Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/26/2001 7:47:47 AM EDT
What could militias possibly do to combat terrorism? They have no intel. No training. No coordination. Would they just pull arabs out of cars and beat them up? Fact is they could do nothing other than act as untrained security guards for office buildings. Do you think they'd safeguard constitutional rights?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:50:55 AM EDT
well,over the years the militia has been torn to shreds.Not completely their fault either. There are a few militias left,one of which was on "20/20" or something some years ago.They trained in search and rescue,and some other stuff. But,ignore that.By law,YOU ARE THE MILITIA,like it or not.Do not bad-mouth yourself.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:51:04 AM EDT
If you blocked off all entry of all arabs and had the militias round up and shoot the ones that are in the country do you think there would be any terrorist taking planes and crashing them?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:51:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:53:40 AM EDT
But aren't looters in the militia, too?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:54:02 AM EDT
[b]If you blocked off all entry of all arabs and had the militias round up and shoot the ones that are in the country do you think there would be any terrorist taking planes and crashing them? [/b] ok, sherm, i see your point now.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:55:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Nomad-FA2: But,ignore that.By law,YOU ARE THE MILITIA,like it or not.Do not bad-mouth yourself.
View Quote
You make my point. People are being opportunists, trying to push their usual agendas, be they gun-control, or militias. I find it extremely distasteful
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:57:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Scarecrow: If you blocked off all entry of all arabs and had the militias round up and shoot the ones that are in the country do you think there would be any terrorist taking planes and crashing them?
View Quote
He's the guy that's afraid that the police act too much like NAZIs.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:00:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Nomad-FA2: By law,YOU ARE THE MILITIA,like it or not.Do not bad-mouth yourself.
View Quote
EXACTLY. I REALLY do not understand the mentality here to put down the militia. What could the militia do against terrorists??? I'll answer that with a question - "What could have an armed passenger have done against the box-cutter armed terrorists?" Answer: Save approximately 7,000 lives. Get with it people. You ARE the militia. The milita IS relevant for today. Stop COWERING from your DUTY because of a little bad press from the media. I just have to imagine Patrick Henry and Paul Revere are ashamed of SOME of us. They risked their lives so that we could worry about our precious reputations in the eyes of the Hollywood leftist-elites???[puke]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:05:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy:
Originally Posted By Scarecrow: If you blocked off all entry of all arabs and had the militias round up and shoot the ones that are in the country do you think there would be any terrorist taking planes and crashing them?
View Quote
He's the guy that's afraid that the police act too much like NAZIs.
View Quote
Sarcasm, Word of the day for you, learn it, use it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:05:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: People are being opportunists, trying to push their usual agendas, be they gun-control, or militias. I find it extremely distasteful
View Quote
Major- Gimme a break. By your logic.... When police arrest a criminal, they are "pushing an agenda." When the courts try an individual, they are "Pushing an agenda." When we look at the failure of the public school system, and suggest alternatives, we are "pushing an agenda." By your logic, ANY TIME we evaluate policy in any area of American life, and suggest a remedy, we are "pushing an agenda." And what in the *&@# is wrong with that??? Are we supposed to let problems continue, just so we can appear "unbiased" and without an "agenda?" That is stone ages mentality. Sorry. I am surprised at you. Please clarify this. PLEASE.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:13:10 AM EDT
- "What could have an armed passenger have done against the box-cutter armed terrorists?" Don't be silly, Garandman. If some brave militiaman had a right to have a gun on that plane, then so would the hijackers. Who checks to ensure that these Militiamen are using "frangible" rounds? Militia Commanders? You're merely trying to exploit this situation, to push an agenda. You're no different that those who try to tack anti-gun riders or anti-discrimination onto anti-terrorist legislation. Don't try to say I'm a leftist, brainwashed, or pissing on the graves of our forefathers. That's like Jesse calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist. Shame on you.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:14:24 AM EDT
The militia couldn't do much to thwart a terrorist attack, but we certainly could protect people and resources from opportunistic thugs who loot in the aftermath. We have a duty to protect our family at the least.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:17:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2001 8:17:15 AM EDT by LAcop]
It would seem that Scarecrow likes taking on the part of resident troll [:K] today. Scared of swat in black; wants to shoot Arabs in the US ??
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:17:51 AM EDT
Post from Major-Murphy -
What could militias possibly do to combat terrorism?
View Quote
Probably not much more than the police, the FBI, the CIA, and law enforcement in general did to protect against this terrorism. Is that fair? Eric The(IThoughtNot!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:20:32 AM EDT
One thing that the militias could do is to free up the resources of the Reserves and the National Guard. I mean, things like the Los Angles riots, tornados, and hurricanes are still going to happen. Why use the Guard and the Reserves when they could be used for something more important. Vulcan94
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:20:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: - "What could have an armed passenger have done against the box-cutter armed terrorists?" Don't be silly, Garandman. If some brave militiaman had a right to have a gun on that plane, then so would the hijackers. Who checks to ensure that these Militiamen are using "frangible" rounds? Militia Commanders? You're merely trying to exploit this situation, to push an agenda. You're no different that those who try to tack anti-gun riders or anti-discrimination onto anti-terrorist legislation. Don't try to say I'm a leftist, brainwashed, or pissing on the graves of our forefathers. That's like Jesse calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist. Shame on you.
View Quote
Murphy, I tink you are looking at our situation with blinders on. The more drastic the threat, the more drastic the protective measures have to be. So some official, hypothetically, has to check a permitted pistol before the person is allowed on a jet. Said offical then checks the ammunition in the pistol. af
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:24:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Don't be silly, Garandman. If some brave militiaman had a right to have a gun on that plane, then so would the hijackers. Who checks to ensure that these Militiamen are using "frangible" rounds? Militia Commanders?
View Quote
The framework ALREADY exists for concealed carry. Background checks, training, mental health checks, etc as to who can legally carry concealed. The framework already exists for metal detectors at airports. Anyone looking to pass thru the metal detectors would simply declare their firearm and produce a CCW license (national CCW preferrably). These would weed out ILLEGAL persons and firearms from coming onto the plane. ONLY legal guns would be there. NO WAY a terrorist would be on board armed WITH legal CCW on a plane any more than they are now. I heard an airforce pilot (who is also a commercial pilot) indicate that a bullet hole in a fuselage WOULD NOT significantly impact a planes ability ot fly. Frangible rounds are sexy, but unnecessary. But the larger point is this - when a problem is recognized in America, when (aacording to you) is a person ALLOWED to suggest a way to correct the problem, without setting off your "pushing an agenda" meter? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:24:13 AM EDT
And who trains them? Who ensures that they are up to the task, and not putting people at risk? The Government? I like the idea of militias being a defense against tyranny, not as a second string National Guard. Do Militia guys want to go through background checks so that they can have access to intel?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:27:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: [b]If you blocked off all entry of all arabs and had the militias round up and shoot the ones that are in the country do you think there would be any terrorist taking planes and crashing them? [/b] ok, sherm, i see your point now.
View Quote
Thanks!
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:27:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Scarecrow: If you blocked off all entry of all arabs and had the militias round up and shoot the ones that are in the country do you think there would be any terrorist taking planes and crashing them?
View Quote
Still a moron. And I raise you to chimp!
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:28:23 AM EDT
G-man, the militia in no way can help the anti-terrorism effort. That's a fact. If you disagree, you're wrong. To bother Tom Ridge with this is opportunism. I support the right to form a militia. I do not support trying to use this situation as justification for one. The justification lies in the Constitution and the US Code.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:34:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: And who trains them? Who ensures that they are up to the task, and not putting people at risk? The Government? I like the idea of militias being a defense against tyranny, not as a second string National Guard. Do Militia guys want to go through background checks so that they can have access to intel?
View Quote
Murphy, I guess in the absence of LEO help, we will forever relegate citizens who fly on commercial jetliners to attack armed hijackers with fists and feet. I can understand if someone truly wants to think the problem/solution through, but you sound like you've got all the answers. Personally, anybody that thinks I should defend myself against armed attackers with nothing but a good left hook is an asshole.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:40:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: I do not support trying to use this situation as justification for one. The justification lies in the Constitution and the US Code.
View Quote
See - this is where you are WRONG. I a NOT using this situation as a justification at all. The justification exists already within the Consitutiton, the Militia Act if 1791 ( also Federal law) and several other places. I am merely stating that this particular situation BEGS for the use of the citizen militia. Why didn't Japan invade mainland US?? Because they KNEW that there "would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Those are the words of the Japanese Admiralty. Not mine. This fact would NOT be lost on terrorists, IF we had an armed populace reacy to stop them. And here's why the citizen militia WOULD work. Police are NOT everywhere. Neither is teh FBI, or BATF or even teh US military. Know who is??? Citizens. Citizens motivated by self-preservation, and defending the lives of their family and friends. Citizens are EVERYWHERE that a terrorist can possibly be. EVERYWHERE. Any time a terrorist is present, so are SEVERAL HUNDRED citizens. If the citizens are armed, they are in a position to interfere. Granted, not every act of every terrorist could be stopped. But alot more can be stopped that by the police. Or FBI. Or military. Lives would be saved. You see - guns can be used to kill terrorists. And dead terrorists are ineffective at terrorizing. Citizens can be everywhere a teroroist can ply his trade -ready to make him dead. Of course, I suggest dovetailing the citizen militia with a proper US military strikes, police, BATF and FBI actions.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:43:13 AM EDT
I hope that you aren't suggesting that we should all be able to be armed on flights. We're smart, guys. I know you can see where this has some problems. 1. Terrorist (who passed background check) takes out pistol shoots holes in plane, all die. 2. Citizen accidentally shoots hole in plane, all die. 3. Terrorist takes out box cutter, Citizen shoots hole in terrorist, but also in plane, all die. 3. The list could go on....
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:44:52 AM EDT
Also, Major - You still ahven't answered my BASIC question - If we recognize a problem in America, when (according to you) is a person ALLOWED to offer a solution, without setting off your "pushing an agenda" alarm???? You almost seem to have some sort of false piety here, holding us to some ridiculous standard of being unbiased. (my interpretation) [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:48:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: 1. Terrorist (who passed background check) takes out pistol shoots holes in plane, all die. 2. Citizen accidentally shoots hole in plane, all die. 3. Terrorist takes out box cutter, Citizen shoots hole in terrorist, but also in plane, all die. 3. The list could go on....
View Quote
Myth. A bullet hole in a fuselage would NOT significantly affect a planes ability to fly. This from a military and commercial pilot I heard yesterday. If you are worried about it, use frangible rounds. Poeple who are gonna get legal CCW, and go thru airline regulations to legally carry on a plane WILL take the time to get frangible rounds. But they really aren;t even necessary. And I already addressed the ascpect of terrorists having guns on board. It is NO more likely they would WITH legal CCW than they would WITHOUT. You seem to just be bulldozing straight ahead without addressing any of my points. So, I guess the conversation is over. peace.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:49:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: I do not support trying to use this situation as justification for one. The justification lies in the Constitution and the US Code.
View Quote
See - this is where you are WRONG. I a NOT using this situation as a justification at all. The justification exists already within the Consitutiton, the Militia Act if 1791 ( also Federal law) and several other places. I am merely stating that this particular situation BEGS for the use of the citizen militia.
View Quote
No, I suppose you're not using this situation as justification, JUST AS AN OPPORTUNITY, HENCE MY OPPORTUNISM LABEL. There is nothing in any way that a Militia could do to help aid the anti-terrorism effort. The effort needs intelligence, coordination, and communication. Militias by their very nature and purpose cannot participate. IF YOU INSIST THAT THEY CAN BE HELPFUL, THEN YOU EITHER DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION, OR ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. UNLESS you want them to fall under the control of the federal government.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:52:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: I hope that you aren't suggesting that we should all be able to be armed on flights. We're smart, guys. I know you can see where this has some problems. 1. Terrorist (who passed background check) takes out pistol shoots holes in plane, all die. 2. Citizen accidentally shoots hole in plane, all die. 3. Terrorist takes out box cutter, Citizen shoots hole in terrorist, but also in plane, all die. 3. The list could go on....
View Quote
It would have to be a pretty big fricken hole to kill everyone on board, if anyone at all. It would decompress the aircraft, but not quickly enough to kill anyone.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:52:37 AM EDT
G-man, there's nothing wrong with "pushing an agenda", it's when one exploits a situation to push the agenda that it turns to rank opportunism.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:54:21 AM EDT
Murphy, 1. If a terrorist hijacks a plane, what is the likely result? No deaths or everybody being dead? 99.9% of the time EVERYBODY DIES. Wouldn't you like the chance to stop the hijacking and live? 2. A bullet hole 99.9% of the time will not cause the plane to crash. A few years ago, a TWENTY FOOT SECTION of fusilage ripped off a Hawiian airliner and it landed 1/2 hr. later. o
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:57:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2001 8:56:47 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Perhaps my impression of decompression is flawed, I defer. Besides, I'm not talking about CCW I was talking about militia's effectiveness to combat terrorism.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:58:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: G-man, there's nothing wrong with "pushing an agenda", it's when one exploits a situation to push the agenda that it turns to rank opportunism.
View Quote
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: People are being opportunists, trying to push their usual agendas, ...I find it extremely distasteful
View Quote
So, is there nothing wrong with pushing an agenda, or do you find it distasteful??? Please try to keep your arguments straight. I'm too bust trying to do same with mine to worry about yours. So, were the Concord Minutemen "opportunists?" How about the members of the "Boston Tea Party??" or were they committing the lesser offense of "pushing an agenda?" Maybe we should just agree to disagree here.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:58:38 AM EDT
why shouldn't we use this calamity to further our agendas again? do you have a better way to stop the antis who are? also, did you guys see the pic of that woman hanging laundry with an AR on her shoulder? THAT is the militaia in action - protecting every inch of land that she holds dear. i plan on doing the same!
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:01:07 AM EDT
Read it, it's the opportunism that I find distasteful. And garandman, you should avoid throwing the "piety" label around. answer this: There is nothing in any way that a Militia could do to help aid the anti-terrorism effort. The effort needs intelligence, coordination, and communication. Militias by their very nature and purpose cannot participate. IF YOU INSIST THAT THEY CAN BE HELPFUL, THEN YOU EITHER DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION, OR ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. UNLESS you want them to fall under the control of the federal government.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:02:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Perhaps my impression of decompression is flawed, I defer. Besides, I'm not talking about CCW I was talking about militia's effectiveness to combat terrorism.
View Quote
And I am showing that JUST as CCW would have [size=6]STOPPED [/size=6] the terrorist attacks of 11-Sep, SO would an armed citizen militia stop other terrorist attacks. Maybe you are hung up on the word "militia.' Then take that out of the equation. What Im am saying is that MORE guns, not less, MORE armed citizens, NOT less, are a viable solution to dealing with terrorists.... ...because citizens firearms can be used to kill terrorists. And a dead terrorist ain't very scary at all.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:02:27 AM EDT
There's an old saying: "I'd rather be judged by twelve of my peers than be carried by six of my friends." Sounds good to me.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:03:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: answer this: There is nothing in any way that a Militia could do to help aid the anti-terrorism effort. The effort needs intelligence, coordination, and communication. Militias by their very nature and purpose cannot participate. IF YOU INSIST THAT THEY CAN BE HELPFUL, THEN YOU EITHER DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION, OR ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. UNLESS you want them to fall under the control of the federal government.
View Quote
I have already answered that SEVERAL times.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:04:52 AM EDT
where?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:06:04 AM EDT
Also, teh argument of bringing the militias under the Federal gov't is a straw man argument. Citizen militias are BY DEFINITION under control of the several states. Who COULD arm and train them.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:07:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Read it, it's the opportunism that I find distasteful. And garandman, you should avoid throwing the "piety" label around. answer this: There is nothing in any way that a Militia could do to help aid the anti-terrorism effort. The effort needs intelligence, coordination, and communication. Militias by their very nature and purpose cannot participate. IF YOU INSIST THAT THEY CAN BE HELPFUL, THEN YOU EITHER DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION, OR ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. UNLESS you want them to fall under the control of the federal government.
View Quote
Sure there is. Look at Israel. They've got teachers, administrators, and parents walking school grounds with M16s to prevent massacres. In America, we'd rather let shitheads "fish in a barrel" at our schools and kill everybody they can. Armed folk are the militia. Get used to it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:08:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2001 9:09:44 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Let's not confuse the issue. I'm pro-gun. I agree that more guns in the hands of civilians would make for a safer society. But we're talking about more than just the "unorganised" militia. Which state cotrols it's militia?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:08:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2001 9:12:49 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: where?
