• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explosive Growth of Militias

Thunder said:
now you're just projecting. I've read the relevent sections of the USC many times. Someday you should as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's like saying you know how to repair a car, because you've read manuals, but have no idea what a camshaft, tie rod, or u-joint is.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I asked you to "name them", you have failed.... Who has no evidence?
Click to expand...

OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG.

DID anyone read post 161? I have answered many of your questions and provided proof as well.
Do you all have me on "ignore" or something?
 
Thunder said:
ok, well, when you're done with that....you can put together a logical & intelligent argument.
Click to expand...

Heh.

Mostly because the statement was wrong and hilarious in just about every way it could be.

The exchange, boiled down:

You: "I know this because I've read the US Code."
Me: "Just because you read it, it doesn't mean you understood the terms in it."
You: "The Constitution is everything."

Thus, the response is nonsensical.

As if that weren't enough, the Constitution is a blueprint for the government, it's not, by itself, the government. You claimed it was both the manual AND the car.

:lamo
 
Harshaw said:
...As if that weren't enough, the Constitution is a blueprint for the government, it's not, by itself, the government. You claimed it was both the manual AND the car...
Click to expand...

The Constitution is the SUPREME law of our land. What is says about "The Militia", IS The Militia.

anything else calling itself The Militia, if it does not abide by what is spelled out by our Constitution, is not...Constitutionally speaking "The Militia".

for example: as per our Constitution, The Militia shall fight to defend our nation from outside enemies and internal revolt. If they are unwilling to do that, at the call of our Federal govt., then they are NOT.."The Militia".
 
Thunder said:
The Constitution is the SUPREME law of our land. What is says about "The Militia", IS The Militia.

anything else calling itself The Militia, if it does not abide by what is spelled out by our Constitution, is not...Constitutionally speaking "The Militia".

for example: as per our Constitution, The Militia shall fight to defend our nation from outside enemies and internal revolt. If they are unwilling to do that, at the call of our Federal govt., then they are NOT.."The Militia".
Click to expand...

Dude. :doh

All the Constitution provides is what the federal government may do WITH the militia in certain circumstances; it does not DEFINE the militia. The militia pre-existed the Constitution. If you do not know what a militia is, then the chances of your understanding the Constitution when it mentions it are nil.
 
Harshaw said:
Dude. :doh

All the Constitution provides is what the federal government may do WITH the militia in certain circumstances; it does not DEFINE the militia....
Click to expand...

The 2nd Militia Act of 1792 defines The Militia, and who is not in The Militia.

The Constitution defines who supervises, disciplines, arms, and trains The Militia.

The 2nd Militia Act of 1792 authorizes the POTUS to call up The Militia.

clearly, The Militia is there to assist the Federal government during times of invasion, revolt, insurgency, and resistance against the laws of our Great Nation.

any group of armed men & women, who refuses to abide by these rules & regulations set forth by OUR laws, is not.....Constitutionally speaking..."The Militia".
 
Thunder said:
The 2nd Militia Act of 1792 defines The Militia, and who is not in The Militia.

The Constitution defines who supervises, disciplines, arms, and trains The Militia.

The 2nd Militia Act of 1792 authorizes the POTUS to call up The Militia.

clearly, The Militia is there to assist the Federal government during times of invasion, revolt, insurgency, and resistance against the laws of our Great Nation.

any group of armed men & women, who refuses to abide by these rules & regulations set forth by OUR laws, is not.....Constitutionally speaking..."The Militia".
Click to expand...

Are you going to decide whether you're arguing from the US Code or the Constitution? You've deeply, deeply confused yourself.

Oh, by the way, the Militia Acts of 1792 have been repealed, and superseded several times, so you may want to update yourself.

And you continue to show that you have no idea what a "militia" is. If you did, you'd know why all this "Militia/militia" stuff doesn't matter, and that the definition of a national militia doesn't uproot the historical local nature of such things, as is relevant to the original question you asked, to wit: "who saves us from the militias?"
 
Harshaw said:
...If you did, you'd know why all this "Militia/militia" stuff doesn't matter...
Click to expand...

you only say that because The Militia, as its spelled out in the USC and the many Militia Acts, up to 1903, are contrary to your personal view of what The Militia should be.

you want The Militia to answer to no one, be responsible to no one, and yet at the same time...recognized & respected as legitimate by the government.

you want The Militia, to be able to fight "tyranny", whenever & wherever they see it. Even if the great majority of this country thinks they're crazy extremists.

basically, you support anarchy, under the mask of Constitutional rights & freedom.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
you only say that because The Militia, as its spelled out in the USC and the many Militia Acts, up to 1903, are contrary to your personal view of what The Militia should be.

you want The Militia to answer to no one, be responsible to no one, and yet at the same time...recognized & respected as legitimate by the government.

you want The Militia, to be able to fight "tyranny", whenever & wherever they see it. Even if the great majority of this country thinks they're crazy extremists.

basically, you support anarchy, under the mask of Constitutional rights & freedom.
Click to expand...

Don't tell him, he can't deal with it, hes just going to dodge and side with radical armed paramilitary groups over the democratic government of the US.
 
lizzie said:
Show me where the armed resistance is happening.
Click to expand...

I've already posted several examples of militias attacking law enforcement officers and plotting to blow up federal buildings. There are many more in the ADL link I posted.

Here's a guess: if these guys were named Achmed and not Bubba you'd be all for the FBI living inside their rectums.
 
Last edited:
MKULTRABOY said:
Don't tell him, he can't deal with it, hes just going to dodge and side with radical armed paramilitary groups over the democratic government of the US.
Click to expand...

and yet, he wants the Federal & State governments to respect the "militias", even as they plot and arm against our country.
 
Thunder said:
you only say that because The Militia, as its spelled out in the USC and the many Militia Acts, up to 1903, are contrary to your personal view of what The Militia should be.

you want The Militia to answer to no one, be responsible to no one, and yet at the same time...recognized & respected as legitimate by the government.

you want The Militia, to be able to fight "tyranny", whenever & wherever they see it. Even if the great majority of this country thinks they're crazy extremists.

basically, you support anarchy, under the mask of Constitutional rights & freedom.
Click to expand...

IF you guys read post 161 you may get some idea of why the citizen militias exist and what they think about the law.
 
"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

I think the government has grown to the point where the people are more afraid of it then it is of them.

Though it is not an official government position at the moment there is a desire by some ( including people in positions of power) to disarm and silence the opposition.

I can't speak for these militias but it makes sense that they exist and are prepared for a worst case scenario but until that time comes use legal recourse ( voting, protesting, etc.) to have their say.
 
taxigirl said:

IF you guys read post 161 you may get some idea of why the citizen militias exist and what they think about the law.
Click to expand...

they see what they want to see.

they read what they want to read.

they believe what they want to believe.

I bet the great minority of "militia" members know what Article 1 Section 8 of the USC discusses.
 
Paratrooper said:
...I think the government has grown to the point where the people are more afraid of it then it is of them....
Click to expand...

are YOU...afraid of the Federal government?

I'm sure not. There is no logical nor rational reason to be.

Only criminals & terrorists need to fear the Federal government.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
are YOU...afraid of the Federal government?

I'm sure not. There is no logical nor rational reason to be.
Click to expand...


The dependent class would be afraid without the fedgov...


Only criminals & terrorists need to fear the Federal government.
Click to expand...


spoken like a true statist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom