Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
Screw US vs Miller. It is just an opinion of six men, long dead. Letting the SCOTUS have the final say is like "putting speed freaks in charge of the pharmacy." 
Militia Raid
- Thread starter FM2Wildcat
- Start date
- Status
johnster999
Member
Overall, I find the BATF more threatening than the guy with the cannon.
Vaportrail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 10
Cannons are legal
Cannons are legal as long as they are muzzleloading. If they are breechloading and fire a round of ammo, they become a destructive device if over .50 caliber. So whats the big deal? You can buy a freaking cannon from dixie gun works among other places, and they are a lot of fun to shoot. The govt should give the guy back his damn cannon, mind their own business and go chase some illegal aliens.
Cannons are legal as long as they are muzzleloading. If they are breechloading and fire a round of ammo, they become a destructive device if over .50 caliber. So whats the big deal? You can buy a freaking cannon from dixie gun works among other places, and they are a lot of fun to shoot. The govt should give the guy back his damn cannon, mind their own business and go chase some illegal aliens.
Glockfan.45
member
I honestly hope we are not having the "civilians should be allowed to own nukes" debate again. I think our time and efforts would be better spent on more realistic issues. And for the record I shall say "Hell no civilians dont have any reason/right to own nukes". Flame on 
.
.Lucky
Member
Jeff, do you honestly not see the distinction between drilling and parading and the RKBA? You post many paragraphs ver batim, but they do not correlate to the assertions you make. You can't win an argument by shouting the loudest, or posting the most words. Especially when the words you post don't support what you say they do!
So far you ignore pertinent questions, choosing to post long quotes only partly relevant to the topic of discussion. I'm not calling names, but you're performing a time-honoured method of bureaucratic warfare, 'bury them in paper'. To make matters worse, your references are sadly out-dated.
So let's examine the most recent official findings, shall we? And notice how I quote the most relevant portion, and illustrate how it supports my argument. It is recent, it is relevant, and it is official.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
"WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.
August 24, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"
You have me thoroughly confused. I don't understand what your position is against, so could you elaborate what it is in the affirmative?
Just look at that Madisson quote - it assumes a standing army would be 1% of the population, 30,000 men = 3,000,000 population. And to oppose it would be 500,000 militia men. If men = 50% of the population, then that is 1,500,000 men. If some are too old, and some are too young, and some are in critical employment, and some are not able, then you only have a fraction of that which are available, let's say 1/3. And as luck would have it 1/3 of 1,500,000 is 500,000.
That pretty much explains the 'scope' of the militia, and their purpose.
So far you ignore pertinent questions, choosing to post long quotes only partly relevant to the topic of discussion. I'm not calling names, but you're performing a time-honoured method of bureaucratic warfare, 'bury them in paper'. To make matters worse, your references are sadly out-dated.
So let's examine the most recent official findings, shall we? And notice how I quote the most relevant portion, and illustrate how it supports my argument. It is recent, it is relevant, and it is official.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
"WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.
August 24, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"
You have me thoroughly confused. I don't understand what your position is against, so could you elaborate what it is in the affirmative?
Just look at that Madisson quote - it assumes a standing army would be 1% of the population, 30,000 men = 3,000,000 population. And to oppose it would be 500,000 militia men. If men = 50% of the population, then that is 1,500,000 men. If some are too old, and some are too young, and some are in critical employment, and some are not able, then you only have a fraction of that which are available, let's say 1/3. And as luck would have it 1/3 of 1,500,000 is 500,000.
That pretty much explains the 'scope' of the militia, and their purpose.
pcosmar
member
From The morning News
"The reason people are afraid of the militia is because they have been taught to be afraid of the militia," Fincher said.
Chief Deputy Jay Cantrell of the Washington County Sheriff's Office said he and Helder are aware of the militia and the weapons it holds. Last year, he and Helder met with militia members for doughnuts and coffee at the group's headquarters.
"They were all armed," Cantrell said. "It is not necessarily illegal to own automatic weapons."
He said talk of militia intervention during any standoff situation with federal agents is a bit troubling.
"I think most of these guys are reasonable and willing to listen. ... We are not developing any type response to deal with the militia" in such a situation, Cantrell said.
Anyone is welcome at militia meetings, including women. Article 11 of the Arkansas Constitution calls for all 18 to 45-year-old men to serve. Smith and Fincher will not reveal the number of members who meet at the 40- by 72-foot concrete block building on East Black Oak Road, south of Fayetteville. No muster roster exists.
end quote.
It is aparent that Mr. Fincher is doing wnat many do not have the balls to do. He has gone trough his local and State Government, and now is taking on the Fed.
It seems, from what I have read, that he is going to the Supreme Court to chalenge the 1934 NFA.
He has been perparing to do this for some time.
Download the Silver Bullit and read for yourself. http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/thesilverbullet/thesilverbullet.htm
I wish him the best of luck.
"The reason people are afraid of the militia is because they have been taught to be afraid of the militia," Fincher said.
Chief Deputy Jay Cantrell of the Washington County Sheriff's Office said he and Helder are aware of the militia and the weapons it holds. Last year, he and Helder met with militia members for doughnuts and coffee at the group's headquarters.
"They were all armed," Cantrell said. "It is not necessarily illegal to own automatic weapons."
He said talk of militia intervention during any standoff situation with federal agents is a bit troubling.
"I think most of these guys are reasonable and willing to listen. ... We are not developing any type response to deal with the militia" in such a situation, Cantrell said.
Anyone is welcome at militia meetings, including women. Article 11 of the Arkansas Constitution calls for all 18 to 45-year-old men to serve. Smith and Fincher will not reveal the number of members who meet at the 40- by 72-foot concrete block building on East Black Oak Road, south of Fayetteville. No muster roster exists.
end quote.
It is aparent that Mr. Fincher is doing wnat many do not have the balls to do. He has gone trough his local and State Government, and now is taking on the Fed.
It seems, from what I have read, that he is going to the Supreme Court to chalenge the 1934 NFA.
He has been perparing to do this for some time.
Download the Silver Bullit and read for yourself. http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/thesilverbullet/thesilverbullet.htm
I wish him the best of luck.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
I've waded through some of this thread, and frankly bypassed over the heated stuff, militia "what's it mean/what's its purpose" back and forth point/counterpoint.
All I'd like to say is that some people simply have an interest in the history and development of arms. Even the big ones. I've watched episodes on History Channel detailing privately owned fleets of tanks. I know team member that owns a howitzer. He's a machinist. He has interest in how they work.
Most people who manage to afford these toys are wealthy. Wealthy people are generally stable, as fools rarely manage money well. I have no problems with folks who have historical interest owning field artillery pieces and tanks.
Look, if a group or individual wants to beat chests and get involved in challenging the BAFTE, he might just get what he desires - their attention. The folks who take great pains to obscure themselves while collecting these items are the guys I might fear actually using them in anger. The rest of the enthusiasts simply want to know how they work.
All I'd like to say is that some people simply have an interest in the history and development of arms. Even the big ones. I've watched episodes on History Channel detailing privately owned fleets of tanks. I know team member that owns a howitzer. He's a machinist. He has interest in how they work.
Most people who manage to afford these toys are wealthy. Wealthy people are generally stable, as fools rarely manage money well. I have no problems with folks who have historical interest owning field artillery pieces and tanks.
Look, if a group or individual wants to beat chests and get involved in challenging the BAFTE, he might just get what he desires - their attention. The folks who take great pains to obscure themselves while collecting these items are the guys I might fear actually using them in anger. The rest of the enthusiasts simply want to know how they work.
On that note: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2269
And to answer the question on nuclear weapons and the militia --
The "militia" was chosen to be the most natural means to preserve the "security of a free state" and as such the defensive role of the "militia" is understood. During wartime the constitution gives power to the federal goverment to raise armies. Nuclear weapons are clearly not defensive "militia" weapons when detonated on ones own homeland.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I Repeat:
The militia is "an army composed of civilians called out in time of emergency."
Until called out, the militia does not exist. These guys forming armed groups are either mercenaries, revolutionaries, guerrillas, insurgents, or simply people forming an army for whatever turns them on. Armed security guards would be no different. Neighborhood watch teams would be the same. But, neither is a militia unless they answer a call to arms from the local authorities or Congress.
All this labeling of these groups as "militias" is nothing more than an attempt to besmirch what the real militia is. It's an attempt to demonize the very word "militia", and to demonize anyone who would keep and bear arms - and keep themselves well regulated - should the call for the militia ever come. It's all about selling a load of malarkey to the public in order to gain sympathy for the anti-gun-rights agenda.
So, find out what each and every one of these groups are and call them what they are. And, they are certainly not the militia(unless they answer a call to arms from the local authorities or Congress, as I said).
It boils down to deamonizing the Second Amendment by deamonizing the militia so prominently mentioned in it.
Woody
Words mean things. Words mean ONLY CERTAIN things. Learn them, and apply them properly. That way, you'll recognize when you are being bamboozled. That way, you can take those to task who misuse those words. This calls to mind a line in The Princess Bride by S. Morgenstern: "You keep using the word - I don't think it means what you think it means."
The militia is "an army composed of civilians called out in time of emergency."
Until called out, the militia does not exist. These guys forming armed groups are either mercenaries, revolutionaries, guerrillas, insurgents, or simply people forming an army for whatever turns them on. Armed security guards would be no different. Neighborhood watch teams would be the same. But, neither is a militia unless they answer a call to arms from the local authorities or Congress.
All this labeling of these groups as "militias" is nothing more than an attempt to besmirch what the real militia is. It's an attempt to demonize the very word "militia", and to demonize anyone who would keep and bear arms - and keep themselves well regulated - should the call for the militia ever come. It's all about selling a load of malarkey to the public in order to gain sympathy for the anti-gun-rights agenda.
So, find out what each and every one of these groups are and call them what they are. And, they are certainly not the militia(unless they answer a call to arms from the local authorities or Congress, as I said).
It boils down to deamonizing the Second Amendment by deamonizing the militia so prominently mentioned in it.
Woody
Words mean things. Words mean ONLY CERTAIN things. Learn them, and apply them properly. That way, you'll recognize when you are being bamboozled. That way, you can take those to task who misuse those words. This calls to mind a line in The Princess Bride by S. Morgenstern: "You keep using the word - I don't think it means what you think it means."
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Lucky, I wouldn't know how to elaborate it any more succinctly than I already have. Sorry I cannot explain it better.
modifiedbrowning
Member
But not if they have a cannon?
gc70
Member
I suspect that the members of the "Militia of Washington County, Arkansas" might disagree with that assessment. For some reason, I can't see those Arkansas rednecks running around the woods with the intent to demonize the word "militia" or gain sympathy for the anti-gun-rights agenda.
Lucky
Member
woodcdi You may be confused. There are elements of French and British in the American tradition, so you are likely simply confusing a Militia with a Feudal Levy. There's not much difference, just that one is free and the other is a slave, that's all. If a person doesn't respect those things then the differences are not noticable.
I've seen a lot of suggestions of what the militia isn't, many contradictory, but not much suggesting what you think it is.
A man is arrested for owning firearms he 'shouldn't'. People argue he has a right to own them, because of the 2nd amendment. You argue he doesn't, because he's not in a real militia.
You agree with Jeff White that freedom of association and the right to keep and bear arms only exist at the pleasure of the state,
And the explanations are:
Only certain people may join a militia under strict rules, but it's not exclusive.
The militia isn't a hastily formed group of armed individuals, but a professional standing army.
It's to oppose the Feds, except when it's working for the feds.
and
A community can't just form a militia, but only the community can form a militia.
I've seen a lot of suggestions of what the militia isn't, many contradictory, but not much suggesting what you think it is.
A man is arrested for owning firearms he 'shouldn't'. People argue he has a right to own them, because of the 2nd amendment. You argue he doesn't, because he's not in a real militia.
You agree with Jeff White that freedom of association and the right to keep and bear arms only exist at the pleasure of the state,
And the explanations are:
Only certain people may join a militia under strict rules, but it's not exclusive.
The militia isn't a hastily formed group of armed individuals, but a professional standing army.
It's to oppose the Feds, except when it's working for the feds.
and
A community can't just form a militia, but only the community can form a militia.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
gc70, You Misunderstand Me
This is what I mean about taking things out of context. What I'm talking about are the thugs in places like Darfur, Mogadishu(sp), white supremacist and black militant groups, and bands of terrorists and insurgents being called "militias" by the media and anti-gun-rights activists. THOSE are the people demonizing the word "militia" to demonize the people who would be called up to meet any foe of our Union and several states - the REAL militia. The afore mentioned are nothing close to a militia.
I doubt a group like the "Militia of Washington County, Arkansas" fits in with any of these others. The "Militia of Washington County, Arkansas", for what little I know of them, do appear to be what a REAL militia would be. Though they are technically not a militia - not having been called up to defend the Union or assist the local authorities to restore the peace - they are most likely good, law and Constitution abiding citizens. These aren't people out to overthrow the government.
My objection is the media and the anti-gun-rights crowd passing out the label "militia" to all these other groups who are nothing even close to a militia.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood
This is what I mean about taking things out of context. What I'm talking about are the thugs in places like Darfur, Mogadishu(sp), white supremacist and black militant groups, and bands of terrorists and insurgents being called "militias" by the media and anti-gun-rights activists. THOSE are the people demonizing the word "militia" to demonize the people who would be called up to meet any foe of our Union and several states - the REAL militia. The afore mentioned are nothing close to a militia.
I doubt a group like the "Militia of Washington County, Arkansas" fits in with any of these others. The "Militia of Washington County, Arkansas", for what little I know of them, do appear to be what a REAL militia would be. Though they are technically not a militia - not having been called up to defend the Union or assist the local authorities to restore the peace - they are most likely good, law and Constitution abiding citizens. These aren't people out to overthrow the government.
My objection is the media and the anti-gun-rights crowd passing out the label "militia" to all these other groups who are nothing even close to a militia.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Lucky
Look up the word "militia" and you'll see that I'm not confused.
And, to expand upon this quote:
Woody
"The United States of America is not up for grabs. Keep your hands off and steer clear. Free people live here - Free people who are determined to stay free. Our rights and freedom will be defended with extreme prejudice." B.E.Wood
Look up the word "militia" and you'll see that I'm not confused.
And, to expand upon this quote:
This doesn't matter. Congress has not been granted the power to forbid the formation of private armed groups. Congress only has specific powers granted to it in the Constitution. Forbidding the formation of armed private groups is not among those powers.
Woody
"The United States of America is not up for grabs. Keep your hands off and steer clear. Free people live here - Free people who are determined to stay free. Our rights and freedom will be defended with extreme prejudice." B.E.Wood
Freedspeak
Member
So far as I am aware a connon is not listed as a restricted item, there are many groups that have them (reenactors), there might be an issue if he was involved with NFA restricted arms, but why was the cannon brought up in the article? Sounds like hype and inuendo to me. This is how the encroachment occurs, this little bit is accepted, then the next, then the next ...!
FM2Wildcat
member
I can see here the position many are taking to demonize me for my perceived position by taking carefully selected cuts of my comments while not addressing the whole of my comments.
This is just a smoke screen to deflect the real issues at hand to fit their own agendas or ideas.
Your idea of freedom is to do whatever the hell you want to do and damn anyone who says other wise or is offended or threatened by their actions.
For instance, why would someone feel that that would need a cannon? I used the word 'need' on purpose to spice up the debate but I had no idea that people here would lock on to that one word in such a way.
Would a better word have been 'want' a cannon? I want a Vulcan gatling cannon mounted in the bed of my truck but the realistic side of me says it would not be wise to pursue such a path.
Too many would fear and misunderstand my position of wanting and using such a thing and me wanting it just for kicks would not be reason enough to own it given the possible repercussions. Same goes with my analogy of an fully weaponized F4 or a B52. Where do we draw the line?
I own a 500 horsepower Cobra Jet Mustang, do I need such a beast? No but it is a hobby and a thrill to drive it at the proper venue in a safe as possible manner. Would I like to drive a formula 1 car to work? Of course I would and so would a lot of others but we know if the whole populace owned one it would be misused by the irresponsible and people would get hurt/killed. Those misusing them causing others to get hurt would spell the end of F1 cars on the roadway as are these militia groups bringing the heat on responsible firearm owners.
Let's say I take my mustang out on the streets on do burnouts in traffic and cut doughnuts in the middle of intersections, take video of it and send it to law enforcement plus make a website about it all the while gloating about what I've got and what I can do with it and daring LE to do something about it. A reasonable person could expect my car to be impounded and my can would be in the pokey with smokey. All of it just to prove a point about MY percieved freedoms and rights under the constitution?
It's all about ones intent. This militias intent was made very clear on their website. What if I have family in law enforcement, should I dismiss the threat to my family members and friends to protect ones perceived rights as they interpret them?
We all know that there are mostly good and honest men in our local law enforcement communities, the good far outweigh the bad if you'll be honest with yourself.
I have friends and family in the Army, Marines and local law enforcement and I have asked each of them what they would do if a govt took the step to send them out to confiscate law abiding US citizens legal guns. To the man each of them replied to the effect that it would depend on the sitting governments intent and agenda but they could not think of an agenda so compelling that they would need to do so, not could I.
The leaders in govt should not assume that the dogs of war will do their bidding without question when it comes to the home populace.
Do I feel comfortable knowing that a militant organization is in my area, no because extremist militant organizations from my experience were a disgruntled lot with a particular axe to grind with the govt or law enforcement usually caused by trouble that they brought upon themselves with illegal conduct or generally being a failure in life.
A reasonable and educated US citizen knows that if a call to arms is needed, the call will be heeded. To prepare for a day that will most probably never come and taunting the govt to force the issue is suicidal. Suicidal tendencies instantly disqualify one from gun ownership in this country if you actually read and honestly answer the gun purchase application.
If people want to form militias that's fine by me, just play by the rulebook. We all know we need to rules to live by and if not it's anarchy and that's not the world most of us want to live in.
All it's going to take is one of these nutjobs to hurt the wrong persons loved ones by their self centered carelessness and irresponsibility and then the govt is going to be the least of their worries. What if these so called militias cause the millions of deer hunters out in the woods this weekend to lose their right to own deer rifles. Guess who these militias are going to have to deal with, millions of sharp shooting deer hunters but they won't be hunting deer this time.
Comments violating Rule #4 of the Forum Rules deleted. Keep it civil or find some other place to post
"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
This is just a smoke screen to deflect the real issues at hand to fit their own agendas or ideas.
Your idea of freedom is to do whatever the hell you want to do and damn anyone who says other wise or is offended or threatened by their actions.
For instance, why would someone feel that that would need a cannon? I used the word 'need' on purpose to spice up the debate but I had no idea that people here would lock on to that one word in such a way.
Would a better word have been 'want' a cannon? I want a Vulcan gatling cannon mounted in the bed of my truck but the realistic side of me says it would not be wise to pursue such a path.
Too many would fear and misunderstand my position of wanting and using such a thing and me wanting it just for kicks would not be reason enough to own it given the possible repercussions. Same goes with my analogy of an fully weaponized F4 or a B52. Where do we draw the line?
I own a 500 horsepower Cobra Jet Mustang, do I need such a beast? No but it is a hobby and a thrill to drive it at the proper venue in a safe as possible manner. Would I like to drive a formula 1 car to work? Of course I would and so would a lot of others but we know if the whole populace owned one it would be misused by the irresponsible and people would get hurt/killed. Those misusing them causing others to get hurt would spell the end of F1 cars on the roadway as are these militia groups bringing the heat on responsible firearm owners.
Let's say I take my mustang out on the streets on do burnouts in traffic and cut doughnuts in the middle of intersections, take video of it and send it to law enforcement plus make a website about it all the while gloating about what I've got and what I can do with it and daring LE to do something about it. A reasonable person could expect my car to be impounded and my can would be in the pokey with smokey. All of it just to prove a point about MY percieved freedoms and rights under the constitution?
It's all about ones intent. This militias intent was made very clear on their website. What if I have family in law enforcement, should I dismiss the threat to my family members and friends to protect ones perceived rights as they interpret them?
We all know that there are mostly good and honest men in our local law enforcement communities, the good far outweigh the bad if you'll be honest with yourself.
I have friends and family in the Army, Marines and local law enforcement and I have asked each of them what they would do if a govt took the step to send them out to confiscate law abiding US citizens legal guns. To the man each of them replied to the effect that it would depend on the sitting governments intent and agenda but they could not think of an agenda so compelling that they would need to do so, not could I.
The leaders in govt should not assume that the dogs of war will do their bidding without question when it comes to the home populace.
Do I feel comfortable knowing that a militant organization is in my area, no because extremist militant organizations from my experience were a disgruntled lot with a particular axe to grind with the govt or law enforcement usually caused by trouble that they brought upon themselves with illegal conduct or generally being a failure in life.
A reasonable and educated US citizen knows that if a call to arms is needed, the call will be heeded. To prepare for a day that will most probably never come and taunting the govt to force the issue is suicidal. Suicidal tendencies instantly disqualify one from gun ownership in this country if you actually read and honestly answer the gun purchase application.
If people want to form militias that's fine by me, just play by the rulebook. We all know we need to rules to live by and if not it's anarchy and that's not the world most of us want to live in.
All it's going to take is one of these nutjobs to hurt the wrong persons loved ones by their self centered carelessness and irresponsibility and then the govt is going to be the least of their worries. What if these so called militias cause the millions of deer hunters out in the woods this weekend to lose their right to own deer rifles. Guess who these militias are going to have to deal with, millions of sharp shooting deer hunters but they won't be hunting deer this time.
Comments violating Rule #4 of the Forum Rules deleted. Keep it civil or find some other place to post
"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Last edited by a moderator:
gc70
Member
woodcdi
Woody, I understood your post as a reference to the media's willingness to use militia as a derogatory label for any gathering of two or more people with guns. Militia is an honorable term and should not be misused in such a manner. But the word is used in a third way - as in the title "Militia of Washington County, Arkansas." I don't know that group's motives and goals, but I am uncomfortable with the fact that they and others have usurped the term militia for their own purposes.
Woody, I understood your post as a reference to the media's willingness to use militia as a derogatory label for any gathering of two or more people with guns. Militia is an honorable term and should not be misused in such a manner. But the word is used in a third way - as in the title "Militia of Washington County, Arkansas." I don't know that group's motives and goals, but I am uncomfortable with the fact that they and others have usurped the term militia for their own purposes.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
I might as well throw in my dos centavos.
Look folks, a militia is at it's core, an irregular military/paramilitary force. It is basically a group of men or women or both learning, and practicing, or actively fighting another force. Regardless of who that may be. These folks do seem to be a far-right wing fringe group challengin the authority of the fedgov in relation to NFA 34 and GCA 68. They haven't engaged in violent activity with anyone, and as has been said before, this guy is forcing a legal confrontation with the fedgov and SCOTUS.
