Joe Nation wrote:
The militia are not meant to be insurrectionists. They are supposed to carry out the orders of the government, not fight against the government.
Your opinion is not shared by this particular gun owner:
Kory Watkins of Mansfield, who will attend the convention as a guest, said Buckhorn shouldn't have made the request in the first place.
"I think that request is out of line," he said. "They have ordered extra armed police and CIA agents to be there. Why can't the American people carry? It goes against our Constitution for them not to allow us.
"It makes me feel safer knowing people can protect themselves if an unlawful citizen or tyrant government gets out of control," he said. "That is what our Founding Fathers intended our Second Amendment to be about."
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/27/3780987/issue-over-concealed-handguns.html#storylink=cpy
His statement reflects, far more than yours has, my experience with people who feel it is not only their right to carry concealed weapons everywhere they go, but also necessary
to protect themselves from governmental authorities
they think or feel have over stepped their authority in some way.
That includes, for many of the ones I've known, the cop on the beat or the state trooper with the radar gun. I've been to City Council Meetings where, as the faces get redder and the cries of "Order, order" rise, people start looking around for the hot-headed insurance salesman who got himself a carry license last month.
The Tea Party Protests of a season or two ago did not display any signs that I saw talking to the issue of 'defense against lawbreakers'; I did see any number of signs decrying what they called "the illegitimate government in Washington, DC."
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16:
The Congress shall have power To . . . .
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
That covers the government's control over the militia, and the militia's role in cracking down on insurrection.
Also, Alexander Hamilton talked about the militia in Federalist 29:
His point was to try to argue that we should only make part of the citizenry train as the militia, as opposed to forcing it on the entire citizenry (he believed that forcing the entire nation to take up military training would backfire). However, he clearly talks of the militia as a force that is fighting FOR the government, and not against it.
The discussion of the issue at the Virginia Ratifying Convention also talked of the militia in a way that clearly had them fighting on the side of the government:
Joe Nation wrote:
The judge, you remember~ the SUBJECT of this thread~ does not speak of organizing against criminal activity, he talks of facing down authorities.
Well, I'm not sure "authorities" is the correct word. He was envisioning Obama overturning the American republic the same way Roman emperors overturned the Roman republic, and using a UN army (that does not actually exist) as his military force.
Setting aside the question of whether this will ever come to pass, such a course of events would seem likely to result in a civil war. (And if he has to use a non-existent UN army to impose his will, does that mean that the actual US Army is against him?)
In such a messed up situation, I'm not sure anyone could lay claim to the mantle of legitimate authority.
In any case, let's chalk this entire thing up to: it's never going to happen, so let's not worry about it.
10 years from now, this judge guy is going to realize that Obama is just a normal Democratic president, and wonder how he ever managed to think anything so silly.
Joe Nation wrote:
~Hey, you should start a Facebook page asking for donations to help your cause.
HELP THIS MAN BUY A BAZOOKA FOR HOME USE.
[insert your picture here]
Joe(yeah, that'll work)Nation
I'm not on Facebook (or any other social media site). I've just never seen the point of it.
Militia weapons aren't for home use, even though militiamen have the right to keep them at home.
Plus, I might not ever buy a bazooka even if I secured the right to do so.
I fought tooth and nail to help get concealed carry for Michigan. But then once it passed, I never bothered to get a CCW permit.