• 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

Deuce said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...


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


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



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.
 
Deuce said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Anyone can form a group and call it a "militia".


In the event of a crisis (ie Katrina), this "militia" can act to aid the community and protect against lawlessness, within what the law allows any individual to do in that regard. For instance, in many states you can come to the defense of a person being attacked by criminals... it doesn't specifically state that you can't do so as part of an organized group, in most jurisdictions. Example: the Guardian Angels.

However, in order to legally act in an actual militia capacity (ie as a military force), would require state sanction and putting control of the militia under the Governor...which apparently they are seeking to do.

Don't see what would make it either a problem, or a big deal. It is in accord with the Constitution and with historical useage of "militia".
 
Last edited:
From what I have heard and read thus far this is the closest "act" or intent that comes closest at least conceptually to sedition that I have heard in modern times. Underline U]closest[/U]

HTML: 
Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
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)
Click to expand...

Well if they are not under "control of the state government " then they are not well regulated and therefore they are not officially militia as per the Constitution.
 
American said:
It means well trained as far as I know.
Click to expand...


Here are some facts to read !!!
HTML: 
[Well Regulated 

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are: 

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order. 

[obsolete sense] 
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1. 

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side. 
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29: 

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. 
        --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29. 
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained. 

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated: 

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army. 
        --- Saturday, December 13, 1777. 
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force? 
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions. 
        --- Saturday, December 13, 1777. 
/HTML]
 
Goshin said:
Anyone can form a group and call it a "militia".


In the event of a crisis (ie Katrina), this "militia" can act to aid the community and protect against lawlessness, within what the law allows any individual to do in that regard. For instance, in many states you can come to the defense of a person being attacked by criminals... it doesn't specifically state that you can't do so as part of an organized group, in most jurisdictions. Example: the Guardian Angels.

However, in order to legally act in an actual militia capacity (ie as a military force), would require state sanction and putting control of the militia under the Governor...which apparently they are seeking to do.

Don't see what would make it either a problem, or a big deal. It is in accord with the Constitution and with historical useage of "militia".
Click to expand...

True just because someone calls something a militia that does not automatically make it so. Just like groups or people who call themselves "patriotic" that does not necessailly make it so.
 
Since you asked, and none of those using the term will answer the question, and I find it strange, that one poster used the def of regulated, I will tell you all...



WELL REGULATED means "in good working order". it has nothing to do with regulations or restrictions on guns....


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
 
I think people should just stop paying taxes.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Since you asked, and none of those using the term will answer the question, and I find it strange, that one poster used the def of regulated, I will tell you all...



WELL REGULATED means "in good working order". it has nothing to do with regulations or restrictions on guns....


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
Click to expand...

So define "in good working order" as it refers to a malitia...
 
Deuce said:
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! :)
Click to expand...

I thought that was called the National Guard?
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
So define "in good working order" as it refers to a malitia...
Click to expand...

  • Chain of command
  • Form ranks and do drill
  • Good physical conditioning
  • Weapons familiarization
  • Good shooting skills
  • Basic tactics
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
So define "in good working order" as it refers to a malitia...
Click to expand...




Lets put it in context of the 2nd...



In order to have a militia, "in good working order", the right of all the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

meaning, by not restricting this right, the state can call forth the militia from a pool of armed citizenry, and if we were to restrict arms from the people, a "well regulated" militia would be much harder to muster.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
I thought that was called the National Guard?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the National Guard, which is an official military unit, and a militia, which is an amateur organization of people from the community.
 
reefedjib said:
There is a difference between the National Guard, which is an official military unit, and a militia, which is an amateur organization of people from the community.
Click to expand...
The only different is money. They are merely trained men who wear a uniform. They are not superhuman, aliens from outer space or imported from another country. Just Americans trained with govt funding. I think people get confused over people coming out of their homes with guns in hand to protect the state, and it looks amateurish compared to the DoD. Well the only difference is funding and control. Cut funding and DoD goes away.
 
reefedjib said:
  • Chain of command
  • Form ranks and do drill
  • Good physical conditioning
  • Weapons familiarization
  • Good shooting skills
  • Basic tactics
Click to expand...

That's what I think is the sticking point here. The CoC of any force goes from the head of state down to the newest recruit. In an unregulated mailita ,in the modern sence, not the "Working Order" sense, where does that CoC start and end?
 
American said:
The only different is money. They are merely trained men who wear a uniform. They are not superhuman, aliens from outer space or imported from another country. Just Americans trained with govt funding. I think people get confused over people coming out of their homes with guns in hand to protect the state, and it looks amateurish compared to the DoD. Well the only difference is funding and control. Cut funding and DoD goes away.
Click to expand...

That funding pays for training. The National Guard are trained and the militia is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom