exactly that.

Instead the war turned ugly and yes then opinions changed. By 1864 the hatred had set in and most southerners didn't want back in the union with or without slavery, so yes then TOTAL defeat in order to reunite the Union was the only option.

[gabosaurus]

Gabby, this seems to be a common theme with liberals opposing the 2nd Amendment and other issues with the Constitution. They tend to think only in terms of NOW. The founding fathers created the Constitution with a consideration of what had transpired before them and what may come in the future. Just because we have no credible threats to our sovereignty now, does not mean that we won't face them in the future. Rome, at its height in the second century AD, was an unchallenged super power. Yet, shortly after that it experienced a slow decline and three centuries later the barbarians came knocking. The moral here is, you have to take the long view with respect to the Constitution. Any broad understanding of human history would reveal that we don't hold a unique place in time.

But we DO hold a unique place in time. If you examine the context in which the Constitution was written and ratified, you will find that the Second Amendment was meant to allow citizens (i.e. affluent white males) to defend themselves against Indian attacks, hostile invasions by foreign powers and slave uprisings.
The constitution was ratified at a time when everyone lived on the East Coast and most of the continent was wilderness. There was a lot of uncertainty about who was safe where.
The current American nation is fairly safe from Indian attacks, slave uprisings and attacks by foreign powers. As a past president once said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Our primary enemy is ourselves.

[Kathianne]

you are once again either purposely or through a lack of understanding , misconstruing what I said.

I VERY clearly said that IF the South would have ever been in a position to negotiate a surrender that included keeping slavery Lincoln would have agreed to it.

I did NOT claim that Lincoln was running around offering to let the South keep slavery if they surrendered.

Those are two entirely different arguments Kath.


As for Sherman's March , much like Truman's disgust at having to use atom bombs it was a decision that Lincoln felt great remorse at having to make .

By that time it was obvious that the South would never come to the negotiating table without a completely military surrender, and so sure when one surrenders unconditionally one gets no say in the surrender and so slavery was finished.

Prior to late 1862 early 1863 the Civil War was thought of as sort of a novelty that would last a little while and be done. Certainly many in the South believed that the North would realize there error and capitulate to the question of slavery. At that point if the South could have gotten the upper hand and got Lincoln to the negotiating table, I believe they would have gotten exactly that.

Instead the war turned ugly and yes then opinions changed. By 1864 the hatred had set in and most southerners didn't want back in the union with or without slavery, so yes then TOTAL defeat in order to reunite the Union was the only option.

A bit of logic, no matter how you wish to twist the events. The South didn't have to leave the Union without giving up slavery. They chose to do so, beginning to secede close on heels of election. Then they set up the Confederacy, then attacked Ft. Sumter. Expanding on your WWII analogy, they wanted to surprise and awe and hope for a capitulation by Lincoln. Not realistic for either.

[gabosaurus]

How did a discussion of militias become a discussion of slavery?
Mods?

[Kathianne]

Back around here:


Against whom shall we take up arms?


How about recapturing Fort Sumter?


Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.


I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.


How did a discussion of militias become a discussion of slavery?
Mods?