• 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

I'm quite certain that King George III and his loyal supporters would have thought the same thing. ;)

It's funny how dissatisfaction with government can get one labeled one as a traitor, depending on one's point of view. When militia members are loyal to the constitutional principles on which this nation was founded, are they the ones who should be suspect? If "patriots" should be considered suspect, then this tells me just how far away from our beginnings we have strayed.

Yeah, prior to January 20, 2009, dissent was often loudly trumpeted as "the highest form of patriotism."
 
Militias, along with our air force, evilly overthrew the government of Libya and now the Syrian government is desperately trying to defend itself against evil militias within its own country.

Militias are dangerous. Countries must have a strong totalitarian central governments free of challenge. It is totalitiarian governments, no armed people, that brought about civil rights. Everyone knows that.
 
Yeah, prior to January 20, 2009, dissent was often loudly trumpeted as "the highest form of patriotism."

Now disapproval of government proves you are a racist and a dangerous radical.
 
It was a direct answer to your question -- not a dodge.

No, it was not. You didn't name any group which you thought wasn't worthy of suspicion, and you didn't say how many within the movement you thought weren't, so you didn't answer either question. All you said was "I haven't looked into it, but they all believe X suspicious thing."

So, maybe in that respect, you did answer the question directly -- there aren't ANY not worthy of suspicion, and the percentage is 0. Thus, for you, the movement is 100% suspect.

Why do you have such a problem simply saying so, "directly"?
 
If every community had its own militia, as was the norm, and the INTENT, then it's not an issue. It's the militia system (stretching back 1500 years) working properly.

yeah, and what if half of these "militias" are Christian-extremist, racist, and anti-Semitic?

who's gonna save me from them?
 
Militias, along with our air force, evilly overthrew the government of Libya and now the Syrian government is desperately trying to defend itself against evil militias within its own country.

Militias are dangerous. Countries must have a strong totalitarian central governments free of challenge. It is totalitiarian governments, no armed people, that brought about civil rights. Everyone knows that.

Actually in regards to Libya and Syria:

I would say that an intervention in Syria is possible. However, I would like to say that there is a lot of going on in regards to Syria.

In regards to Libya, there was no investigation into if the accusations against Gaddafi even held any weight. For example:

"Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya." (Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent)

"Still, the rebels have offered their own far-fetched claims, like mass rapes by loyalist troops issued tablets of Viagra. Although the rebels have not offered credible proof, that claim is nonetheless the basis of an investigation by the International Criminal Court." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/africa/24fog.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all)

"There have been no confirmed cases of that; supposedly there are many African prisoners of war being held in Benghazi, but conveniently journalists are not allowed to see them.There are, however, African guest workers, poorly paid migrant labor, many of whom, unarmed, have been labeled mercenaries." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/africa/24fog.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)​


In addition to this, there was little to no talk in the MSM about the rebels killing black Africans

"Across eastern Libya, rebel fighters and their supporters are detaining, intimidating and frequently beating African immigrants and black Libyans, accusing them of fighting as mercenaries on behalf of Kadafi, witnesses and human rights workers say.

In a few instances, rebels have executed suspected mercenaries captured in battle, according to Human Rights Watch and local Libyans." (Blacks In Libya | Libyan rebels accused of targeting blacks - Los Angeles Times)​


But the West did have a UN Mandate, thus they went in and bombed Libya and overthrew Gaddafi even though that last part was overstepping the UN mandate.

In Syria the situation is different as the US, France, and Britain are already aiding the Syrian rebels. According Philip Giraldi, a former CIA analyst, the Syrian rebels are being given weapons that are transported via "unmarked NATO airplanes," that "volunteers from the Libyan National Transitional Council" are being brought in to aid the rebels and that "French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers." (The American Conservative » NATO vs. Syria).

In addition to this, while the West is trying to get a UN mandate to possibly allow for intervention in Syria, they are ignoring the report that the Arab League observers came out with. Here are some excerpts:

The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol. This development on the ground can undoubtedly be attributed to the excessive use of force by Syrian Government forces in response to protests that occurred before the deployment of the Mission demanding the fall of the regime. In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.
...

Arab and foreign audiences of certain media organizations have questioned the Mission’s credibility because those organizations use the media to distort the facts. It will be difficult to overcome this problem unless there is political and media support for the Mission and its mandate. It is only natural that some negative incidents should occur as it conducts its activities because such incidents occur as a matter of course in similar missions.​
...

In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed.​


The entire Arab League Syrian report can be seen here (http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf).

This has been completely ignored by the US and the Arab League as they are pushing for an intervention in Syria and this report does not line up with what they want. Thus, I think an intervention in Syria is possible.
 
Now disapproval of government proves you are a racist and a dangerous radical.

The Militia, as spelled out by our Constitution, serves at the pleasure of the government. Congress and the President has the power to call them up.
 
yeah, and what if half of these "militias" are Christian-extremist, racist, and anti-Semitic?

Show that they are.

who's gonna save me from them?

You apparently have no understanding of how a militia system works. :shrug: If you did, you wouldn't have to ask that question.
 
...You apparently have no understanding of how a militia system works. :shrug: If you did, you wouldn't have to ask that question.

sure I do, as I have read the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the Militia Act of 1792.
 
The Militia, as spelled out by our Constitution, serves at the pleasure of the government. Congress and the President has the power to call them up.

That is a complete misreading of the Constitution, brought about by having no actual idea of what a "militia" is.
 
sure I do, as I have read the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the Militia Act of 1792.

Heh. OK. Then entertain me this afternoon and explain it in detail.

(Going to love it when you get to the part in the second Militia Act of 1792 which requires all militia members (that is, all able-bodied males from the ages of 17 to 45) to own a musket and all the support gear. :lamo )
 
Heh. OK. Then entertain me this afternoon and explain it in detail.

(Going to love it when you get to the part in the second Militia Act of 1792 which requires all militia members (that is, all able-bodied males from the ages of 17 to 45) to own a musket and all the support gear. :lamo )

cute, as you forgot to mention that the States select Officers to supervise The Militias. And the government has the authority to train, arm, discipline, and prepare The Militias.

and you forgot about The Militias being required to assist the government in suppressing revolts.

and the President has the authority to call up The Militia to assist in the enforcement of Federal law.
 
LOL So, you going to ignore this:







So, now you need to be dishonest it seems.



The Good Reverend is the most honest person you have ever had the pleasure of being in company of. My lack of desire to address your silly post had nothing to do with a lack of honesty on my part.

In fact if you review the thread, I am satisfied the information provided covers your query.
 
cute, as you forgot to mention that the States select Officers to supervise The Militias. And the government has the authority to train, arm, discipline, and prepare The Militias.

and you forgot about The Militias being required to assist the government in suppressing revolts.

and the President has the authority to call up The Militia to assist in the enforcement of Federal law.

you are confusing a militia...with "The Militia"...as spelled out by OUR Constitution.

:lamo

NONE of this shows that you know WHAT a militia IS. (And even THIS should answer your question about who "saves you from the militias." :lamo)

Tell you what . . . look up the word "fyrd" and go from there. There's a 1500-year history to draw from.
 
I'm quite certain that King George III and his loyal supporters would have thought the same thing. ;)

It's funny how dissatisfaction with government can get one labeled one as a traitor, depending on one's point of view. When militia members are loyal to the constitutional principles on which this nation was founded, are they the ones who should be suspect? If "patriots" should be considered suspect, then this tells me just how far away from our beginnings we have strayed.

And of course King George's would have been perfectly correct in his suspicions! ;) back at you.

Dissatisfaction with the governemnt doesn't get one labeled as a traitor. But when you cross the line from dissatisfaction to armed resistance -- that's a problem. See, the Founding Fathers -- smart men that they were -- provided for a means to express one's dissatisfaction with the government. It's called elections. And they provided a means for interpretting the Constitution. It's called the Supreme Court. I don't think that they envisioned citizens taking up arms, or threatening to take up arms, every time an election or Supreme Court decision didn't go their way.
 
And of course King George's would have been perfectly correct in his suspicions! ;) back at you.

Dissatisfaction with the governemnt doesn't get one labeled as a traitor. But when you cross the line from dissatisfaction to armed resistance -- that's a problem. See, the Founding Fathers -- smart men that they were -- provided for a means to express one's dissatisfaction with the government. It's called elections. And they provided a means for interpretting the Constitution. It's called the Supreme Court. I don't think that they envisioned citizens taking up arms, or threatening to take up arms, every time an election or Supreme Court decision didn't go their way.

Show me where the armed resistance is happening.
 
The Good Reverend is the most honest person you have ever had the pleasure of being in company of. My lack of desire to address your silly post had nothing to do with a lack of honesty on my part.

In fact if you review the thread, I am satisfied the information provided covers your query.

Well then please show me the evidence you provided that this militia story is made up.
 
And of course King George's would have been perfectly correct in his suspicions! ;) back at you.

Dissatisfaction with the governemnt doesn't get one labeled as a traitor. But when you cross the line from dissatisfaction to armed resistance -- that's a problem. See, the Founding Fathers -- smart men that they were -- provided for a means to express one's dissatisfaction with the government. It's called elections. And they provided a means for interpretting the Constitution. It's called the Supreme Court. I don't think that they envisioned citizens taking up arms, or threatening to take up arms, every time an election or Supreme Court decision didn't go their way.

That's your own spin and baggage, and you prove me more and more right about you with each post.

They ABSOLUTELY envisioned citizens taking up arms against a repressive government, should it be needed, and they ABSOLUTELY protected the right to arms so that the government could not remove that option.

This is American Revolution 101 stuff.

The government, of right, ought to be regarded with far more suspicion than citizens. That, too, is American Revolution 101.
 
you're confusing "a militia", with "The Militia".

The fact that you think it's a meaningful distinction is just precious.
 
forgive me, for respecting the Constitution of the United States, more than Dictionary.com.

:lamo

If you don't understand the term, as you obviously don't, then you don't understand the Constitution.

I knew this would entertain me.
 
....If you don't understand the term, as you obviously don't, then you don't understand the Constitution....

now you're just projecting. I've read the relevent sections of the USC many times. Someday you should as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom