18
   

Civil War, in Texas ?

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 04:24 am
@oralloy,
Whatever they thought they were, I agree, they looked more like a gang than a group of insurrectionists.

Question for you, Oralloy, and anyone else who wants to join in:
The delegates to the RNC Convention can conceal-carry in Tampa, but not in the area controlled by the Secret Service. Only law enforcement officers can carry inside the hall.
How would you protest this obvious disarming of the US Citizenry?

Joe(But I take it everywhere, officer!)Nation
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 05:20 am
I have another couple of questions:
1) why are you asking for help with lawyer's fees? Would the State Militia join your suit and pay the expenses? (Best interests... .)
2) Why haven't they already sued?

Joe(early morning musings)Nation
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 06:09 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
Whatever they thought they were, I agree, they looked more like a gang than a group of insurrectionists.


The militia are not meant to be insurrectionists. They are supposed to carry out the orders of the government, not fight against the government.

One of their three official federal duties listed in the Constitution is suppressing rebellion.




Joe Nation wrote:
Question for you, Oralloy, and anyone else who wants to join in:
The delegates to the RNC Convention can conceal-carry in Tampa, but not in the area controlled by the Secret Service. Only law enforcement officers can carry inside the hall.
How would you protest this obvious disarming of the US Citizenry?


If they do not have secure facilities for people to check their guns when they enter the venue, I would protest the lack of those facilities.

Otherwise, no protest.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 06:16 am
@oralloy,
Aren't you the little niggler when it comes to language.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 06:18 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
I have another couple of questions:
1) why are you asking for help with lawyer's fees?


Lawyers are expensive. If I were to embark on suing the government all the way to the Supreme Court, I would not want to pick up the tab.



Joe Nation wrote:
Would the State Militia join your suit and pay the expenses? (Best interests... .)


Not likely. If they wanted to supply their militiamen with guns, they could just do so. They would have no need to sue.

The state government has the militia the way they want already, because they are the ones who set it up.



Joe Nation wrote:
2) Why haven't they already sued?


Individual militiamen, probably because lawyers are expensive. Also, they may not have even thought of it. They may not understand or agree that the Second Amendment protects the rights of militiamen. Or they may be content with the current role of the militia as basic civilian volunteers.

The state, because they would have no need to sue. If the state wanted the militia to have guns, they could just hand them out.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 06:28 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
LUDOWICI, Ga. (AP) -- Prosecutors say a murder case against four soldiers in Georgia has revealed they formed an anarchist militia within the U.S. military with plans to overthrow the federal government.


A militia is a body organized by the government, not a body formed by a bunch of guys calling themselves a militia.

Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly does allow people to organize into a body and call themselves a militia, but they aren't actually a militia.


Also, an actual militia is quite distinct and separate from the US Army. There is no way that someone who is in the Army could be in a militia (or vice versa).


Aren't you the little niggler when it comes to language.


No. There is a very great difference between a standing army, an official militia organized by the government, and a group of civilians referring to themselves as a militia without government sanction.

All three are absolutely different from one another.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 07:24 am
@oralloy,
Yes, so when a group of people calls themselves a militia they actually are one because it's the word they use. You don't get to niggle the meaning so it is only restricted to one usage since they fit the first definition.

Quote:
mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

And we all know about an "army of one" so 3 people can make up a militia.

Unless you want to start arguing that he US isn't fighting militias in Afghanistan, you might want to not restrict the meaning of militia.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 07:50 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Yes, so when a group of people calls themselves a militia they actually are one because it's the word they use. You don't get to niggle the meaning so it is only restricted to one usage since they fit the first definition.

Quote:
mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

And we all know about an "army of one" so 3 people can make up a militia.

Unless you want to start arguing that he US isn't fighting militias in Afghanistan, you might want to not restrict the meaning of militia.


If you want to argue that "ordinary civilians calling themselves a militia" have the right to have military weapons, be my guest.

But I'm going to stick to arguing that the right to have military weapons only applies to the militia organized by the government.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  4  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 08:07 am
@oralloy,

Oralloy wrote:
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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."

The judge, you remember~ the SUBJECT of this thread~ does not speak of organizing against criminal activity, he talks of facing down authorities.

~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
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 11:28 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
oralloy 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:

Quote:
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:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_15s9.html

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:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_15s13.html




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.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 04:09 am
You missed my entire point that matters not what the Founders or anyone else wrote about how militias are of and part of the government. What matters is Timothy McVeigh thought differently and so do hundreds of others in the USA.

Quote:
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.


Huh.
Kind of like what would happen if the dog ever caught the car.

What was the point of your efforts if you didn't take advantage of the results.

Joe(That seem odd to me.)Nation
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 06:34 am
@Joe Nation,
The device that has been most effective in reining in overzealous police has been the cell phone camera.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 08:41 am
@DrewDad,
That's true, Drew. Just make sure you check to see if the locals have passed any "no video of police allowed" ordinances.

Joe(which seems really odd to me.)Nation
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 10:24 am
@Joe Nation,
Has that been done? It sounds more than odd to me.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 10:31 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
see if the locals have passed any "no video of police allowed" ordinances.

There is no way such an ordinance would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Police have tried the "you're not allowed to film me" approach, and that has failed in the courts.

So has "creating a public nuisance" and "interfering with a police officer."

Recently they switched to "withholding evidence" which is a bit of a puzzler... what crime are they pursuing? Their own?
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 10:58 am
@DrewDad,
This is seven minutes plus long, but it tells the story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHp9q9QRVUk

It would seem like a no-brainer, but one guy's life has been on hold for over three years.

Most of the cops I know would WANT to be recorded, hell, their cruisers are recording them at every stop.

Joe(just not in Illinois or Massachusetts )Nation
roger
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 12:04 pm
@Joe Nation,
That's outrageous. If I hadn't watched, I might have called it incredible.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 01:27 pm
@DrewDad,
Politicians and police are trying to make this illegal.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 02:14 pm
@RABEL222,
This time, I'll put my faith in the ACLU, and the courts.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 02:45 pm
As my First Amendment Professor would say "The Founders said "You have the right of Freedom of Speech." They did did not say you have the right to listen or record the speech or behavior of others."

Hey, I think the cops may have found that right to privacy that conservatives are unable to locate.!!

Joe(You have the Freedom of Assembly, hence the success of Ikea)Nation
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 03:16:10