Militia Raid

[Kentak]

Liberty means leaving folk alone, so long as they don't harm others. It's the only way to safeguard one's own liberty.

I'm very much down with that. I have a strong libertarian streak in me, and I think that's a great organizing principle for a free society.

But, sometimes things get into gray areas.

Should the law prohibit the possession of child pornography? Strict libertarianism would suggest not, yet the arguments for such laws are rather compelling.

K

 

[Kentak]

It's absolutely correct that various kinds of warbirds are privately owned. I really don't think that's an issue, as long as FAA regulations are followed. I doubt Dorn's F-86 has functional .50's. I suspect there would be national security regulations that come into play with modern weapons as it applies to dissemination of advanced military technology. You wouldn't expect, I hope, to be allowed to own the fire control systems of a modern warbird or M1A2 tank.

K

 

[Kentak]

Evil Monkey said

That's immoral. Buidling MG's is not, regardless of what law says. If the laws says not to pick your nose and you do it anyway, does that mean you've done an immoral act just because it's the law? Absolutely not.

Who says it's immoral? The age of consent in colonial times was as low as 10. Yes, our founding fathers could legally have consensual sex with a 12 y.o.

You're missing the point. I'm not advocating sex with 12 y.o.'s, I'm sure you realize that. The point is that one does not get to decide what laws to follow.

Outlaws said

There is nothing in the consitution that says we cannot make a law against that. The 2nd amendment though states otherwise on our right to bear arms.

Understood, but individually we don't get to decide what laws are unconstitutional and disobey them with impunity. The laws under which this guy was arrested have not been determined to be unconstitutional in a court of law and overturned by the Supreme Court. Until then, you can piss and moan all you want. Convince this guy to take his case through the court system on constitutional grounds.

K

 

[Outlaws]

Kentak,

I wasnt' debating if he should or should not have been arrested. Infact his website is almost asking for a fight from the feds. I was just stating my position of full auto.

 

[TheGrouch]

Should the law prohibit the possession of child pornography? Strict libertarianism would suggest not, yet the arguments for such laws are rather compelling.

A better interpretation of the libertarian philosophy would be to ask "Is there a victim in the crime committed?"

 

[Kentak]

Jeff said

There is also nothing in the constitution to prevent the government from forbidding or otherwise regulating the private formation of armed groups. In fact this very issue was visited by the Supreme Court in the 1800s. Look up Presser v. Illinois.

The milita that is referred to in the constitution and the US code is not just anybody. It is regulated by the states and the governors have the authority to organize it, arm it and appoint it's commanders. It is a part of the government not a check on the government like the members of the armed political parties who have soiled the term militia claim it to be.

Excellent point, Jeff.

 

[Lucky]

Jeff White, since you're a moderator I'm not sure who to report you to, but you are willfully spreading information which is clearly untrue, and I request that you correct that behaviour.

For one thing the organized militia aspect is only HALF of the context of the 2nd amendment, which is very clearly 2 amendments combined for concision.

And secondly there is a difference between a government having absolute control over the existence of armed people, and the ability to impose some regulations on them drilling and parading.

Either you are misinformed, or you are trying to misinform. Either way it should be corrected.



Wildcat, your whiny attitude about not owning a jet fighter show you to be a scoundrel, and for being honest about your nature you should be thanked. You are like a drowning man, who doesn't even want to be saved, but instead seeks only to drag as many people as possible under the water with him. Let me make this clear, you have to learn this - BRINGING OTHER PEOPLE DOWN DOES NOT BRING YOU UP. If you want to feel better, don't insult other people. If you're upset about now owning a jet fighter, don't attempt to take away other people's toys. (and as other people have mentioned, you freaking could own a jet fighter if you actually wanted to)

And for the record, even a cursory glance at US history, by a freaking Canadian, shows that the Confederate artillery was mostly provided by PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, who were in artillery clubs before the conflict broke out.


