The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 26, 2013, 03:47 PM   #26
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 714
JimDandy said
Quote:
I could come up with more that deal even more directly with the stereotypes of doomsday preppers, and quasi to fully terrorist "militia" organizations in Idaho, Montana and elsewhere,
^^This^^

The Militia movement picked up steam in the early 1990s. You can read about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_movement

The movement focussed on the increasing power of the federal government and encroachments on the RKBA. Gosh that sounds good, where do I sign up... ?

Unfortanately, the Militia movement found itself on the wrong side of public perception after the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing. No matter how they tried to distance themselves from Tim McViegh and Terry Nichols, the words that those two terrorists spouted sounded an awful lot like the preachings of the Militia movement.

I have 0% interest in associating with anyone who calls themselves a militia, or with anyone who is prepping for armegeddon, or for the end of government, or other such nonsense.
btmj is offline  
Old March 26, 2013, 04:00 PM   #27
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,119
Agreed, unless its the chocolate cake militia of course...
zincwarrior is online now  
Old March 26, 2013, 04:06 PM   #28
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,071
Prepping for Armageddon isn't in and of itself a bad thing. Prepping for Armageddon isn't far off from prepping for a massive natural disaster. I'm not saying buy crossbows for when Electricity magically stops working or anything, but prepping isn't totally bad.

The problem with "militia" today is that the image conjured isn't the Minutemen of 200 years ago. It's a bunch of white supremacy anarchists running around in camo reliving Deer Hunter flashbacks. If this would be worthwhile, you'd have to start with the war of words. Call yourself the XXXXX State Civil Defense Force. Anything but militia.
JimDandy is online now  
Old March 27, 2013, 01:34 AM   #29
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,530
Quote:
What would happen if 100 or more men showed up at the local town square, formed up, said the pledge of allegiance, saluted the flag, and someone did an inspection? Every man would have a full kit, rifle, sidearm and ammunition. There would be no standard uniform or "unit". They'd then disperse and go home. No running around the woods, no diatribes against tyranny, the UN, or anything else. It would not be associated with any sort of protest. It would be a simple activity in an open carry state.
We're involved in two wars and "100 or more" guys are representing a desire to defend the country. I'd be happy to introduce them to a recruiting office.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 06:01 AM   #30
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzcook
We're involved in two wars and "100 or more" guys are representing a desire to defend the country. I'd be happy to introduce them to a recruiting office.
Let's further suppose that they're all over 40 years of age, and that their interest is defending the United States rather than pursuing dubious political agendas in far-off countries that don't appreciate our so-called "assistance."

Your post reminds me of a conversation between two of the younger guys at work just last week. Both expressed an interest in joining the National Guard, but neither has any particular interest in doing long tours in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As a result, the NG is going to have to do without these two guys, because the NG is bring used in a way other than that for which the NG should be used.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 07:13 AM   #31
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 536
Quote:
We're involved in two wars and "100 or more" guys are representing a desire to defend the country. I'd be happy to introduce them to a recruiting office.
We do not need more civilian or military government agents.
tomrkba is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 07:54 AM   #32
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 468
I have read much concerning the definition of "Militia" that was accepted when the 2A was written. It was not well defined or understood universally even then. I have the simple understanding that in order for any State to be free the people must have the right to keep and bear arms. Without that right the people do not have the ability to defend themselves against threats from within or without.

I have the ability to well regulate my weapons. I have no need or desire to join with any Militia group to affirm my right to do so.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86

Last edited by K_Mac; March 27, 2013 at 02:24 PM. Reason: added "Militia group" for clarity
K_Mac is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 08:35 AM   #33
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Quote:
We're involved in two wars and "100 or more" guys are representing a desire to defend the country. I'd be happy to introduce them to a recruiting office.

We do not need more civilian or military government agents.
Did you just call the US military "military govenrment agents?"
zincwarrior is online now  
Old March 27, 2013, 08:41 AM   #34
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 492
The proplem is; while trying to not look like nuts, some nuts will join you and look like/act like nuts.
eldermike is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 09:42 AM   #35
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,228
Quote:
What would happen if 100 or more men showed up at the local town square, formed up, said the pledge of allegiance, saluted the flag, and someone did an inspection? Every man would have a full kit, rifle, sidearm and ammunition. There would be no standard uniform or "unit". They'd then disperse and go home. No running around the woods, no diatribes against tyranny, the UN, or anything else. It would not be associated with any sort of protest. It would be a simple activity in an open carry state.
What would happen? You already described it. A 100 or more men showed up at the local town square, formed up, said the pledge of allegiance, saluted the flag, and someone did an inspection. Every man would have a full kit, rifle, sidearm and ammunition. There would be no standard uniform or "unit". They'd then disperse and go home. No running around the woods, no diatribes against tyranny, the UN, or anything else. It would not be associated with any sort of protest.

So aside from the fact that the act would disenfranchise potential female members, nothing of any sort of realistic societal benefit would occur.

Quote:
The purpose is to exercise a right not used in a long time. The people have not organized themselves in a long time. The idea is to show up, be counted, recite the pledge, show your rifle, and leave. Why does it have to be so difficult?
The people? Really? You are proposing a group of 100 or so and are calling them "the people"? If 100 or so are "the people" then the people regularly get together in various parts of the country and do a lot of what you are talking about. So do run around in the woods. Some worry about tyranny, but they do assemble and consider themselves to be militia.

Stand up and be counted? What does that mean? You mean something like where a census is taken of the attendees' and gear data and put into a database?

Quote:
We do not need more civilian or military government agents.
I am sorry, but your posting sounds very fringish, but even if it wasn't and as noted previously, sounds like a monumental waste of time in regard to your apparent intended purpose. Your premise is in error that people haven't done this in a while. You just haven't been a part of any of the groups doing it.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 11:21 AM   #36
Ronbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
When you have a large peaceful demonstration planned, you'll be infiltrated by provocateurs paid by the govt (or someone who opposes your cause -say, Bloomberg?) to turn it into a riot so as to make you and your goals look bad.

And if your demonstration IS peaceful, it will get no coverage whatsoever.
Ronbert is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 04:17 PM   #37
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,228
So there is a government conspiracy against this, Ronbert?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011

Last edited by Double Naught Spy; March 27, 2013 at 05:04 PM.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:17 AM   #38
Ronbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
Quote:
So there is a government conspiracy against this, Ronbert?
I don't know this for a fact but it would be stupid to bet against it.

There were enough of these kinds of things that the '60's radicals had a thumbrule that the guy in the group in favor of the most radical action was a govt agent. Kind like how Randy Weaver was set up.

Also of note- there are darn few revolutions in history that finished with the same "good" intentions they started out with. Usually they get hijacked.
Ronbert is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 05:44 PM   #39
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,228
Sorry, I was confused by your statements of fact that are now things you say you don't know for a fact.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 07:36 PM   #40
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbert
...I don't know this for a fact...
Hmm! If you don't know something as fact, you shouldn't have stated it as one.
__________________
Formerly known as fiddletown
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 09:50 PM   #41
Gallstones
Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Location: Goosetown in the Pintlers
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
I don't think the SCOTUS said that militia service or membership is "unconnected" to or "divorced from" the RKBA. I think what they said is that the RKBA is not dependent on being a member of the militia. The connection is there and it seems to me that both Scalia and Alito recognized it, but they were clear in saying that the core right to keep and bear arms does not require that one be a member of the militia.

To say otherwise would raise a lot of issues nobody wants raised. For example, the Militia Act defines the militia as able-bodied males 18 to (I believe) 45 years of age, plus female members of the National Guard and Naval Auxiliary (or whatever the naval militia is called in the act). So ... I'm a Vietnam veteran and now very much a senior citizen. I'm several decades past the upper limit for the militia. Does that mean I have no RKBA? What about (oh,oh!) wimmin? If the RKBA were to be strictly based on membership in the militia, NO women other than National Guard and Naval Whatever would have any RKBA
.

I don't think even the ardent gun grabbers want to tell women they have less rights than a class of men aged 18 to 45.
I have been up against this very argument the past three months on one of the liberal, Brit centric forums I used to frequent. This is the very assertion being made, that I not being male, would have no RKBA despite the fact that I am an Honorably Discharged Army Veteran.
Gallstones is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 04:10 PM   #42
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallstones
I have been up against this very argument the past three months on one of the liberal, Brit centric forums I used to frequent. This is the very assertion being made, that I not being male, would have no RKBA despite the fact that I am an Honorably Discharged Army Veteran.
I can see why that's a forum you "used to" frequent.

Welcome to The Firing Line. I think you'll find most of us here a bit more egalitarian -- even though some of us still open doors for ladies.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 04:40 PM   #43
Gallstones
Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Location: Goosetown in the Pintlers
Posts: 28
I open and hold doors for gentlemen.
Gallstones is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 04:46 PM   #44
Gallstones
Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Location: Goosetown in the Pintlers
Posts: 28
But seriously, if we rest solely on the wording of the US Code 10 Chapter 13 I have a problem rebutting the claims.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
Quote:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
What rebuttals have we? Can anyone refer me to any?
Gallstones is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 05:10 PM   #45
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,071
I'm not entirely sure what you're looking to rebut, however, the act itself would be unconstitutional today as discriminatory- ESPECIALLY if one wanted to tie the act to the militia to the right to keep and bear arms.
JimDandy is online now  
Old March 29, 2013, 05:24 PM   #46
tpmbc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1
Quote:
In states such as those, a group conducting paramilitary training for the purpose of taking over the state and seceding from the United States might be prohibited.
My understanding of the 2nd amendment is to protect the People from government, making any prohibition of a group from conducting paramilitary training instinctively unconstitutional. The absence of such training, in my opinion, prevents the People from fulfilling what our Founders felt only a matter of time, and the basis of the 2nd amendment.
tpmbc is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 05:32 PM   #47
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
First, note that 10 USC 311 appears to date back to 1916 and was last amended 20 years ago. A lot has changed in those periods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallstones
...This is the very assertion being made, that I not being male, would have no RKBA despite the fact ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallstones
if we rest solely on the wording of the US Code 10 Chapter 13 I have a problem rebutting the claims....

...What rebuttals have we? Can anyone refer me to any?
The simple answer is that Chapter 13 of Title 10 of the Unites States Code is completely irrelevant to your RKBA. The Supreme Court in Heller ruled that the RKBA was (1) an individual right; and (2) independent of any service in a militia.
__________________
Formerly known as fiddletown
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 07:30 PM   #48
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,556
And that's exactly why I get really crabby when people on either side of the debate want to tie the right to bear arms to membership in the unorganized militia as defined in that statute. (And yes, I have, post Heller, seen some pro-gun people make that argument, for whatever reason. ) I'm not the least bit keen on losing my rights under that definition...

Heller was a good decision, as far as it went, and I'd hate to see it overturned.
__________________
Thomas Jefferson never said that.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ous-quotations
Vanya is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 08:32 PM   #49
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallstones
What rebuttals have we? Can anyone refer me to any?
As Frank Ettin wrote above: Heller/ In the ruling, Justice Scalia wrote in the majority decision:

Quote:
Held:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
Quote:
1. Operative Clause.
a.
“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
Quote:
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.
Quote:
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
That should give you a start. Here's a link to the full decision. It makes a good read, and a good reference.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 30, 2013, 05:56 PM   #50
Ronbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
Quote:
Hmm! If you don't know something as fact, you shouldn't have stated it as one.
I was asserting. I assert that the sun will rise tomorrow. The only proof is by long observation that there seems to be a trend one can rely upon.

I assert that if one tries this stunt that the expressed derailing of the event will occur. Such derailings have happened before and there's no reason to think this one would be immune. In fact, our political opposition has every reason to intervene.

Even if I have no facts to back up my assertion- it's still a bad idea.
Ronbert is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13563 seconds with 7 queries