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.
Again, another vile malicious insinuation with no bases. You’ve disgustingly attempted to twist my assertions in order to attack me and not my proposal. Of which, is to defend schools and retain the people’s purposefully established 2A rights. Pathetic.
You are a gun advocate in a thread advocating an armed militia. The purpose of a militia is to "supplement a regular army in an emergency" (we have no such emergency) to "engage in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army." That's the definition. How is that not advocating violence.
If I wanted to play with guns to the extent you seem to, I would either join the military or the police force. You want to be in a militia (that's what this particular thread is about).
<>If I wanted to play with guns to the extent you seem to, I would either join the military or the police force. You want to be in a militia (that's what this particular thread is about).
Military members are assigned a weapon, not particularly one they would chose.
I just watched video of an unspecified number of police firing at an RV ,letting off a reported 64 rounds. "No one was injured in the two hour battle." Not exactly the results I expect from my firearms trainer.
BTW, I am divided on the issue of the militia, but it is nice to see the concept getting a good airing.
Ok, is it just me, or has anyone else never heard this word? Both my husband and I, and most of our social Circle, are well educated, and I have never heard this word used. Maat55 inserts it into many of his posts, clearly intended as an insult. After googling it's definition, I am completely baffled how it applies to the discussion at hand.
I use the term to represent those who consider government agents(military, cops, fbi, etc.) as the only humans/godlike angels capable and trustworthy to use guns for the defense of the country/society/schools.
Sorry to butt in here, not my back and forth, I know, but the Police Action usually refers to The Korean War, eh? Wasn't the M14 a later weapon?
In The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution congress used the "police action" wording as was remembered from the Korean War. Those in the first few years of the conflict were more likely to carry a M14 before the M16 became the standard rifle
You are a gun advocate in a thread advocating an armed militia. The purpose of a militia is to "supplement a regular army in an emergency" (we have no such emergency) to "engage in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army." That's the definition. How is that not advocating violence.
If I wanted to play with guns to the extent you seem to, I would either join the military or the police force. You want to be in a militia (that's what this particular thread is about).
Yes, I am a gun advocate. Yet the only time I use them is when hunting or practicing self-defense. No, I am not advocating a militia. I'm advocating that Americans/teachers be allowed to defend themselves and students in schools. I'm advocating that the people retain their 2A constitutional right. Nothing more.
You on the other hand are attempting to wrongly label and vilify me. I've explained why we have the 2A and have given examples as to why the 2A is rellevant today. The militia, if it ever arises, sole purpose is to defend the country and the constitution, from enemies foreign or domestic. "Domestic" could be sleeper cells,gangs, or tyrannical constitutionally defiant government. I have not advocated any violence. This thread OP has advocated that citizens/ex-military/ex-cops can volunteer to protect schools under the label of militia, which is unnecessary.
You are a gun advocate in a thread advocating an armed militia. The purpose of a militia is to "supplement a regular army in an emergency" (we have no such emergency) to "engage in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army." That's the definition. How is that not advocating violence.
If I wanted to play with guns to the extent you seem to, I would either join the military or the police force. You want to be in a militia (that's what this particular thread is about).
Source for your quote? or just google "define militia"?
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91
1833
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
The Second Amendment is an insurance policy to defend Liberty. The militia is not a subsidiary of a standing army. Its sole purpose is to defend Liberty, the Constituion and our BoR's. I will quote founder after founder that declares this fact.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91
1833
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
The Second Amendment is an insurance policy to defend Liberty. The militia is not a subsidiary of a standing army. Its sole purpose is to defend Liberty, the Constituion and our BoR's. I will quote founder after founder that declares this fact.
How about just voting like the rest of us and understand that to a reasonable degree the majority rules the nation.
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.
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.
