Page 3 of 37 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 365

Thread: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

  1. #21
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Stop playing obtuse just because he's on the other side of you. It just makes you look foolish. His cocaine question was a good one.

    Really, so these self formed militias=drug runners to you? What am I Missing zyph?


    If I'm getting him right he's essentially saying that being a "militia" in and of itself doesn't give you any special rights or privledges to break the law. And that essentially it'd need to be authorized by the state to do any kind of "protective" activity, else it'd be running afouol of the laws and would be no different than a vigilante band.

    right, and what inkling is it that this militia is purposed to do just that. if we are speaking in general terms, its moot point, as neither you or I could run afowl the law as individuals no more so than a militia....


    Its an attempt to associate these folks with illegal activity I run sour on.




    The cocaine point was just a simple use to go with ATF and drugs. Essentially that yes, you have a "right" perhaps to form a militia, but that right doesn't mean that militia would have the "right" to oppose the federal government attempting to exert its will...such as ATF raiding said militia for guns, drugs, etc.

    did he not say that only the state had a right to form a militia?




    Ultimately, from what I'm gathering, a "militia" not sponsored by the state has little real power to "resist" anything and even if they're sponsored by the state they're still subject to federal laws and would still be acting illegally if they stopped something from happening that was currently illegal federally.

    However, that is why I think these guys are at least SEEMING to go about it the right way by trying to do this in conjunction with the state so they may actually be able to put to some official good rather than playing army man in some backwoods area.



    Perhaps he should hire you as a spokesman then. What I got from him was, that states are the only legal authority to start a militia, and he doesn't car what the 2nd actually means....


    My bad.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Really, so these self formed militias=drug runners to you? What am I Missing zyph?
    No, I think he's trying to indicate that these self-formed militias ultimately can't "resist" the federal government in any form legally. He used drugs as a simple example of a substance ATF, a federal agency, routinely goes into states to deal with. Essentially saying that yeah, you're a militia and all that jazz, but ultimately if you "resist" the Federal Government enforcing Federal Laws, regardless of your opinion on whether the federal government has legal standing in doing it or not, you're committing a crime.

    right, and what inkling is it that this militia is purposed to do just that. if we are speaking in general terms, its moot point, as neither you or I could run afowl the law as individuals no more so than a militia....
    If we're not supposed to speak of Militias in general then this thread is going to die pretty quickly and has no real point, as there's scant information available about what this will actually do or the purpose its going to serve. And yes, you and me can run afoul just as easily as a militia, which I think is the point. Being "a militia" doesn't suddenly give you some kind of constitutional authority or right to resist the federal government.

    Its an attempt to associate these folks with illegal activity I run sour on.
    First, I didn't see anywhere he was trying to associate "These folks" with illegal activity. I see him giving a pretty simple example of how the notion of a militia "resisting" federal interference, especially if not state sponsored, is pretty much a pipe dream and would be illegal.

    Second, your acting like somehow every militia is somehow this pure wind driven snow thing that shouldn't even be put into a hypothetical that they're breaking the law. Which just doesn't jive with reality. Is every militia or even most "militia" groups going to run afoul of the law? No. But they are not so pure and holy that using a hypothetical where one is breaking the law to make a point is some kind of horrendous sin.

    did he not say that only the state had a right to form a militia?
    yes, in part because it seems that he's saying that without state support its essentially just a group of people and nothing really more. It can't do anything in any kind of legal official capacity without state sponsorship.


    Perhaps he should hire you as a spokesman then. What I got from him was, that states are the only legal authority to start a militia, and he doesn't car what the 2nd actually means....
    What you got from him is what you routinely get from people you dislike on the other side, the moment they say something you can grab ahold of and use to dismiss their argument and immedietely engage into a "you stink, no you stink" type of debate you do it.

    Yes, I disagree with his assertion that only states have the legal authority to start a militia. However, as I said, your flippant over reaction at a simple hypothetical as you jump at boogeymen in the shadows of him trying to go after "These people" as crooks when he was simply trying to explain his point makes you not only look foolish but like you can't back up or defend your claim. Or simply have a reasonable conversation. I know that's not true, but you don't show it nearly that often when speaking with anyone that is on the opposing side of you lately. You start off well and then it gets into the "you stink, no you stink" type game. Not only does it derail threads, but it does a disservice to your point and your stature as a poster and someone worth reading.

  3. #23
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It's the right of the state to form a militia, not the people, the way I read it.
    Militia is nothing but the armed body of the people.
    Most usually, there is a connection to the state, but as the people have the right to individual self-defense, there's no way to argue that they need the state to allow them to exercise that right collectively.

  4. #24
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, I think he's trying to indicate that these self-formed militias ultimately can't "resist" the federal government in any form legally. He used drugs as a simple example of a substance ATF, a federal agency, routinely goes into states to deal with. Essentially saying that yeah, you're a militia and all that jazz, but ultimately if you "resist" the Federal Government enforcing Federal Laws, regardless of your opinion on whether the federal government has legal standing in doing it or not, you're committing a crime.



    If we're not supposed to speak of Militias in general then this thread is going to die pretty quickly and has no real point, as there's scant information available about what this will actually do or the purpose its going to serve. And yes, you and me can run afoul just as easily as a militia, which I think is the point. Being "a militia" doesn't suddenly give you some kind of constitutional authority or right to resist the federal government.



    First, I didn't see anywhere he was trying to associate "These folks" with illegal activity. I see him giving a pretty simple example of how the notion of a militia "resisting" federal interference, especially if not state sponsored, is pretty much a pipe dream and would be illegal.

    Second, your acting like somehow every militia is somehow this pure wind driven snow thing that shouldn't even be put into a hypothetical that they're breaking the law. Which just doesn't jive with reality. Is every militia or even most "militia" groups going to run afoul of the law? No. But they are not so pure and holy that using a hypothetical where one is breaking the law to make a point is some kind of horrendous sin.



    yes, in part because it seems that he's saying that without state support its essentially just a group of people and nothing really more. It can't do anything in any kind of legal official capacity without state sponsorship.




    What you got from him is what you routinely get from people you dislike on the other side, the moment they say something you can grab ahold of and use to dismiss their argument and immedietely engage into a "you stink, no you stink" type of debate you do it.

    Yes, I disagree with his assertion that only states have the legal authority to start a militia. However, as I said, your flippant over reaction at a simple hypothetical as you jump at boogeymen in the shadows of him trying to go after "These people" as crooks when he was simply trying to explain his point makes you not only look foolish but like you can't back up or defend your claim. Or simply have a reasonable conversation. I know that's not true, but you don't show it nearly that often when speaking with anyone that is on the opposing side of you lately. You start off well and then it gets into the "you stink, no you stink" type game. Not only does it derail threads, but it does a disservice to your point and your stature as a poster and someone worth reading.




    It's not about sides, zyph. But let's ask Deuce to Clarify. Perhaps we can move foward there. He made some claims, and when I thought I got it wrong, I immediatly asked him about it. Did you miss that?



    Oh and lets not confuse my retorts to the "teabagee" group, and others of that nature, as a flippant attitude to all left wingers, That would be a mistake, as my responses to them have been a purposeful exercise that has cut the use of that vulgar term from 20+ a day, to none today.... Thank me very much.


    there was a method to my madness. I hope you can see that.
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 04-13-10 at 05:25 PM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #25
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,844

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Militia is nothing but the armed body of the people.
    Most usually, there is a connection to the state, but as the people have the right to individual self-defense, there's no way to argue that they need the state to allow them to exercise that right collectively.
    I guess I'm using the term militia in a more official capacity than you are. And furthering my argument a bit: DO you always have the right to defend yourself? Let's say you've broken a law. Any law. The police are coming with a valid warrant for your arrest based on a constitutionally valid and correctly passed law. Do you have a right to defend yourself? Edit to add: And who gets to decide whether the warrant is valid or the law is constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    It's not about sides, zyph. But let's ask Deuce to Clarify. Perhaps we can move foward there. He made some claims, and when I thought I got it wrong, I immediatly asked him about it. Did you miss that?

    Oh and lets not confuse my retorts to the "teabagee" group, and others of that nature, as a flippant attitude to all left wingers, That would be a mistake, as my responses to them have been a purposeful exercise that has cut the use of that vulgar term from 20+ a day, to none today.... Thank me very much.

    there was a method to my madness. I hope you can see that.
    Zyph summed up my opinion very well. I wasn't associating militia folk with drug runners, and he was right to call you out on that nonsense. I was drawing an example of the federal government imposing something onto you that you personally disagree with.