StrikeFire83

I won't lose much sleep tonight knowing that a private citizen was just disarmed of his howitzer.

I don't know how you could sleep in the first place, thinking thoughts like that.

 

[Kentak]

Kentak,

I wasnt' debating if he should or should not have been arrested. Infact his website is almost asking for a fight from the feds. I was just stating my position of full auto.

Understood. And I understand many believe full auto shouldn't be regulated. All I'm say is that the fact is they are, hence, the arrest. 3/4 of the population can believe that's an unconstitutional law, but only the opinion of 5 out of 9 make it so.

K

 

[Kentak]

For one thing the organized militia aspect is only HALF of the context of the 2nd amendment, which is very clearly 2 amendments combined for concision.

Who says?

 

[WeedWhacker]

The milita that is referred to in the constitution and the US code is not just anybody. It is regulated by the states and the governors have the authority to organize it, arm it and appoint it's commanders. It is a part of the government not a check on the government like the members of the armed political parties who have soiled the term militia claim it to be.

(emphasis mine)

... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...

Hm.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

WOW.

How is this suppose to be a RKBA forum when people believe that the Second Amendment is about State-run militias?

We might as well become the Brady-Road.


BTW, the Second Amendment clearly protects things like Stinger missles and such weapons. The Second Amendment is about the people having equal or greater force projection power as the government. Because when the balance of power is equal or favors the citizen, there is liberty. When it favors the government, there is tyranny.

People think "OMG, wut r you sum crazy nut fer advocating the ownin' of missles?!?!" ...but that is false. A capitalist, democratic society that develops and progresses with such arms (such as machine guns, grenades and missles) does not evolve into a society of Goth-music Columbine killers and whackos. A society like that, where GOOD MEN have all the guns never allows the government to tell you what kind of beverages are ok, or what kind of sex is ok, or how much of your hard earned money you owe them.


Why? Because the militia IS the people. An American society like that is not gang plagued. It does not have drug problems. It does not have rampant psychopaths, child mollestors or thugs.


Why? Because GOOD MEN get their militia together and shoot the stinking scum of society. That's why.

Not politically correct? Too bad. I guess Jefferson and all the men of that day were not PC.

Sorry, I don't need 100 idiotic liberal-written revisionist stories of witch hunts or local injustices to propagandize my mind into believing that modern justice is more effective and more fair because the past was nothing but human-rights abuses.


Gimme a break.

 

[Erinyes]

My very first inclination regarding the "cannon" was to ask what kind. Muzzleloading? 75mm pack howitzer? But then, why does that even matter? What's wrong with a guy owning a cannon? None of you saying you don't have a problem with confiscating the "cannon" (or the machineguns for that matter) have provided a reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to own one. All I've read is some truely weak legal wrangling about what's constitutional and what's not.

I also feel compelled to ask which law bans the civilian ownership of field artillery? Anyone? Sure, there's regulations on owning field artillery, but where's the ban? Or the ban on owning a main battle tank (hint: I bet it wouldn't take a master of google-fu to find out that there are civilian owned tanks in this country)?

 

[Number 6]

A capitalist, democratic society that develops and progresses with such arms (such as machine guns, grenades and missles) does not evolve into a society of Goth-music Columbine killers and whackos. A society like that, where GOOD MEN have all the guns never allows the government to tell you what kind of beverages are ok, or what kind of sex is ok, or how much of your hard earned money you owe them.

You got some evidence to back that up?

 

[Kentak]

BTW, the Second Amendment clearly protects things like Stinger missles and such weapons. The Second Amendment is about the people having equal or greater force projection power as the government.

The Second Amendment clearly does not protect things like Stinger missiles and such weapons.

There. We have two conflicting opinions. How shall we prove which is correct?

K

 

[Erinyes]

The Second Amendment clearly does not protect things like Stinger missiles and such weapons.

There. We have two conflicting opinions. How shall we prove which is correct?

K

See, there we go with legal wrangling again.

But to prove which is correct, well here we go.

First, we will assume the Second Amendment protects an individual right and not a collective right of the state. Afterall, it'd be pretty silly to protect a collective right of the state, especially since "state" obviously refers in this case to the nation as a whole, not one its political subdivisions. If you disagree with that presumption (the individual right one), then why are you even here?

Second, the Miller case ruled that the Second Amendment refers only to weapons suitable for militia use.

Third, the FIM-92A and similar MANPADS are quite obviously suitable to militia use.

Therefore, the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a Stinger missile via Miller.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

It was understood at the time that arms referred to military arms.

Most people have interpreted this to mean non-crew served weapons (which would mean the Stinger is a-ok). However, people did own all kinds of things like explosives and cannon, and the government didn't care one bit because back then the Second Amendment was a no-brainer. In fact, many questioned why it should even be written into the bill of rights because it is so obvious. Example, it would be like a new constitution writing in the "right to drive" when everyone automatically accepts that as a standard part of life.


Whatever the case may be, what do you fear from such a concept? This concept, the concept of liberty and freedom empower the citizen and weakens the government. That is an American value. To argue otherwise is to imply that the government is better at shaping society than the people who live in it. I don't think they've done such a good job lately...


In fairness, I'm giving you an idealistic view. The government began to grow larger and more tyrannical than the founders ever imagined, as a result, their policies and laws corrupted society to the point where we have what you see on the nightly news - a society where if you sold Stinger missiles, gang bangers would be shooting down airlines for fun. The type of nation and society Jefferson envisioned ( the vision that lost out during the course of American history ) would have been completely different.

 

[Number 6]

In fairness, I'm giving you an idealistic view. The government began to grow larger and more tyrannical than the founders ever imagined, as a result, their policies and laws corrupted society to the point where we have what you see on the nightly news - a society where if you sold Stinger missiles, gang bangers would be shooting down airlines for fun. The type of nation and society Jefferson envisioned ( the vision that lost out during the course of American history ) would have been completely different.

I think you are conflating Jefferson's view of a good government as the consensus of the framers of the constitution. Hamilton differed with Jefferson on what they believed to be the size and scope of government. So even in the beginning, there was some ambiguity on the of what the United States ought to look like.

 

[Apple a Day]

I know a couple of guys who own cannons... Civil War cannons. There's not a d@mned thing wrong with owning a cannon. One of them makes Gatling guns - modified so he doesn't get jumped by the BATF - but they shoot just the same. Maybe the guy in the article was doing the same but cut the barrels 1/4" too short or some other minor legal infraction that's landed his butt in the federal pen. for the rest of his life. With as little info. as there was in the article you folks are awful dadgum eager to condemn him and roll over to have your tummy scratched by the government... freakin' apologists. I can't believe I'm hearing such whining on an RKBA forum.

By the way, there was at least one F-4 Phantom in civilian hands. I saw it years ago at the Oshkosh fly-in put on the the EAA. There's a MiG-15 and a F-86 that make the rounds of the local air shows. There are a number of P-51's and at least one P-38 still flying. There's no reason you can't get a C&R airplane if you have the bucks and the balls.

 

[Gifted]

FAA doesn't like things on planes designed to come off(e.g. bombs and bullets).

Big question I see is what his profile is. Would it be reasonable for them to try for a 2ndA case on this?

 

[carlrodd]

in regard to forming a militia, what do you call blackwater security? they are a heavily armed civilian group. why should they be allowed to exist, and a local militia not? or is it only ok if said militia is exclusively contracted by the federal government, and given special dispensation when it comes to federal firearms laws? we probably won't hear any more about this, and will be forced to accept the info offered by the media...i.e., the guy had a militia, broke some laws, and is now, thank god, behind bars. who knows what happened, or if he even broke any laws? he is someone the government wanted to nab, and now it's done. your neighbour could be next.

