|
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, US Constitution For Democrats being supposedly the intellectual superiors (self-proclaimed of course) of this country. They either don't recognized the authority of the Constitution and the superior sovereignty of the people. Or, they're not as intellectually superior as they claim to be. Previous policies points to the latter... It's quite clear, that this legislation is in direct conflict with the Constitution, 2nd Amendment as well as the 9th Amendment. The opening lines of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated militia," clearly states that the people have the right to train in the martial arts, as the people are the militia that form the collective of people, organize among themselves as a cooperation, for their mutual defense as stated in the next line "being necessary for the security of a free state." So for these asshats to pull this off, they will either need a ruling from the SCOTUS to the contrary, or amending the US Constitution which is highly unlikely. |
|
Quoted: I would interpret that to mean that government has rights that are not constitutional. Quoted: Quoted: Lol This is the part that got me “…interfering with government or constitutional rights…” Well, government isn't alive so it can't have natural rights anyway. It can only have privileges that the People bestow upon it. Once they completely brainwashed the masses so that they don't know the difference between a right and a privilege, they can make anything mean anything they need at any given point in time. Control the language, control thoughts. |
|
This subject came up in a thread earlier this week. Vermont already passed such a law, which not only bans training, but also bans the right to assemble. here or here - plenty of articles about it |
|
Quoted: The number of States (including my own) that have "paramilitary training" laws might surprise many. The language is similar to this too. I find it interesting they define training and acting in public here. Does that mean I can do whatever I want in private? It's always fun when you look up articles citing dangerous paramilitary groups only to find your picture  USA today article on States that have anti paramilitary training laws |
|
Quoted: Well, government isn't alive so it can't have natural rights anyway. It can only have privileges that the People bestow upon it. Once they completely brainwashed the masses so that they don't know the difference between a right and a privilege, they can make anything mean anything they need at any given point in time. Control the language, control thoughts. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol This is the part that got me “…interfering with government or constitutional rights…” Well, government isn't alive so it can't have natural rights anyway. It can only have privileges that the People bestow upon it. Once they completely brainwashed the masses so that they don't know the difference between a right and a privilege, they can make anything mean anything they need at any given point in time. Control the language, control thoughts. Good point. |
|
Quoted: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, US Constitution For Democrats being supposedly the intellectual superiors (self-proclaimed of course) of this country. They either don't recognized the authority of the Constitution and the superior sovereignty of the people. Or, they're not as intellectually superior as they claim to be. Previous policies points to the latter... It's quite clear, that this legislation is in direct conflict with the Constitution, 2nd Amendment as well as the 9th Amendment. The opening lines of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated militia," clearly states that the people have the right to train in the martial arts, as the people are the militia that form the collective of people, organize among themselves as a cooperation, for their mutual defense as stated in the next line "being necessary for the security of a free state." So for these asshats to pull this off, they will either need a ruling from the SCOTUS to the contrary, or amending the US Constitution which is highly unlikely. There are people, otherwise smart, who believe the "well regulated militia" is now the National Guard. This is not some academic. He was Major in the US Army. Swears he has read the Federalist Papers, too. Last I heard, he had incurable cancer. I can't say I will miss him. |
|
Quoted: Do us a favor and don't tell Marion Francis that. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the founders were more against a Standing Army than the vast majority today are. Washington would have disagreed with the notion that the militia defeated the British. Militia performance was often quite poor and we had to build a conventional army and get help from a European conventional army to win the war. The founders were divided on the question of a standing army. Some considered it necessary due to the unreliability of the militia. Do us a favor and don't tell Marion Francis that. Famous for being the exception, not the rule. Militia forces, writ large, have always been dog shit when pitted against regular forces. Their only chance at success is knowing how to leverage their strengths against enemy weaknesses, while being very careful to avoid confronting the enemy's strength...even when they outnumber the enemy dramatically. The only way they can do this is with exceptional leadership, which is even more rare than relatively competent militia units. |
|
Quoted: Famous for being the exception, not the rule. Militia forces, writ large, have always been dog shit when pitted against regular forces. Their only chance at success is knowing how to leverage their strengths against enemy weaknesses, while being very careful to avoid confronting the enemy's strength...even when they outnumber the enemy dramatically. The only way they can do this is with exceptional leadership, which is even more rare than relatively competent militia units. FACT |
| What about Joe Biden? He had a short barreled, semi-automatic, magazine-fed firearm in Washington, DC! And so did Hunter. How about the “law enforcement” in CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, or DC? Also the jerks in the NG? We can’t let our standards slip, can we? Well maybe not Hunter, he gets a pass.?? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The number of States (including my own) that have "paramilitary training" laws might surprise many. The language is similar to this too. I find it interesting they define training and acting in public here. Does that mean I can do whatever I want in private? It's always fun when you look up articles citing dangerous paramilitary groups only to find your picture USA today article on States that have anti paramilitary training laws Not going to lie...that's badass. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/113246/You_really_wanna_fuck_with_us_jpg-3094505.JPG That looks like a whole bunch of dangerous wankers |
|
The closer we approach collapse, the more deperate they become for confiscating the fyre-arms. I can see a brief time after the collapse when people lose their fortune, earnings, home, loved ones (clawt shawt) and are starving that they, in frustration and anger, vent on politicians, bankers (bancos los federales, JP Morgue, Goldstein, BoA, WF, Citi), hedge fund managers (schwarz stein - think in english), NIH/FDA (thanks for the clawt shawt guys), etc. Not advocating violence but thinking of historical precedents and how they could play out modernly. I'm staying home when the wheels fall off. You should too (so stockpile yore 5 Bs) In times of unrest, a good sheriff/town marshal should deputize people and have them supervised by a deputy (sheriff/marshal). I know one guy who was a NM State Trooper called to a town where some bikers rode in. He told the town folk to approach as a group but to leave an opening for egress. That they were not to shoot and that he would do all the talking. He approached the bikers and told them that it was in their best interest not to be there and to leave. When the bikers saw the townfolk behind him, they left. Mere display of force and no violence needed. |
|
If we are to ignore the bill of rights only outlines restrictions on government (like the left does) the second amendment could be argued to be a requirement for citizens to be active in militias. Specifically when it was written "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" obviously means "well armed citizenry is needed to protect the republic". Additionally being prior to any serious thoughts of a large standing army and selective service it heavily implies a requirement for everyone able to be well armed with weapons practical in war and to train and muster often. |
|
Quoted: Story Introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Thursday, the bill dubbed the "Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act" would prohibit privately organized groups from "publicly patrolling, drilling, or engaging in harmful or deadly paramilitary techniques," "interfering with or interrupting government proceedings," or "interfering with the exercise of someone else's constitutional rights," according to Mr. Markey. Their bills defines a "private paramilitary organization" as "any group of 3 or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of functioning in public or training to function in public as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit." The bill states acting with or on behalf of such a private paramilitary organization while armed with a firearm, explosive, incendiary device, or other dangerous weapon, and engaging in patrolling, training, interfering with government or constitutional rights, or assuming the functions of law enforcement without official authority. Clearly un-Constitutional on its face, but when has that ever stopped asshole Dims before?  That should clash well w/ the Constitution. |
|
Quoted: This subject came up in a thread earlier this week. Vermont already passed such a law, which not only bans training, but also bans the right to assemble. here or here - plenty of articles about it And that runs afoul of the first amendment and the second 
|
|
Quoted: And that runs afoul of the first amendment and the second Quoted: Quoted: This subject came up in a thread earlier this week. Vermont already passed such a law, which not only bans training, but also bans the right to assemble. here or here - plenty of articles about it And that runs afoul of the first amendment and the second God o hope they take thay shit to court |
|
Quoted: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, US Constitution For Democrats being supposedly the intellectual superiors (self-proclaimed of course) of this country. They either don't recognized the authority of the Constitution and the superior sovereignty of the people. Or, they're not as intellectually superior as they claim to be. Previous policies points to the latter... It's quite clear, that this legislation is in direct conflict with the Constitution, 2nd Amendment as well as the 9th Amendment. The opening lines of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated militia," clearly states that the people have the right to train in the martial arts, as the people are the militia that form the collective of people, organize among themselves as a cooperation, for their mutual defense as stated in the next line "being necessary for the security of a free state." So for these asshats to pull this off, they will either need a ruling from the SCOTUS to the contrary, or amending the US Constitution which is highly unlikely. Let's not attribute to ignorance what can be credited to criminality. This is willful defiance the US constitution. Period. And they know it. Notice how no one has bothered to dissect Thomas' exegesis in Bruen & point to flaws in its legal &/or historical premise, because they can't. The US constitution is not sympathetic to mobs or authoritarians, which is why they hate it & try to sabotage it with by mischaracterizing it as "living", & employ "relative" interpretation or wholesale redefinition of its terms. |
|
Quoted: Do more research - start with Boston Company of Cadets and First Troop, Philadelphia City Cavalry for examples of private militias that played interesting roles in the American Revolution. They are why the following language exists in the Militia Act of 1792: And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry, and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulations of the militia: SEC. 11. Be it further enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges, subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this act, in like manner with the other militia. APPROVED, May 8, 1792. Private militias did exist (private in the sense that one had to apply for membership and be accepted by the unit) and the founders were perfectly fine with that because such units typically devoted additional private funds for equipment and training, which made them more capable units than the general militias. Can you point us to any publications that go into the history of those organizations |
|
Quoted: Famous for being the exception, not the rule. Militia forces, writ large, have always been dog shit when pitted against regular forces. Their only chance at success is knowing how to leverage their strengths against enemy weaknesses, while being very careful to avoid confronting the enemy's strength...even when they outnumber the enemy dramatically. The only way they can do this is with exceptional leadership, which is even more rare than relatively competent militia units. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the founders were more against a Standing Army than the vast majority today are. Washington would have disagreed with the notion that the militia defeated the British. Militia performance was often quite poor and we had to build a conventional army and get help from a European conventional army to win the war. The founders were divided on the question of a standing army. Some considered it necessary due to the unreliability of the militia. Do us a favor and don't tell Marion Francis that. Famous for being the exception, not the rule. Militia forces, writ large, have always been dog shit when pitted against regular forces. Their only chance at success is knowing how to leverage their strengths against enemy weaknesses, while being very careful to avoid confronting the enemy's strength...even when they outnumber the enemy dramatically. The only way they can do this is with exceptional leadership, which is even more rare than relatively competent militia units. Boer Commandos almost defeated England. Every man of that republic was considered a soldier and expected to fight. The British adopted the Commando techniques in WW2 and adopted the name. |
|
Quoted: There was an anti gunner up here in America's hat that would spout that kind of bs. 'That IPSC shooters where a threat 'cuz of their training and that if one ever went rougue, it would be a blood bath. Quoted: Quoted: Yes, and USPSA, 3GN, IDPA, etc. There was an anti gunner up here in America's hat that would spout that kind of bs. 'That IPSC shooters where a threat 'cuz of their training and that if one ever went rougue, it would be a blood bath. Crazy how they want to control even what you are allowed to learn, for fear you will learn how not to be a subject. |
|
Quoted: Can you point us to any publications that go into the history of those organizations Happy reading- John Hancock and the Boston Cadets: Uniform Short History Armory Private Funded and Built Washington's Bodyguard, First Troop, Philadelphia City Cavalry: Unit History Ben Franklin and the Associated Regiment of Philadelphia Lineage assigned to 111th Infantry PANG Washington Artillery of New Orleans a reorg of an older private militia Originally a Spanish militia unit Black Horse Troop Organization before founding of National Guard John Phillip Sousa hired to write unit March Summary - private militias have a long history in the United State until the founding of the National Guard and the Militia Act of 1903. |
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter