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.