|
Quoted: Which is funny because the National Guard isn't militia, its part of the US military. Closest thing to militia that we have in an organised sense are the few state guards, but from what I understand they are in terrible shape. Awful equipment, and a ton of fat bodies. Quoted: Quoted: The democrats have said for years the the "militia" is the National Guard, so i guess they mean the No-Go's?  Which is funny because the National Guard isn't militia, its part of the US military. Closest thing to militia that we have in an organised sense are the few state guards, but from what I understand they are in terrible shape. Awful equipment, and a ton of fat bodies. Basically this. The Militia: In History and Today Second Amendment and the Protection of the Citizen Militia a compelling and historically sound argument can be made that the Second Amendment was designed primarily to protect the right of the people to form militias...As one of the chief proponents of adding protection against standing armies to the U.S. Constitution, Elbridge Gerry pointed out that the purpose of a militia, and the protection thereof proposed by the Second Amendment, was “to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” |
|
Quoted: Remember that old cliche. Anytime they want to take your guns away, it's because they want to do something you would shoot them for. Only in this case, it's getting organized and trained. That probably not the issue. It’s probably more focused on a few dudes grabbing their rifles and shutting down access to the local hospital, election precinct, etc. of course there is already in insurrection law on the books. Anyways, no chance this passes without a Dem majority and Trump to sign it. |
|
Quoted: They passed this crap in Oregon last year. It was 100% drafted by bat crap crazy, rabid anti-J 6th anti-gunners on the east coast. They had those people testifying remotely at every single hearing. Here's the text of the bill that was passed here. If it gets dropped on the federal level, expect left leaning states to push it through on their own. ETA: here's the legislative page with all the info on how it progressed in Oregon: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2572 Here's a link to the submitted comments. Ths puts church groups providing for their own safety in violation. And yet strangely i havent heard of this being used to round up the Antifa militias all through Portland. Weird... |
|
Quoted: The number of States (including my own) that have "paramilitary training" laws might surprise many. The language is similar to this too. I find it interesting they define training and acting in public here. Does that mean I can do whatever I want in private? It's always fun when you look up articles citing dangerous paramilitary groups only to find your picture  USA today article on States that have anti paramilitary training laws Quoted: The number of States (including my own) that have "paramilitary training" laws might surprise many. The language is similar to this too. I find it interesting they define training and acting in public here. Does that mean I can do whatever I want in private? It's always fun when you look up articles citing dangerous paramilitary groups only to find your picture USA today article on States that have anti paramilitary training laws What I find funny and scary is their use of "law enforcement" and "military-like" interchangeably. ...appears to suggest a self-assigned role of protecting people. That's illegal in Wisconsin, where the state constitution forbids armed civilians from organizing and arming themselves to assume the role of law enforcement. In fact, all 50 states prohibit such private, military-like activities. So by their definition, assuming the role of law enforcement is a military-like activity. And, by that same definition, defending yourself is assuming the role of law enforcement. So you're not allowed to defend yourself, that's the job of the police, huh? If it is, then why isn't there a police officer for every man, woman, and child so that every person is protected? |
|
Quoted: What I find funny and scary is their use of "law enforcement" and "military-like" interchangeably. So by their definition, assuming the role of law enforcement is a military-like activity. And, by that same definition, defending yourself is assuming the role of law enforcement. So you're not allowed to defend yourself, that's the job of the police, huh? If it is, then why isn't there a police officer for every man, woman, and child so that every person is protected? Quoted: Quoted: The number of States (including my own) that have "paramilitary training" laws might surprise many. The language is similar to this too. I find it interesting they define training and acting in public here. Does that mean I can do whatever I want in private? It's always fun when you look up articles citing dangerous paramilitary groups only to find your picture USA today article on States that have anti paramilitary training laws What I find funny and scary is their use of "law enforcement" and "military-like" interchangeably. ...appears to suggest a self-assigned role of protecting people. That's illegal in Wisconsin, where the state constitution forbids armed civilians from organizing and arming themselves to assume the role of law enforcement. In fact, all 50 states prohibit such private, military-like activities. So by their definition, assuming the role of law enforcement is a military-like activity. And, by that same definition, defending yourself is assuming the role of law enforcement. So you're not allowed to defend yourself, that's the job of the police, huh? If it is, then why isn't there a police officer for every man, woman, and child so that every person is protected? Some men walk up and stick it in. I stick it in and then walk it on up. Attached File |
|
Quoted: Seeing as this would completely nullify the original intent of the Bill of Rights, it doesn't surprise me a bit Not exactly. The militias of the Revolutionary period were not private. They were an arm of government, and participation was a matter of civic duty. The Revolution wasn’t the people vs. government, it was local government vs. central/distant government. Not saying I agree with this bill in any way. |
|
Quoted: That probably not the issue. It’s probably more focused on a few dudes grabbing their rifles and shutting down access to the local hospital, election precinct, etc. of course there is already in insurrection law on the books. Anyways, no chance this passes without a Dem majority and Trump to sign it. Quoted: Quoted: Remember that old cliche. Anytime they want to take your guns away, it's because they want to do something you would shoot them for. Only in this case, it's getting organized and trained. That probably not the issue. It’s probably more focused on a few dudes grabbing their rifles and shutting down access to the local hospital, election precinct, etc. of course there is already in insurrection law on the books. Anyways, no chance this passes without a Dem majority and Trump to sign it. Lol no that is not what the left is concerned about. And they had no problem with their cult members doing similar around the country. And when people defended themselves from the armed violent mobs, they went after the people defending themselves. It's always about trying to deny their opposition the ability to defend themselves. They have the same mindset and morals as Nazis and communists. Their religion of power, comes first, before anything including reality and truth. |
|
In ranching this is called castration and polledness to make the herd safer to handle when you are going to make them work as oxen or fatten up for the slaughter house. Testosterone lad-den you men with a Christian ethos that answers to God & Family before corrupt leftist government is the equivalent of a bull with horns that is wild. Very tough & dangerous to handle. Polled cattle breeds have been selectively bred to lack horns. Polledness is a dominant trait: all offspring of a bull with 2 copies of a polled-associated mutation will be polled themselves. |
|
Quoted: Patrolling will mean whatever they want it to mean, just like the word “insurrection”is used to describe trespassing after being let into a building and staying within the red velvet roped pedestrian walkway. We have one of the largest armys in the world patrolling for deer every autumn. |
|
Quoted: Clearly unconstitutional under the first and second amendments. They don't care. Its all about political retribution now. Pass garbage bills with the clear intent to target citizens that support your political opponents and let them deal with the consequences if or until the courts sort it out. |
|
Quoted: Not exactly. The militias of the Revolutionary period were not private. They were an arm of government, and participation was a matter of civic duty. The Revolution wasn’t the people vs. government, it was local government vs. central/distant government. Not saying I agree with this bill in any way. Do more research - start with Boston Company of Cadets and First Troop, Philadelphia City Cavalry for examples of private militias that played interesting roles in the American Revolution. They are why the following language exists in the Militia Act of 1792: And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry, and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulations of the militia: SEC. 11. Be it further enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges, subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this act, in like manner with the other militia. APPROVED, May 8, 1792. Private militias did exist (private in the sense that one had to apply for membership and be accepted by the unit) and the founders were perfectly fine with that because such units typically devoted additional private funds for equipment and training, which made them more capable units than the general militias. |
|
Quoted: the founders were more against a Standing Army than the vast majority today are. Washington would have disagreed with the notion that the militia defeated the British. Militia performance was often quite poor and we had to build a conventional army and get help from a European conventional army to win the war. The founders were divided on the question of a standing army. Some considered it necessary due to the unreliability of the militia. |
|
How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution The people of Worcester County, Massachusetts, had already been meeting in county convention, with delegates sent by the towns.52 Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common.53 Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor.54 The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.55 That same day that Worcester County ended all royal authority over the militia, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves.56 B. The Independent Militia Arise Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia.116 As noted above, Worcester County, Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Provincial Congress had acted first, in September 1774, by terminating the commissions of all royally-appointed militia officers and providing officers chosen by the people.117 ...So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors. In Virginia, George Washington and George Mason organized the Fairfax Independent Militia Company.123 Other independent militia embodied in Virginia along the same model.124 The volunteer militiamen pledged that ?we will, each of us, constantly keep by us? a firelock, ?six pounds of Gunpowder [and] twenty pounds of Lead.?125 In 1775, George Mason drafted the Fairfax County Militia Plan for Embodying the People.126 The Plan affirmed that ?a well regulated Militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen? was needed to defend ?our ancient Laws & Liberty? from the Redcoats.127 And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good Fire-lock in proper Order, & to furnish Ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one Pound of Gunpowder, four Pounds of Lead, one Dozen Gun Flints, & a pair of Bullet-Moulds, with a Cartouch Box, or powder-horn, and Bag for Balls.128 Later, in Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company, Mason explained that ?all men are by nature born equally free and independent.?129 Because government creates ?the most arbitrary and despotic powers this day upon earth,? liberty can only be protected by ?frequently appealing to the body of the people.?130 Roman history, argued Mason, showed that freedom could not be maintained if the government relied on mercenaries.131 Rather, the people must be taught ?the use of arms and discipline? so they can ?act in defence of their invaded liberty.?132 Independent militia also formed in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maryland, and South Carolina.133 They chose their own officers and rejected the authority of officers who had been appointed by the royal governors.134 John Adams firmly defended the newly constituted Massachusetts militia: ?The new-fangled militia,? as the specious Massachusettensis135 calls it, is such a militia as he never saw. They are commanded through the province, not by men who procured their commissions from a governor as a reward for making themselves pimps to his tools, and by discovering a hatred of the people but by gentlemen whose estates, abilities and benevolence have rendered them the delight of the soldiers . . . . [I]n a land war, this continent might defend itself against all the world.136 Independent militias created America and authoritarians of all stripes know they must eliminate independent militias to enslave America. |
|
Quoted: Washington would have disagreed with the notion that the militia defeated the British. Militia performance was often quite poor and we had to build a conventional army and get help from a European conventional army to win the war. The founders were divided on the question of a standing army. Some considered it necessary due to the unreliability of the militia. Quoted: Quoted: the founders were more against a Standing Army than the vast majority today are. Washington would have disagreed with the notion that the militia defeated the British. Militia performance was often quite poor and we had to build a conventional army and get help from a European conventional army to win the war. The founders were divided on the question of a standing army. Some considered it necessary due to the unreliability of the militia. Make no mistake, George Washington wanted a militia: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." "It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency." -George Washington link Game changing American militia battlefield victories include Concord {Shot heard around the world, British routed & narrowly escaped}, Battle of Kings mountain{British force completely eliminated...turning point of the revolutionary war}, Cowpens{86% British casualty rate: led Cornwallis by "an unbroken chain of consequences to the catastrophe at Yorktown which finally separated America from the British crown", and the Battle of New Orleans (1815) {battle that convinced the British to never again invade America} Sadly our history has been suppressed as several of these victories |
|
Quoted: Make no mistake, George Washington wanted a militia: -George Washington link Game changing American militia battlefield victories include Concord {Shot heard around the world, British routed & narrowly escaped}, Battle of Kings mountain{British force completely eliminated...turning point of the revolutionary war}, Cowpens{86% British casualty rate: led Cornwallis by "an unbroken chain of consequences to the catastrophe at Yorktown which finally separated America from the British crown", and the Battle of New Orleans (1815) {battle that convinced the British to never again invade America} Sadly our history has been suppressed as several of these victories The issue was the necessity of a standing army (professional military) under the auspices of a national government not in the service of a state. Nobody argued against having militias. Even under the von Steuben plan, there would be levels of militia from the select militia (akin to the present day National Guard) to low priority units composed of the men over the age of 45. The militia system was mostly a failure in the War of 1812(New Orleans, Baltimore, and Plattsburg excepted) and Congress was about to go for the von Steuben plan, except Plattsburg and Ft. McHenry victories stopped the British advance. The number of Regular Army regiments kept being increased to solve the problem (46 Infantry Regiments authorized - 44 staffed to some degree) of poor militia performance. After the War of 1812, the issue of whether or not to have a standing army was dead. The issue was how large it should be. The best plan for the standing Army was presented by the Secretary of War John C. Calhoun (yes, that guy). There would be 16 Regiments with a full set of officers and NCOs, but each company would only have 32 of the authorized strength of 64 privates. The companies could still function, and in time of war, filled to full strength, effectively doubling the size of the Army with increased efficiency. Should the circumstances require it, the number of regiments could be doubled to 32 with little loss of skill or efficiency by promoting experienced personnel to the next higher position. Congress refused, and cut the Army from 44 Regiments to 8, and then to 7. Wars are won by competent Generals and staffs, and the militia system does a poor job of producing that. What you can get from a militia system is generally competent platoons and companies, the building blocks of an army. Sprinkle in prior service officers and NCOs, and you could have a working system to produce a national army in less than a year. |
It always seemed to me that Democrats are some of the most unhappy people in the world so they want to ruin everything else for the rest of us.  Attached File |
| If they pull this sh!t federally, they are going to need people to enforce it. Perhaps they use illegals for that task? Bottom line, the government will have to move their enforcement officers onto a base or secure compound in that case. Something my first training officer told me when I was a rookie cop that I in turn taught my new boots. We live, shop, and reside among the populace we police. Always conduct yourself with integrity and never do anything to tarnish the image of your badge. Because if you do, then that same populace you once swore to protect will turn on you in a heartbeat. Remember, not only do we live amongst the public, but so do our families…….. They were wise words then, and they are wise words now… Always honor the oath…… |
|
Quoted: Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) Why does this cock sucker's name always seem to come up? Because he's doing what he's told to do.... Lefty corruption at it's finest. Just another useful idiot in disguise or perhaps in plain sight depending on the truth which we will never know. |
|
Quoted: The number of States (including my own) that have "paramilitary training" laws might surprise many. The language is similar to this too. I find it interesting they define training and acting in public here. Does that mean I can do whatever I want in private? It's always fun when you look up articles citing dangerous paramilitary groups only to find your picture USA today article on States that have anti paramilitary training laws That USA Today article is so off base and flat-out incorrect. For one example, look at how they try to twist "regulated" in the Militia Clause of the 2A. Complete nonsense. |
|
Quoted: Washington would have disagreed with the notion that the militia defeated the British. Militia performance was often quite poor and we had to build a conventional army and get help from a European conventional army to win the war. The founders were divided on the question of a standing army. Some considered it necessary due to the unreliability of the militia. Quoted: Quoted: the founders were more against a Standing Army than the vast majority today are. Washington would have disagreed with the notion that the militia defeated the British. Militia performance was often quite poor and we had to build a conventional army and get help from a European conventional army to win the war. The founders were divided on the question of a standing army. Some considered it necessary due to the unreliability of the militia. Do us a favor and don't tell Marion Francis that. |
|
Quoted: Do us a favor and don't tell Marion Francis that. That's Francis Marion, and while many militia units were effective at "hit and run", or in the case of Bunker Hill, defending a fortified position, it was necessary to inflict decisive defeats on the British Army. It took losses to the Continental Line for the British to realize they were not going to win. |
|
Quoted: Do us a favor and don't tell Marion Francis that. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the founders were more against a Standing Army than the vast majority today are. Washington would have disagreed with the notion that the militia defeated the British. Militia performance was often quite poor and we had to build a conventional army and get help from a European conventional army to win the war. The founders were divided on the question of a standing army. Some considered it necessary due to the unreliability of the militia. Do us a favor and don't tell Marion Francis that. I said often, not always. |
|
Quoted: They are afraid. And they hate you. They hate your beliefs, they hate your freedoms, they hate your hetero-white life, they hate your 2.3 kids, and they would kick your dog if given the chance. I love when they do stuff like this. Really helps me identify my enemies. |