 

[Hardware]

By the way, there was at least one F-4 Phantom in civilian hands. I saw it years ago at the Oshkosh fly-in put on the the EAA. There's a MiG-15 and a F-86 that make the rounds of the local air shows. There are a number of P-51's and at least one P-38 still flying. There's no reason you can't get a C&R airplane if you have the bucks and the balls.

There's also at least one F-15 in private, civillian hands. I believe it is displayed in the museum up in Oregon that has the Spruce Goose. There were 2 F/A-18s for sale in the US a couple of years ago. DOD landed on the owner with both feet and then had to back off because he acquired the planes legally. AFAIK they are the only pair currently or ever will be available.

As far as foreign planes there are Mig-17s, Mig-21s flying around in private hands. Whatever you want, you can get, if you have the money.

And for all the missile naysayers, Popular Mechanics assembled a Tomahawk as a project a few years back. They purchased all the parts to assemble it, except for payload, through military surplus channels. There was a great group shot of all the staff standing around their Tomahawk for one of the anniversary issues. They then called the gummint to come and take it away.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

A thought for you

Lessee, there's that pesky 2nd Amendment that guarantys the "right" to bear arms. It doesn't restrict by type of arms.

So, let's think about the 1st. It's a guaranty of the people's right to speech and assembly. Could anyone point out where it limits that right only to people not bearing arms?

There's been absolutely no reports of any violence at any Arkansas militia meetings, so they must be assembling peacefully. Anything wrong with that?

 

[Silent-Snail]

Where were you and "your type" of online community at Waco when the Socialist/Dems in power at the time issued what amounted to an open challenge to the militias. No one showed and I currently have you marked down as a "no show".

I know I'm not supposed to feed trolls, but I'll have you know that I was sitting my little pre-pubecent butt in school doing my best to get out of homework.

 

[Glockfan.45]

I was going to stay out of this one but find it hard to resist so I will bite. I have always had my doubts about militas, and their ideology. I feel that most of the militias around today are little more than far right religious nut jobs. Sorry thats just how I see it. The person that started this thread asked why nobody from here showed up at Waco. The answer is stated in the text above. I see no need to fight for one nut jobs cause, I cannot speak for all members here but I doubt that statement will get much disagreement. And yes the Branch Davidians were nut jobs. Would a milita movement be effective against our government should said government ever become corrupt? I used to think the answer was no not at all. How could a few guys most of which have little or no military training stand up to tanks, planes, missiles, and the most powerful military the world has ever seen? Then something happened that changed my view. That something was Iraq. I watch a handful of half starved civilians with nothing more than AK's, RPG's, and some road side bombs stand up to the greatest military in the world with much sucess. Add to the point do you think the U.S Military would be that willing to use heavy weapons here on U.S soil as they do in Iraq? I doubt it. Would people stand up and fight over gun confiscation? I doubt it. Heres what I think could happen to make Americans fight. Lets say sometime soon we have another attack on the same scale or greater than 9/11. Well shortly after Uncle Sam decides it would be a good idea to throw another contract at Halliburton to build some detainment centers for all those muslims here that may be sleeper cells. Dont think our government would ever do that? Buzz wrong we did it before during WWII and could do it again. Now most Americans are not going to like the idea of detention camps for Americans and may decide to protest a few may go further than that. Now Bush (or whoever else may be around at the time) decides to apply his Patriot Act powers even more and start rounding up protesters, and anyone else that catches his eye to fill a few more camps. Now when friends and family, husbands and wives, sons and daughters start missing do you think a few people are going to decide to stand up and fight? They very well may, and if they do I want them to have all the ordinance possible. Armed people never need fear their government, and the government never need fear their people so long as said government never crosses the line into oppression.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


What a wacko. I hope the ATF gets this Tenche Coxe guy, too. I mean, just look at his article in the Pennsylvania Gazette! He is practically asking for a fight with the feds!