While I am in the camp of folks that interprets the 2A as any non-crew served military hardware, I know the fedgov doesn't look at it that way. And while I wouldn't have chosen this guy's course of action, I wish him luck.
Look, the ATF might be a bunch of bloodthirsty freaks, these guys might be far right wing nuts, but they have every right to try their case in federal court.
As for the definition of militia, and what that means now, and what it meant then, in the past, the militia was a safeguard against enemies foreign and domestic. Now, it is an abstraction which most of America neither understands nor cares about.
As for what has been posted about the validity of the militia in modern American life, hey it may be very valid in short order in the country as a means of taking back the government from a domestic enemy. But I certainly hope to never see a day like that.
Look folks, a militia is at it's core, an irregular military/paramilitary force. It is basically a group of men or women or both learning, and practicing, or actively fighting another force. Regardless of who that may be. These folks do seem to be a far-right wing fringe group challengin the authority of the fedgov in relation to NFA 34 and GCA 68. They haven't engaged in violent activity with anyone, and as has been said before, this guy is forcing a legal confrontation with the fedgov and SCOTUS.
While I am in the camp of folks that interprets the 2A as any non-crew served military hardware, I know the fedgov doesn't look at it that way. And while I wouldn't have chosen this guy's course of action, I wish him luck.
Look, the ATF might be a bunch of bloodthirsty freaks, these guys might be far right wing nuts, but they have every right to try their case in federal court.
As for the definition of militia, and what that means now, and what it meant then, in the past, the militia was a safeguard against enemies foreign and domestic. Now, it is an abstraction which most of America neither understands nor cares about.
As for what has been posted about the validity of the militia in modern American life, hey it may be very valid in short order in the country as a means of taking back the government from a domestic enemy. But I certainly hope to never see a day like that.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Lucky said:
I never argued he had no right to own firearms. I said he had no right to form a private militia. Do you understand the distinction?
From Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution discussing the powers of Congress:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The State's have the authority to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. That authority includes the power to tell Joe Militiaman he may not form his own private army. The State appoints the officers of the militia and trains the militia. The militia is not run by guys who collect guns and the guy with the biggest gun collection gets to be the general.
If you don't understand the concept of federalism, I don't have the time, space or inclination to explain it to you here. I recommend starting with Thin Black Line's link and then progress to Google; but the point of federalism is to disperse power amongst democratically elected (not self-selected) governments in order to make sure that no small group of people can seize all the levers of power at once. If power is concentrated in a standing army, that can be done. If the standing army must contend with 13 state militias, then it isn't quite so easy.
jrfoxx
Member
FWIW, since the subject of officially state sanctioned militias has come up, Oregon has an official state militia: the Oregon State Defense Force, who, by state law, is all volenteer, trains on state property with state appointed officers, and is NOT allowed to be taken control of by the federal government as per state law.The governer, Adjunct General and the Oregon military Department have sole control/authority over them.Thier stated purpose is to defend the state and the state alone.Just thought it was releveant to a certain aspect of the posts and topic at hand.
See Oregon State Defense Force official website here:http://www.mil.state.or.us/SDF/Units/Units.html
See Oregon State Defense Force official website here:http://www.mil.state.or.us/SDF/Units/Units.html
gc70
Member
Mississippi has statutory authority for a State Guard, in addition to the National Guard and the unorganized militia. The last I heard, the State Guard was composed entirely of Colonels who were political supporters of the Governor.
Molon Labe
Member
You are stating an opinion as fact.
You should restate the above as follows:
"It is my opinion he had no right to form a private militia."
My opinion, which is just as valid as yours, happens to be different. I believe he has every right to form a militia.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Molon Labe said:
Actually, I was stating U.S. law since 1783; but it also happens to be my opinion as well.
- Status
