Given the terrorist activity would you support a citizen militia?

Once again I have been obliged to respond to absolute nonsense. So, back on the ignore list Liquid Reigns goes. If anyone wants me to address another of his baseless allegations, I will do so, but really this is it.

It is perfectly legal to join a citizen militia. Anyone who says different is lying or they are plain stupid. It's one or the other. The courts have misapplied the law with respect to the activities of some militia groups; the courts are now claiming that we do not have a Right to keep and bear arms. Here is the rub:

Our founding fathers had all kinds of abuses and insults heaped upon them. They exhausted all their nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. The first basic action was to remove themselves from the jurisdiction King George and separate from him.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers of this nation, stated their belief that we have a Right and Duty to certain things. The way it's put in the Declaration:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The object of this thread was to discuss the uses of a militia in a time when America is being held hostage to terrorism. But, the critics want an argument over the use of a militia against a government. They don't care about terrorism. That's why this thread got hijacked to talk about whether or not the militia is legal; if they have a legal right to organize, etc., etc. ad infinitum. But, very clearly if and when the government becomes despotic, we apparently have a Right to do something about it. What Liquid Reigns and his ilk want you to believe is that the founding fathers claimed such a Right, but intended to deny it to you and I.

It's a pointless argument since, before we ever get to the point of us versus the government, we have to exhaust all of our nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress. On a great many issues we haven't done that. So, Reigns exhaustive posting is all about something philosophical and irrelevant to this thread.

The militia is a legal entity. Government has the power to declare otherwise, but they clearly lack the authority. That is perhaps why the Presser decision was worth a $10 fine and some judicious language about parading in public, holding yourself out to be a military organization, etc. Great. The courts do not stop people from joining the militia - and the states that Reigns cites as "proof" to the contrary ALL HAVE ACTIVE CITIZEN MILITIAS AND HAVE HAD FOR DECADES.

Today we have a standing army and so many alphabet agencies of government that every Right we ever had is on the verge of evisceration. It is up us to stand together as citizens and demand government change. Then we have a wide variety of options before following in the footsteps of our forefathers - AND even then, the colonists did not initiate any hostile actions. They used the option of passive resistance and the government pursued them illegally (presuming you believe in unalienable Rights.)

My critics will want you to believe that the founding fathers claimed Rights and exercised options that somehow when they got what they wanted, closed the doors to you and I. The very author of the Declaration of Independence KNEW that the course of things, was for, as HE put it, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

What the critics want you to believe is that our forefathers fought, bled, and died for Liberty only to leave us with a form of government that could tyrannize the people under the guise of legalities. Now, the critics and I have talked this to death. Either you believe that train of thought or you don't. If you believe that we have a Duty and Right to oppose tyranny, then you will do something constructive about it.

And, while, people are dying due to terrorist activities, you could be minimizing the chances that it might be you or a loved one.

 

Agreed. There is obviously nothing in the federal code that prevents people from forming groups for the purpose of undertaking tactical training with firearms. Otherwise a lot of firearms schools would be out of business and in jail.

 

Which of congress' enumerated powers in article I, section 8 enables it to prohibit people for forming a group for the purpose of tactical training with firearms?

 

we have the Army.

we have the National Guard.

we have the State Militias.

we don't need private armies

if not even your State, or any other State Militia is good enough for you, than maybe you shouldn't be fighting for anyone.

 

Which of congress' power enumerated in Art I, section 8 would give it the power to criminalize the formation of groups for the purposes of tactical training with weapons?

 

Unorganized "militias" aka private armies, have little to no hostage situation, active shooter, or anti-terrorist training.

the LAST thing we need is Bubba Gump and his cousins charging into a terrorist or mass-shooter scene and making things worse.

 

Your not obliged to respond to anything, you do so by choice. I've supposedly been on your ignore list since our first encounter, yet you feel the need to ignore your ignore list.

The courts are not claiming we don't have the right to keep and bear arms. It is fully legal to join a citizens group, in any state, it is forbidden to voluntarily associate together as a military company or organization, in almost all states; it is also forbidden to act or train as a paramilitary group in all states. We are no longer English Colonists under a King, but a Constitutional Republic with the power of the vote to choose.

Which is exactly what they did by throwing off a Monarchy for a Republican form of Govt. Surely you don't feel our form of govt is abusing and usurping its powers or making you a despot, do you?

The object of this topic was a simple question: Given the terrorist activity would you support a citizen militia?Looks like a yes or no question. How is the US being held hostage to terrorism? What makes you believe the govt is becoming despotic? You simply fear the govt because of your imaginative interpretations of history out of context.

Who is going to make the determination as to when the govt becomes despotic? You?

The govt doesn't lack the authority to deny private militias. The only legal militias are the state militias recognized by Amendment 2. All other "militias" are not recognized by the govt, are not registered with their states as militias, and are limited via state regulation and court opinion as to their ability to train, parade, or associate in a military fashion.

Any right you feel that has been eviscerated, you have legal recourse to challenge, if you loose .... You want govt change, do it at the ballot box. Unalienable rights are limited, they are not unconditional. The rest is your "militia" propaganda.

Is our govt "oppressive"? What liberties have you lost?

How can a Constitutional Republic tyrannize it's people? The founders put this type of govt in place because there is no way for it to become tyrannical. SMFH

Terrorist activities within the US are done mostly by its own citizens, many of whom have very imaginative interpretations of history contributing to their perceived fears.

 

Its simply a right you don't have unless you are under the training of the State. Again from Presser:

You don't have the right to form your own private military group.

 

at very least, all private armies must be registered with the State, go through yearly obervation and training, and follow certain regulations.

if they are going to help protect the USA and individual states, they need to play by certain rules.

 

I suggest you go back through this conversation to retrieve the answer as I have already thoroughly given it.

 

I think we need to start with the basics of the constitution. Do you understand that congress may only enact legislation to carry into effect its powers as listed in Article I, section 8?

Let's tackle that first.

 

Then it should be a simple matter to cite the relevant clause in Art I, section 8. Copy/paste is your friend.

 

How about you try using SCOTUS opinion which is what has been stated. Your interpretation of the USC is meaningless.

- - - Updated - - -

SMH.

 

Hm, we're not getting off the starting block. The first question is whether congress may enact any law it wishes or whether it may only enact laws that carry into effect its powers as listed in Article I, section 8?

Do you understand that congress has a limited and enumerated set of powers?

 

SMFH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Surely you don't think you know more than the SCOTUS, do you? You do understand what SCOTUS opinion does, right?

 

I really don't care about the laws of Illinois. I don't live in Illinois. I am talking about the federal government.

Do you think the federal government has any authority to enact legislation preventing people from forming organizations for the purpose of training in military tactics and weapons?

 

the last thing we need is untrained local knuckleheads jumping into an active terrorist or active-shooter scene, causing trouble.

leave it to the trained professionals.

 

What does the SCOTUS opinion do? What does Illinois have to do with it? Do you not understand that Presser went all the way to the SCOTUS, therefor making it more or less precedent in the US.

The States have that authority, as I have stated all along. You do not have a Constitutional right/protection to form a private militia.

 

According to Presser, YES.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Unorganized militias are not private armies; no legitimate militia member would charge into a terrorist situation and risk their lives and / or the lives of hostages. If / when they took any action, it would be that which they are trained for. And, while we're on that subject, I personally have taken some anti-terrorist training (which is a reason that I would never go into a situation with people with the same or less training than myself.)

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

If one examines the earliest court decisions, the totality of the writings of the founding fathers and the historical record, you will arrive at the truth: citizen militias are constitutional, legal and a good thing.

 

If you believe that, then no citizen ought to have stood against Hitler. MOD EDIT - Rule 5

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
-Noah Webster

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry.

The intent of the founding fathers was very clear. The critics of the militia want you to believe that we should be able to defend ourselves and protect against tyranny without the training and the organizational ability to deter tyrants.

 

No they are not. Even English Colonial Law had Militia laws. Your quotes are discussing the difference between the Federalist ideals and the Anti-Federalist ideals of standing Army verse State Militia. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Lets look at the earliest of militia laws in the colonies, we need look no further than the Virginia Colony in 1607

Early US SCOTUS opinions deny private militias as specifically spelled out in Presser.

At no point in colonial history through today has there been a right to form a private citizen militia.

 

Sometimes people quote the law without reading the law. I'd like to take a moment and clear something up. In Presser, here is a telling tale. Liquid Reigns writes (I've bolded the relevant parts):


"In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with the declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as a violation of Illinois law that prohibited public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the governor.[61][178]"

"At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right "cannot be claimed as a right independent of law." This decision upheld the States' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.[61] However the court said: "A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force."[179]

Citizen militias are NOT private militias. We've discussed this point over and over and over again. A legitimate citizen militia acknowledges the executive power of state government; therefore, the Commander in Chief over the state militia is the governor of the state. Every qualified citizen of that state is eligible for membership and leadership roles.

In Presser, a man with a private army (as distinguished) parades through the streets with the declared intention of fighting and he is arrested for parading without a permit. Georgia has a citizen militia that exists with the express knowledge of the governor of Georgia. It has been continuously active since 1987. NOBODY has ever been arrested, jailed or imprisoned for their activities relative to that body. At the apex of militia recruiting, Georgia had the most members of any state.

The moral: the legitimate militia is not a private army nor does it engage in the activities prohibited by law. The fact that it exists discounts all the double talk to the contrary.