38 for the 27.

SmarterthanYou said:
That freedoms first line of defense is WE THE PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE are that militia. or do you still think it means the national guard?
Click to expand...


OK, so WE THE PEOPLE are the militia that the Congress has the power to calling for to suppress insurrection (Article I, Section 8), yet the militia is to protect our freedom from the tyranny of the government (presumably through insurrection).

How does the square?
 
Dungheap said:
OK, so WE THE PEOPLE are the militia that the Congress has the power to calling for to suppress insurrection (Article I, Section 8), yet the militia is to protect our freedom from the tyranny of the government (presumably through insurrection).

How does the square?
Click to expand...
because 'we the people' are SUPPOSED to be intelligent enough to determine what is insurrection and what is tyranny of the government. congratulations on being a product of the public education system and not knowing the difference. it's ok though, we'll do your thinking for you.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because 'we the people' are SUPPOSED to be intelligent enough to determine what is insurrection and what is tyranny of the government. congratulations on being a product of the public education system and not knowing the difference. it's ok though, we'll do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...

Maybe you misunderstood my question. It isn't a matter of what is insurrection and what is tyranny. It's a matter of what the Militia is intended to do. Under Article I, Section 8, the Militia is intended (in part) to suppress insurrection. But what your saying is the the Militia is intended to engage in insurrection in to overthrow tyranny of the government. I don't see how those two (alleged) purposes can be reconciled at all.
 
Dungheap said:
Maybe you misunderstood my question. It isn't a matter of what is insurrection and what is tyranny. It's a matter of what the Militia is intended to do. Under Article I, Section 8, the Militia is intended (in part) to suppress insurrection. But what your saying is the the Militia is intended to engage in insurrection in to overthrow tyranny of the government. I don't see how those two (alleged) purposes can be reconciled at all.
Click to expand...
it's real simple. if congress calls on the militia to destroy the inhabitants of vermont because they refuse to implement Obamacare, what should the militia response be?
 
Superfreak said:
Not to mention the simple fact that it assumes the military would side with the government political regime. How many of our military would support attacking the US populace? How many would support cleaning house in DC?
Click to expand...

It is generally about half when there is a disagreement between citizenry and the government, but it is absolutely necessary that the citizenry has some military backing in order to be able to have a successful rebellion. It can be one peacefully, but if armed rebellion is necessary, then a military is necessary.
 
[SUP][/SUP]
SmarterthanYou said:
it's real simple. if congress calls on the militia to destroy the inhabitants of vermont because they refuse to implement Obamacare, what should the militia response be?
Click to expand...

It is kind of far fetched, how about somethinga little more likely...the rest of the nation would not tolerate armed conflict over it., they would more likely cut off federal funds.
 
Jarod said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as prescribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I think this might be better, Jarod:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be not abolished but regulated and limited as prescribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."

Liberty said:
Oh well.

Yes, I'm ready to give up my guns.

I'll feel safer.
Click to expand...

Nobody's asking you to do that, unless you have illegal weapons.

Liberty said:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

Jefferson also advocated insurrection every twenty years. Ain't happened.

Jarod said:
I have faith and trust our Military will do as trained, to follow the chain of comand.
Click to expand...

Of course they will. Unless they're like STN, and get their asses kicked out of the military.

SmarterthanYou said:
That freedoms first line of defense is WE THE PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE are that militia. or do you still think it means the national guard?
Click to expand...

"WE THE PEOPLE" is everybody, not just the militia, traitor. "We the People" is a phrase to refer to "all people" to symbolize the unity of the nation. You would be surprised to learn this was specifically included in the Constitution to stress the combined unity of the nation itself, as opposed to each individual state; which is what the former Articles of Confederation expressed. So it appears our nation is based upon "Statists".

Dungheap said:
Let's start with a simpler question: what is the militia you are referring to here?
Click to expand...

STN's militia has already been explained to us before. A resident of the armpit of stupidity, Texas, whose militia is:

http://www.texasmilitia.org/home/

which composes of, if I remember the number correctly, 2200 unarmed persons from the age of 16 to 80.
 
Rana said:
It is generally about half when there is a disagreement between citizenry and the government, but it is absolutely necessary that the citizenry has some military backing in order to be able to have a successful rebellion. It can be one peacefully, but if armed rebellion is necessary, then a military is necessary.
Click to expand...
jesus h christ how fucking stupid are you. do you really think that the US military is capable of taking on 80 million armed individuals??????
 
Rana said:
[SUP][/SUP]

It is kind of far fetched, how about somethinga little more likely...the rest of the nation would not tolerate armed conflict over it., they would more likely cut off federal funds.
Click to expand...
the rest of the nation would not tolerate what armed conflict? vermont fighting back or a dozen other states defending vermont?
 
Howey said:
I think this might be better, Jarod:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be not abolished but regulated and limited as prescribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."



Nobody's asking you to do that, unless you have illegal weapons.



Jefferson also advocated insurrection every twenty years. Ain't happened.



Of course they will. Unless they're like STN, and get their asses kicked out of the military.



"WE THE PEOPLE" is everybody, not just the militia, traitor. "We the People" is a phrase to refer to "all people" to symbolize the unity of the nation. You would be surprised to learn this was specifically included in the Constitution to stress the combined unity of the nation itself, as opposed to each individual state; which is what the former Articles of Confederation expressed. So it appears our nation is based upon "Statists".



STN's militia has already been explained to us before. A resident of the armpit of stupidity, Texas, whose militia is:

http://www.texasmilitia.org/home/

which composes of, if I remember the number correctly, 2200 unarmed persons from the age of 16 to 80.
Click to expand...
you have a seriously warped memory of shit, but whatever. you are more the traitor than I would ever be.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you have a seriously warped memory of shit
Click to expand...

I do?

SmarterthanYou said:
something that people should remind themselves about when it comes to Texas. We have our own organized militia called the Texas State Guard, which is not answerable to the federal government in any way, shape, or form. They have access to all forms of military weaponry and hardware equal to the National Guard. In any instance of large scale violence, you can guarantee that all TX national guard units will suddenly be called to assist the military OUT of the country and surrounding states guard units would be called in.

Now, as to all this talk out of Lubbock, there's not enough people out in that area to muster any sort of large resistance, so it's really nothing but a bunch of blowhards whose only possible form of resistance would be urban guerilla warfare supported by a large contingent of wannabe snipers.
Click to expand...


Howey said:
You live there and don't know what you're talking about. Color me not surprised.

The Texas Militia is composed of 2300 volunteers. Whoop de doo! And when your state militia starts to fight, remember this:

Sec. 431.010. ORGANIZATION PROHIBITED. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
Click to expand...

Not only that, this hobnobble group of volunteers between the ages of 15 and 65 cannot carry guns.


der...like I said before, they're GI Joe wannabe's.
Click to expand...

Sounds like my memories pretty accurate...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it is as it always has been....we the people, except a few government officials.
Click to expand...


So under your scenario, Congress would call on "we the people" to destroy the inhabitants of Vermont? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Rather than going through this nonsense, you could just admit that the Militia referred to in the Constitution does not consist of "We the People" but instead consisted of state-based military units, which have since been supplanted with the U.S. Armed Forces.
 
Dungheap said:
So under your scenario, Congress would call on "we the people" to destroy the inhabitants of Vermont? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Rather than going through this nonsense, you could just admit that the Militia referred to in the Constitution does not consist of "We the People" but instead consisted of state-based military units, which have since been supplanted with the U.S. Armed Forces.
Click to expand...
it is impossible for the states to have any of it's own military units because the constitution forbids it. that is why 'we the people' are the militia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top