Officials See Rise In Militia Groups Across US (Rush Limbaugh, nationalist, Brown)

[delusianne]

Just struttin around on his innernet, waving them innernet guns.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak

By you and you alone. No one else really sees it as a threat.

Says the same person who defends people taking guns to town meetings.

"He was open carrying. Not much sneaking, and he was within his rights. Sorry."

And when someone goes to a bar tonight, they'll be openly drinking, not much sneaking and within their rights. Until they get behind the wheel of their car. Carrying a weapon to a public venue when you are already in an antagonistic frame of mind, where you can expect people to become emotionally charged, is playing Russian roulette. I feel confident in the ability of the Secret Service to protect our President, but there are lots of other people there. So there is a very real threat in that situation, and there was a threat in this poster's veiled remark about if the voting didn't go his way, that other means would have to be explored. Especially when taken in the context of his support of extremist militias.

[ViewFromThePeak]

Originally Posted by delusianne

Just struttin around on his innernet, waving them innernet guns.

It's funny too. Couple of folks think the gov't are badasses who are going to stick the jackboot on our head. Funny people.

[ViewFromThePeak]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Says the same person who defends people taking guns to town meetings.

"He was open carrying. Not much sneaking, and he was within his rights. Sorry."

And when someone goes to a bar tonight, they'll be openly drinking, not much sneaking and within their rights. Until they get behind the wheel of their car. Carrying a weapon to a public venue when you are already in an antagonistic frame of mind, where you can expect people to become emotionally charged, is playing Russian roulette. I feel confident in the ability of the Secret Service to protect our President, but there are lots of other people there. So there is a very real threat in that situation, and there was a threat in this poster's veiled remark about if the voting didn't go his way, that other means would have to be explored. Especially when taken in the context of his support of extremist militias.

Obama was out of the range of any handgun.

[jetgraphics]

The militia.

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, ..., under 45 years of age who are,... citizens of the United States....

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, ... to present himself for and submit to registration ...


Can you join a militia if you ARE a militia?

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak

Obama was out of the range of any handgun.

But the protesters lining the streets weren't.

I understand your defense of the man carrying the gun. But I think it was high-risk behavior, even if you don't. There was a threat inherent in bringing a weapon to a town hall meeting. That the threat wasn't to the President doesn't make the threat irrelevant.

I understand this poster's defense of the militias and his frustration with the government. But he has repeatedly stated that he sees violent insurrection as a last resort. My challenge is that violent insurrection shouldn't even be on the table. The defense that such violent insurrection would be waged by a majority in a democracy doesn't make sense. A majority in a democracy has other options, better options, more viable options. Yes, we're a republic, and the democracy is watered down. But the tendency is for majority opinion to prevail unless the minority opinion is Constitutionally protected. In which case armed insurrection would be mob rule, something that our founders were clearly opposed to. Something our entire system of government is opposed to.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Greatday

KevK - it is really obvious you flunked your American government classes (or you did not take them).

The United States IS NOT a "Democracy" KevK.

It is a democratic republic which is really the same thing minus proportional representation.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by SLCPUNK

Some posts were worthy of being reported to the FBI, especially one in particular that called for people to get their guns and be ready to fight.

It depends on the context. I might say get your guns and be ready to fight because you may have to defend your position on the issues of the day. I would never advocate using violence against the right wing but we do nto have to lay down and allow these kooks to manhandle us. It may come to where we have to defend ourselves and our country from them. I do not advocate using violence but if you must defend yourself you should.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by KevK

It is a democratic republic which is really the same thing minus proportional representation.

Actually, you're both incorrect.

The U.S. Constitution promises a republican form to the States.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;....
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary


"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

"...In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people."
Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)

------------
FYI - a citizen, by definition, is a subject.

CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

-------
If American people are sovereigns, and U.S. citizens are subjects, how did that happen?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Actually, you're both incorrect.

The U.S. Constitution promises a republican form to the States.
?

To be fair - I never suggested anything other then the US is not a "Democracy" as KevK first suggested.