    I guess the question I'm trying to get at is: You form this militia, who gets to decide when that militia USES those guns? When does it become ok to fire on state, local, or federal law enforcement personnel?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #26
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I guess I'm using the term militia in a more official capacity than you are. And furthering my argument a bit: DO you always have the right to defend yourself? Let's say you've broken a law. Any law. The police are coming with a valid warrant for your arrest based on a constitutionally valid and correctly passed law. Do you have a right to defend yourself? Edit to add: And who gets to decide whether the warrant is valid or the law is constitutional?

    yes, you always have a "right" to defend yourself, though the consequences of resisting the law, may indeed end up hurting you...


    As to your edit, it depends. How far each side is willing to go. It is our voluntary assocation with society and the constitution that keeps us from tryanny and anarchy...




    Zyph summed up my opinion very well. I wasn't associating militia folk with drug runners, and he was right to call you out on that nonsense. I was drawing an example of the federal government imposing something onto you that you personally disagree with.

    then I misunderstood you. Thank you for clarifying. Though I think the example was a bit extremist, however I get what your saying. That said, what does it have to do with forming a state sanctioned militia?




    I guess the question I'm trying to get at is: You form this militia, who gets to decide when that militia USES those guns? When does it become ok to fire on state, local, or federal law enforcement personnel?

    When it's time to prevent tyranny in government....


    Or, you'll know it when you see it?



    Lets say taking your level of example, we devolved into a tyranny, and they were going to ship you off to a labor camp, when is the right time to resist?

    Before this tyranny forms? After it forms? When they come to your door? When they cuff you? When they put you in a truck? When they work you to death, Or when they carry you out in a pine box?


    the price of freedom, is indeed eternal vigilance.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I guess I'm using the term militia in a more official capacity than you are. And furthering my argument a bit: DO you always have the right to defend yourself? Let's say you've broken a law. Any law. The police are coming with a valid warrant for your arrest based on a constitutionally valid and correctly passed law. Do you have a right to defend yourself? Edit to add: And who gets to decide whether the warrant is valid or the law is constitutional?
    Rev, I gotta disagree with you here.

    Rights CAN be forfeited. Your rights also extend only so much that it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights.

    If you violate a law, and the police come to take you away to jail and to a court case, then you do have a right to defend yourself....IN COURT. You do not have a right to VIOLENTLY defend yourself, you have forfeited that option through the assumed social contract of being a citizen of the country and as such acquiescing to the laws of the land and those that enforce it. I would only say you've had a right to VIOLENTLY defend yourself in that case if you had a reasonable and understandable rationale to believe that you would not be given a chance to defend yourself non-violently in a court of law (at which point the government would be infringing upon your rights and that social contract becomes voided).

    You may hate taxes. YOU may think taxes are unconstitutional. You may hate cops that dare to enforce those laws. You may think its all bull**** and anti-american. None of that gives you the RIGHT to fire at law enforcement officers if it comes to a point where they're coming to arrest you for tax evasion.

    To suggest that its an undeniable right to be able to violently defend oneself in ANY situation one feels threatened then our entire legal system would need a HUGE overhaul, because you can not punish someone for acting upon a "Right" they have unless they do the act to such a point that they no longer have that right.

    Its like speech.

    You have a right to free speech, but once that breaks through the social contract or endangers others then you can be punished for it.

    I can say "**** I hate the cops, screw those guys, I think they should all die" on a message board and its protected.

    However if I go up to a cop in the middle of public and scream out "I ****ING HATE YOU, Screw you man, I'm going to kill you" then you're probably going to get arrested even though all you did was "speech" because your speech broke the social contract by breaking laws society has put in places with the notion of reasonable limits.

    Likewise if you stand in the middle of a crowded theater and yell "FIRE" you're also likely to get into trouble, even though its speech, because your speech is causing direct potential harm to other people and thus infringing upon their rights.

    In all cases there is "speech", however in some cases it IS restricted as far as a "Right" goes.

    Just my opinion on this off the top of my head, it depends how we're defining "Right" I guess. It seems we're talking constitutionally not inherently.

  8. #28
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    You disagree with me cause you didnt get my point zyph.


    I agree with you. I just said it more poetic.



    Actually there is one poi t i want to adress and will do so later.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #29
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    If they arent going around and killing people they view as traitors, who honestly gives a ****? Its their right.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Well, I -did- read somewhere that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
    Exactly, and as long as the comply with all State and Federal gun regs, I have no problem with this.

Page 3 of 37 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •