U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-19-2009, 09:18 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
16,757 posts, read 13,596,126 times
Reputation: 15515

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
strange, I never read anything in the 2nd Amendment that said anything about having a permit.
The thought of having to be issued a "permit" for private ownership or use of arms did not even occur to the Framers. The "militia", as they envisioned it, was to be an armed citizenry , not under the direct auspices of the standing army. The militia, during the Revolution, was commanded seperatly of actual Colonial forces. They had their own chain of command, and operated in cadre' with the Colonial Army. The "militia" as defined by the Framers was and is intended to be citizens with private arms. It could be called upon to supplement the regulars if needed, but it was never intended to be under the direct command of the central government. Thus the National Guard or reserves is NOT the "militia". They are under the thumb of the central government. The miltia has always been a non uniformed force. Individual municipalities and communities can "organize" their armed citizens in time of need without the say so of the Federal or even state governments. It's a pretty simple concept, really, but one that a lot of people can't seem to grasp. Dependency on Federal or state forces for protection is rather imprudent. The role of non regular forces in our history is clearly defined and apparent. Lol, and the Framers never intended for private arms to be regulated by the central authority. The very thought would make them quiver..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2009, 09:22 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,876 posts, read 14,166,644 times
Reputation: 5233
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
The thought of having to be issued a "permit" for private ownership or use of arms did not even occur to the Framers. The "militia", as they envisioned it, was to be an armed citizenry , not under the direct auspices of the standing army. The militia, during the Revolution, was commanded seperatly of actual Colonial forces. They had their own chain of command, and operated in cadre' with the Colonial Army. The "militia" as defined by the Framers was and is intended to be citizens with private arms. It could be called upon to supplement the regulars if needed, but it was never intended to be under the direct command of the central government. Thus the National Guard or reserves is NOT the "militia". They are under the thumb of the central government. The miltia has always been a non uniformed force. Individual municipalities and communities can "organize" their armed citizens in time of need without the say so of the Federal or even state governments. It's a pretty simple concept, really, but one that a lot of people can't seem to grasp. Dependency on Federal or state forces for protection is rather imprudent. The role of non regular forces in our history is clearly defined and apparent. Lol, and the Framers never intended for private arms to be regulated by the central authority. The very thought would make them quiver..


the national guard during our founding fathers day would have been the tories, or traitors to the cause back then.

I understand why the militia should always be under state control and never under the control of the USG.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2009, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,628,186 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
An attack on U.S. Citizens by U.S. soldiers would be the lighting of the fuse of one hell of an explosive in America.
Everybody yawned when the FBI and ATF took down Waco.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2009, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,628,186 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
oh really?

as in the last civil war, when a state secedes from the union, they take over all federal military posts in their state.

in Montana that includes 100's of ICBM's.

now liberals really have a problem.

btw, last I understood, Montana does have a militia, more than 10k from what I understand. you never hear about it because the news media does not like to report news that is contrary to their way of thinking.
Launch codes would be noticeably missing. Dream on.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2009, 09:55 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
16,757 posts, read 13,596,126 times
Reputation: 15515
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Everybody yawned when the FBI and ATF took down Waco.
LMAO, did they? Not everybody.. The liberal media gave the Feds positive coverage for that "operation" because the FBI and ATF weren't shooting at a bunch of "students" burning down a college campus "protesting" against the governments policies. These were "evil" people and they had GUNS. Funny how some people can support the governments use of force against it's citizens so long as the ones being mashed have views that don't coincide with the ones doing the applauding. So much for "tolerance" and "diversity". This is quite a contradiction. I seem to remember a bunch of Germans who turned a blind eye to brutality because they did not want to be noticed as being outside the accepted norm. When anyone can just stand by , or even put on an attitude of glee, when the cental power shoots and burns their fellow citizens for the crime of being different, they need to reexamine their morals. Just because you think some folks are wierd is no reason to happily applaud when the government rolls in, shoots up their residence, tosses in firebombs, and kills their children. Our military is under constant scrutiny for "collateral damage" in foriegn wars yet when they butcher our own citizens you say it's OK to just yawn?....whatever
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2009, 10:00 AM
 
Location: The Woods
17,888 posts, read 24,317,496 times
Reputation: 10663
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Everybody yawned when the FBI and ATF took down Waco.
Not quite. There was much outrage, the militia movement soared. Lon Horiuchi literally had to go into hiding and rarely ventured off government property for years to avoid being killed (or as most would call it, justice). And someone named McVeigh (who I will note was not a militiaman at all) bombed a federal building in retaliation. I don't agree with killing innocent people like he did but to say everyone "yawned" is quite untrue.

The government backed off from such raids for the most part after Waco and the ensuing retaliation. Note the different tactics used against the Browns in NH...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2009, 10:01 AM
 
Location: The Woods
17,888 posts, read 24,317,496 times
Reputation: 10663
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Launch codes would be noticeably missing. Dream on.
Nothing is hack proof. You know how many times the Chinese have hacked into supposedly "secure" and top secret government (including defense) computers and such?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2009, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,628,186 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
LMAO, did they? Not everybody.. The liberal media gave the Feds positive coverage for that "operation" because the FBI and ATF weren't shooting at a bunch of "students" burning down a college campus "protesting" against the governments policies. These were "evil" people and they had GUNS. Funny how some people can support the governments use of force against it's citizens so long as the ones being mashed have views that don't coincide with the ones doing the applauding. So much for "tolerance" and "diversity". This is quite a contradiction. I seem to remember a bunch of Germans who turned a blind eye to brutality because they did not want to be noticed as being outside the accepted norm. When anyone can just stand by , or even put on an attitude of glee, when the cental power shoots and burns their fellow citizens for the crime of being different, they need to reexamine their morals. Just because you think some folks are wierd is no reason to happily applaud when the government rolls in, shoots up their residence, tosses in firebombs, and kills their children. Our military is under constant scrutiny for "collateral damage" in foriegn wars yet when they butcher our own citizens you say it's OK to just yawn?....whatever
What a pathetic rant about a group of wingnuts that needed to be brought to heel.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2009, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,628,186 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Not quite. There was much outrage, the militia movement soared. Lon Horiuchi literally had to go into hiding and rarely ventured off government property for years to avoid being killed (or as most would call it, justice). And someone named McVeigh (who I will note was not a militiaman at all) bombed a federal building in retaliation. I don't agree with killing innocent people like he did but to say everyone "yawned" is quite untrue.

The government backed off from such raids for the most part after Waco and the ensuing retaliation. Note the different tactics used against the Browns in NH...
LOL So a bunch of Joe Sixpacks go play paint gun on the weekend and think they matter. Rich.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2009, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,628,186 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Nothing is hack proof. You know how many times the Chinese have hacked into supposedly "secure" and top secret government (including defense) computers and such?
You watch too much TV. Besides the Chinese are technologically sophisticated.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top