Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

spendius wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No, I am pointing out that the militia was not at all necessary. It was a choice.

For sure. A standing army under federal control was out for the reasons I gave.

No, the reasons you gave had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.

They did not want a standing army because they feared that the new federal government would become tyrannical if it had a standing army.

spendius wrote:
oralloy wrote:
All the states genuinely feared that if the new federal government had a standing army, it would impose tyranny on them

Not the ones who wanted one.

If anyone wanted the new federal government to have a standing army, such people were very few.

spendius wrote:
But I do understand how difficult it is to persuade somebody who thinks he is Napoleon that he's just an ordinary little powerless nobody.

Napoleon??

Not sure what you mean. The example of tyranny they feared was not based on Napoleon, but rather on England's King James II.

(Hope I'm remembering the right king; I didn't look it up to verify. It'll be the one who was deposed just before the English Bill of Rights.)

Yes. That was him. He fled to (Catholic) France.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

If anyone wanted the new federal government to have a standing army, such people were very few.

Sorry David I am not sure who posted the above with all the nesting of comments but I still wished to add the following.

Hamilton dream of a standing army with him at the head of it and almost got his wish during the Adam administration when Washington was ask to form and take command of an army to guard against a possible French attack.

Washington being long in the tooth demanded that Hamilton would be his second in command over others with far more seniority.

Second dream of Hamilton was to take elements of this army and kick the Spanish out of South American.

All this fell through when the bad feelings with France cool off.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'd be surprised if there were any Roman connections to the Fyrd. The concept of the militia was much more suited to Germanic ways of thinking and fighting than it was to Roman ways of thinking and fighting.

Posse comitatus is Roman/Latin name for it.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'd never really thought about it before. But it stands to reason that the term had to have an origin of some sort.

The Normans are the Vikings who settled in France

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The US has a foundational Bill of Rights unmatched by any country on earth, but who cares? It's all freedom shite.

I'm happy that you believe that. Everyone should be proud of their own country, although not blindly so.

I think you have wilfully misunderstood my reference to Oralloy's burblings about freedom with regard to personal arms. It is a perversion of the meaning of freedom to use it in that way and so I refer to his ravings as "freedom shite". At best, it is a claimed, selfish, personal licence to be irresponsible.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
If anyone wanted the new federal government to have a standing army, such people were very few.

Sorry David I am not sure who posted the above with all the nesting of comments
but I still wished to add the following.

Hamilton dream of a standing army with him at the head of it
and almost got his wish during the Adam administration when Washington
was asked to form and take command of an army to guard against a possible French attack.

Washington being long in the tooth demanded that Hamilton would be his second in command
over others with far more seniority.

Second dream of Hamilton was to take elements of this army
and kick the Spanish out of South America.

All this fell through when the bad feelings with France cool off.

What we now call a "police force" is what the Founders
deplored & abhorred as a: "standing army".
There were no police in the USA until the 18OOs.

David

1 Reply

@McTag,

Sorry but an arm citizenry is indeed a hallmark of a free people who rule their government not the other way around.

Come on how insulting and sad and silly is it that a nation own Olympics pistol team need to leave the country to be able to practical or that any air rifle over 16 joules need to be consider a firearm or............

You people had allow the old women of both sexes to become your rulers.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

What we now call a "police force" is what the Founders
deplored & abhorred as a: "standing army".
There were no police in the USA until the 18OOs.

As far as I know the US military except in the south right after the civil war never have a law enforcement role.

For Federal law enforcement the US Marshals was created in 1798.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

The US has a foundational Bill of Rights unmatched by any country on earth, but who cares?

I DO! I DO!!! I CARE!!!!!

Quote:

It's all freedom shite.

McTag wrote:

I'm happy that you believe that. Everyone should be proud of their own country, although not blindly so.

I think you have wilfully misunderstood my reference to Oralloy's burblings about freedom with regard to personal arms.
It is a perversion of the meaning of freedom

FREEDOM means the absence of jurisdiction of government.

McTag wrote:

to use it in that way and so I refer to his ravings as "freedom shite".

At best, it is a claimed, selfish, personal licence to be irresponsible.

FOR THE RECORD:
I have gone out of my way to be selfish,
as much as possible, as ofen as possible.

Being selfish is Nature's Way. Its admirable. Its opposite is perversion. Personal freedom = crippled government.

Individual liberty and jurisdiction of government are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
What we now call a "police force" is what the Founders
deplored & abhorred as a: "standing army".
There were no police in the USA until the 18OOs.

As far as I know the US military except in the south right after the civil war
never have a law enforcement role.

For Federal law enforcement the US Marshals was created in 1798.

In the 17OOs, the Founding generation
feared that what we now deem to be the local police woud be created.
Thay referred (disapprovingly) to such an entity as being: "a standing army."

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The inspiring legacy--

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

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Being selfish is Nature's Way. Its admirable. Its opposite is perversion.

I agree. But the weakness is so debilitating that it amounts to a sort of suicide and the United States ceases to exist.

It's unbelievable that a grown man can continue with the mentality of the cradle and not be either led away by men in white coats or inspire indulgent slow shakings of the heads in sympathetic pity.

It's as if Dave does not know that society means a compromise with personal freedom in order to exist.

I think he just loves to wallow in provocative idiocy. He wants to be feral but he needs the other 310 million Americans to resist the temptation. One only needs imagine the state of affairs if they followed his line. He must get patronised everywhere he goes. His argument is just too silly for anybody to bother taking on. What must people say behind his back.

It must be funny seeing him wait for the little green man at the pedestrian crossing to instruct him that it is safe. Imagine looking at the back of his head while he's doing that knowing he has typed such subversive and unmitigated drivel out and sent it winging through the ether on a machine his philosophy has zero chance of inventing or maintaining.

Seeing him follow the instructions on a microwave dinner whilst thinking such thoughts is hilarious.

I think he's taking the piss on behalf of international socialism by making its opposite look silly.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

How was the tyranny of James II something to be feared? Parliament got shot of him in a bloodless coup. Parliament cut his dad's head off and he'd seen the writing on the wall before he legged it out of there. Google 'glorious revolution.'

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

I think you have wilfully misunderstood my reference to Oralloy's burblings about freedom with regard to personal arms. It is a perversion of the meaning of freedom to use it in that way

Wrong. It is the actual meaning of freedom as it was always meant to be.

Note this outstanding post by Walter Hinteler:

"Wearing weapons showed that those Saxons were free with a higher social status than others (and besides that, it was a connection to their ancestors).
The Jutes, Angles, Normen had very similar traditions re weapons as well as re militia."

http://able2know.org/topic/194227-91#post-5082039

Americans are free too. And we will NOT be giving up our freedom.

McTag wrote:

At best, it is a claimed, selfish, personal licence to be irresponsible.

No, there is no irresponsibility involved in our refusing to become serfs.

Look, you don't want to be free, and you have exactly what you want.

But Americans want to be free. And we're going to have exactly what we want as well.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Note this outstanding post by Walter Hinteler:

"Wearing weapons showed that those Saxons were free with a higher social status than others (and besides that, it was a connection to their ancestors).
The Jutes, Angles, Normen had very similar traditions re weapons as well as re militia."

NB: those emphasis isn't mine but was done by oralloy!

You obviously didn't get it: they were free with a higher social status . And these weapons showed that they had the freedom to own fiefs, slaves and other unfree creatures.

Edit: of course you got it - you prove that with every of your posts that we others humbly have to tilt the head and do what you want ...

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Note this outstanding post by Walter Hinteler:

"Wearing weapons showed that those Saxons were free with a higher social status than others (and besides that, it was a connection to their ancestors).
The Jutes, Angles, Normen had very similar traditions re weapons as well as re militia."

You obviously didn't get it: they were free with a higher social status . And these weapons showed that they had the freedom to own fiefs, slaves and other unfree creatures.

Edit: of course you got it - you prove that with every of your posts that we others humbly have to tilt the head and do what you want ...

I did get it. Americans by definition ALL have that higher social status. We will never allow ourselves to become serfs.

But I don't see why you think I want anyone to do what I want. I'm a pretty content person, and have never desired servitude from anyone.

I just want people to stop trying to take my freedom away from me.

And there is no desire to lord it over anyone either. I'd be delighted if people around the world shared the same freedom that Americans enjoy.

But when people come here and post that they actually don't want to be free, what can I do? If they actually don't want freedom, and they have what they want, I guess that's that.

But I'm not about to give up my own freedom and join them in their self-imposed serfdom.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

NB: those emphasis isn't mine but was done by oralloy!

Yes. That was the important part. You illustrated the fact that free people have the right to carry weapons when they go about in public.

It was a beautiful post.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Because you left out the important part of my post. And because you have no idea about history.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

You're forgetting that Oralboy has a mediaevil mindset, it's clear the Reanaissance passed him by.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And because you have no idea about history.

Can you point out any facts that I got wrong?

1 Reply

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know