View Quote
FROM MY POST ABOVE (as well as several other posts of mine) ' And I am showing that JUST as CCW would have STOPPED the terrorist attacks of 11-Sep, SO would an armed citizen militia stop other terrorist attacks. Maybe you are hung up on the word "militia.' Then take that out of the equation. What Im am saying is that MORE guns, not less, MORE armed citizens, NOT less, are a viable solution to dealing with terrorists.... ...because citizens firearms can be used to kill terrorists. And a dead terrorist ain't very scary at all. Simply put - ANYWHERE a terrorist could go to spread terror IN THIS COUNTRY, he would be met by an amred citizen. Which gives FAR better odds than waiting on the gov't to do something.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:09:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: There is nothing in any way that a Militia could do to help aid the anti-terrorism effort. The effort needs intelligence, coordination, and communication. Militias by their very nature and purpose cannot participate. IF YOU INSIST THAT THEY CAN BE HELPFUL, THEN YOU EITHER DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION, OR ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. UNLESS you want them to fall under the control of the federal government.
View Quote
As organizations, no. As collections of individuals, yes. It's rather arrogant to assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance. You've expressed your factually impaired view of why citizens shouldn't carry guns on planes. Though, the same argument should apply to law enforcement or other trained personnel carrying firearms on planes. After all, a badge doesn't make someone a marksman. So the solution you're implying is that we continue to be helpless and at the mercy of those who can turn anything into a weapon. Oh wait, that's not a solution, that's a continuation of a current situation. I guess I see your point clearly. We screwed ourselves with stupid regulations and now have to pay the price for our mistakes. Thank you, I now feel enlightened. No, wait, that's gas. [:)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:10:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Which state cotrols it's militia?
View Quote
Every state that has a Constitutionally- authorized militia. The fact that a state doesn't USE their citizen militia DOES NOT mean it does not exist. Major - this is pretty basic stuff, here.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:13:23 AM EDT
Here's an article that addresses a specific problem on this thread: Airplanes & Guns: Myths and Reality [url]www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2474[/url]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:13:25 AM EDT
so, its opportunism you are against? aren't you military/former military? opportunism is the ONLY way to fight a war! sheesh, didn't you pay attention? you are beginning to sound like a Klintonite with all this "gentlemanly warfare" crap that only gets good people KILLED. i for one can't stand the rationality, yes rationality, that says we shouldn't "lower ourselves" to their level. pretty empty coming from a nation that's never been invaded! and a great way to thin the herd, i might add. i mean really, opportunity is not a bad thing! its a good thing! it is the spirit of capitalism, the spirit of competition, the spirit of America.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:17:14 AM EDT
So no state ACTUALLY controls it's militia, but in IF they used it, IF they knew it's capabilities, IF they knew who (specifically) the militia was, THEN the militia would be of use in the war against terrorism. Ah. But right now, in the real world with a real crisis, the militia is of use to combat terrorism in a figurative way. OTHER THAN THE UNORGANIZED COMPONENT (MORE GUNS)
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:19:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fattym4: so, its opportunism you are against? aren't you military/former military? opportunism is the ONLY way to fight a war! sheesh, didn't you pay attention? i mean really, opportunity is not a bad thing! its a good thing! it is the spirit of capitalism, the spirit of competition, the spirit of America.
View Quote
Ask Johnny Cochran and Rev. Al Sharpton, they'd agree.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:20:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: But right now, in the real world with a real crisis, the militia is of use to combat terrorism in a figurative way. OTHER THAN THE UNORGANIZED COMPONENT (MORE GUNS)
View Quote
The "unorganized component" is the ONLY component I'm taking about. The "organized" militia is the state and national guards. I'm NOT talking about them at all. The "organized" milita is INDEED fairly ineffectual in dealing with terrorists. But the "unorganized militia" i.e. citizens with guns will be JUST as effective in dealing with terrorists as they are in dealing with run of the mill criminals.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:23:34 AM EDT
So you just mean more guns for more citizens. I agree.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top