• 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!

Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

OKLAHOMA CITY — Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.
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.
 
They have a constitutional right to form a militia. So I do not see what the big deal is. Although I do wonder if someone could write this off as community service or donations to this militia be a charitable tax write off.
 
Last edited:
Question

How is a well REGULATED militia going to help defend against improper federal infringements on state sovereignty?
 
Question
How is a well REGULATED militia going to help defend against improper federal infringements on state sovereignty?
If push comes to shove, the state militia is the state's force of arms.
 
If push comes to shove, the state militia is the state's force of arms.

I doubt that most militia's will put themselves under the direct control of the state government though.

Especially as most states are quite compliant with the infringing of states rights by the federal government ( money makes the states say more please)
 
I doubt that most militia's will put themselves under the direct control of the state government though.
The issue presented here -is- a state militia, created and regulated by the state itself -- so, this is a non-issue.
 
Sounds rather idiotic but I kind of want to wait and see what it is. From the sounds of it I wonder if it'll end up being more like a National Guard type thing, simply localized to the state.

If that's the case, strangely enough, I'd rather like it. I know one of the issues with katrina and others was National Guard members being deployed. Having a force focused simply in the state that is able to give aid to emergency situations but is not bound to the federal government would assure that emergency response for the state could be possible.

The language in this seems rather inflamatory, especially since "militia" in recent times has been something that conjures images of backwoods rednecks stock piling guns and thinking they're Green Beret's. However that's hardly the only definition of militia and with this going officially through the state I'd be willing to hold off judgement until we can see more information that's not simply broad strokes and stereotyped words.
 
I'm sure they're proud of themselves in taking such an ideologically righteous stance and defending their rights.

It is only show though.
 
Meh, it's their right to do so; I wish them luck
 
Meh, it's their right to do so; I wish them luck

It's the right of the state to form a militia, not the people, the way I read it.
 
How in the world did you come up with this nonsense.... :lamo

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Basically, the state must call the shots, as it were, in terms of what the militia does. The second these people do something unsanctioned they become a militant criminal organization.

edit: the writers of this thing needed standardized grammar! :)
 
Last edited:
Basically, the state must call the shots, as it were, in terms of what the militia does. The second these people do something unsanctioned they become a militant criminal organization.

edit: the writers of this thing needed standardized grammar! :)





FAIL


Seriously, what do you think the term "well regulated" means?





[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM"]YouTube- Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment[/nomedia]
 
It's a moot point. We've been ceding power to a centralized authority for over two hundred years now. At the turn of the 19th century a militia would do well to defend its state from an unwanted federal authority. Now, it would do nothing to defend its state from a wanted federal authority.

That's the bitch about the genie. You let her out of the bottle, and she doesn't want to go back in.
 
Basically, the state must call the shots, as it were, in terms of what the militia does. The second these people do something unsanctioned they become a militant criminal organization.

edit: the writers of this thing needed standardized grammar! :)

People have the right to own guns. Never disputed that.




Wait, maybe I misunderstood you....


Are you saying, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that the state could form a militia is absolute?


What does US code say who the militia is?
 
Wait, maybe I misunderstood you....


Are you saying, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that the state could form a militia is absolute?


What does US code say who the militia is?

Beats me. My point is that people don't get to just decide of their own accord what is lawful or unlawful. They can form their own "militia," but without sanction they're just a bunch of angry guys with guns. You may personally disagree about the ATF's right to take away your cocaine stash, but if you and your "militia" buddies try to go against state and federal laws pertaining to the matter in a violent way, you're going to get shot.

How do we know the difference between a militia and a bunch of vigilantes, is my question.
 
Beats me. My point is that people don't get to just decide of their own accord what is lawful or unlawful. They can form their own "militia," but without sanction they're just a bunch of angry guys with guns. You may personally disagree about the ATF's right to take away your cocaine stash, but if you and your "militia" buddies try to go against state and federal laws pertaining to the matter in a violent way, you're going to get shot.

How do we know the difference between a militia and a bunch of vigilantes, is my question.





Cocaine? And here I thought we were having an intelligent discussion, my bad.....



Who is the militia?
 
Cocaine? And here I thought we were having an intelligent discussion, my bad.....

Who is the militia?

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.

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.

The cocaine point was just a simple example of something that would be a federal law that cound involve a group like ATF coming into a state and trying to take action. 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.

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.
 
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? :confused:



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. :ssst:
 
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? :confused:

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.
 
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.
 
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. :pimpdaddy:


there was a method to my madness. I hope you can see that.
 
Last edited:
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?

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. :pimpdaddy:

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom