Given the terrorist activity would you support a citizen militia?

I guess so much for being on the "ignore list" as usual you seem to ignore your ignore list.

And in your quote of Presser lets bold the portion that states: 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.

A "legitimate" militia? Just because the governor may know about your group doesn't make your group lawful, nor does it make it eligible for duty to be called upon. You have no recognition at any level of govt. Just because you may feel the need to call yourself a "militia" or a "defense farce" doesn't mean that you actually are either of them under the color of law.

 

This appears to be a continuation of your personal attacks. OK, I'll play along:

I've told you once and I will tell you again, I am not now, never have been and was at no time a member of the Defense Forces site you've found. You need to take a chill pill and learn how the real world works. Since this is you and I now, I'm going to educate you once and for all. Pay attention:

In 1987 some citizens from Georgia began holding meetings and criss-crossing this state to educate the people about the legalities surrounding the state militia. When there was enough broad consensus, the membership from those organizations voted to reactivate the existing militia districts that have existed but lay dormant for years.

Certified letters were sent to the governor of Georgia and an elected leadership followed. At no time was this effort a "private militia" and your commentary to the contrary is pointless since you cannot redefine the term private militia. Again, all the participating individuals and organizations did was to reactivate a legal militia.

The governor was notified and the intent along with the activities was made abundantly clear. Since the governor of Georgia has never challenged the people coming forth to declare their availability to do militia duty, there is no evidence that what we did was illegal. The citizens are agreed that the governor is the Commander in Chief and that the leadership is elective among the citizens, but that could easily be challenged by the governor of this state.

So, since we are subject to the executive power of the state AND since the membership is public, there is no way that any honest person could accuse the militia of being "private."

Let's continue on for a moment:

Organizations that support the militia start websites, forums, etc. and it does not prove that they are the militia. They are non-profit associations whose efforts support the state leadership. In and of themselves, those groups and organizations are not the militia - though their membership may very well be. Their activities are not those of the militia, but they are free to support the militia in any way they deem proper TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DON'T ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES UNDER THE GUISE OF THE MILITIA WHICH ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW.

There are sites and discussion boards that pretend to be the militia, but those groups who overstep their authority and engage in prohibited activities are removed from the militia via a process that includes representation from every militia district. What do you think all the hoopla has been about with the Militia of Georgia versus the Select Militias? The legitimate militia does not engage in prohibited activities AND organizations that support the militia are NOT, in and of themselves, the militia.

Yes, much to your chagrin, there is an active militia and it is recognized by law. If it weren't, they would be employing those laws that you claim make it illegal to join.

 

Something the citizens or those organizations simply decided to do on their own which holds no weight in court under the color of law. Your group or groups are doing nothing more than networking and calling it something patriotic to look as though you are patriotic.

Since the leaders weren't appointed by the governor, your not even a militia, your just a group of people that formed an organization that uses the word militia in their name to claim you support the State Militia if the need arises. The participating individuals and organizations have no legality to reactivate any militia. You calling it a "legal militia" is

No evidence that what you did was illegal? Doesn't matter what the citizens agree about. Again, just because you may have sent a letter to the Governor doesn't make your group "legitimate" or legal in any since of the words, nor does it make you a militia. As I said, you can call your group whatever you want, you can even claim to be something you are not, but if you are not recognized as anything more than a group of citizens, and not violating any laws, then you are doing nothing more then simply networking.

Do you really think the Governor recognizes your group as anything more than a group of people networking no matter what you call yourselves?

Your not even a militia. The membership is public therefor you can't be a "private militia"? Now I've heard it all. If you are not the actual State Militia as required by the USC, you are a "private militia" as was Presser. But you've admitted your group really isn't even a militia and that as long as your group doesn't train, associate, or organize as a militia, then your not in violation of the law, your just an organization with the word militia in it for support purposes.

So now you are admitting your group called the Militia of Georgia, really isn't a militia. You also admit that any militia other than the actual State Militia is prohibited by law, which you've claimed wasn't illegal. SMH

The only "Legitimate" Militia is the State Militia, so again you admit the organization you are CO of is NOT, in and of itself, a militia, yet you call yourselves the Militia of Georgia.

The only active militia is the State Militia, there is no chagrin to it. You've admitted your group isn't a militia even though you call yourselves a militia.

 

I'm sure the whole board is enjoying this urination contest between Resister and Liquid, but the question in the OP asks whether we would support a citizen militia. He can tell us what he means, but I doubt he was asking whether the states do or do not have the authority to regulate militias.

Anyway, yes, I support the idea of a well regulated militia. If that's what the OP is asking (?)

 

2nd amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I would support a "well regulated" militia, but only if they are the only ones who have the right to bear arms, like our constitution says... otherwise, it is just a bunch of gun nuts who are going to go out and shoot people who don't look like them.

 

As we keep repeating in this thread:

If you are a citizen and resident of the state wherein you reside and there are no legal barriers, you can join the militia in your state. Militia barriers may include, but not limited to: membership in the organized militia (Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Reserves, National Guard, Air Force), public officials, felons, persons convicted of domestic crimes, and those prohibited due to their employment (like LEOs - most are prohibited by their agency directives.)

 

Thank you for weighing in. The question of whether or not the militia is legal is moot. We've answered that ninety times or so in the course of this thread. The only things that are "illegal" about militias are Select Militias (aka private armies as the critics love to yap about) and certain activities.

Participating organizations provide the militia with well qualified and trained personnel in their field. So, they get their skills from sympathetic organizations and groups, but they would only use that skill in their capacity as a militiaman when called into service and / or when there is a chaotic condition that renders the organized forces incapable or under-manned.

The militia does not exist to over-throw the government. The people, in their role as citizens, retain certain Rights that can be utilized under a tyrannical government. IF the government overstepped their boundaries and all nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress were exhausted, the people would retain their Rights as freemen that can use extraordinary measures.

The big issue is that we've not gotten to the point where we have to rebel against the government. That part of the argument is getting old since it's hypothetical at best. In our role as citizens, we are able to use a wide range of options to deal with unruly government. At best, the militia helps citizens understand their options for securing Liberty, protecting Rights and dealing with tyranny in government. The critics have the equation backward:

When Liberty is ultimately jeopardized, the government will come after the people, not the people going after the government. Then, and only then, will the people stand firm in defense of Liberty. IF that scenario ever happens they will have the Right and the Duty to stand against tyranny (which may include unconstitutional acts that are so egregious that the general citizenry cannot comply.)

Again, thank you for the support of the Second Amendment.

Since the federal government has no jurisdiction over state militias, it then becomes an issue between the people and their respective state government. When states fail to act and do their duty, the citizenry can and does what it is legally allowed to do. There can be no legislation that can prohibit citizen militias - they can only prohibit certain activities. Everybody else is entitled to their opinion, but the Militia of Georgia has been operating since 1987 and meets every legal and dictionary description necessary.

P.S. when he governors of the states failed to stop citizen militias, they were giving them the green light to exist. The states don't have a problem with them. Only the liberals do.

 

When I began this thread, I asked a simple question regarding whether or not you would support the militia when we have this threat of terrorism. We had been talking quite a bit about it when, in my critics back door, they were visited by one of the most horrific terrorist acts of our time.

Instead of figuring out how to defend themselves and maybe even having been able to identify the terrs, the critics have wanted to debate what a militia is - and is not. The truth has never supported their narrative. In 1994 Robert Bradley, who spent four and half years in Special Forces wrote the book Citizen Soldier - A manual of Community Based Defense.

Preceding that was the introduction of a complete program administered to citizen militias. It is called S.P.I.K.E. (Specially Prepared Individuals for Key Events.) That program was initiated by Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz (US Army, retired) and Gritz was a former Green Beret and CIA operative. Major George Westmoreland (USMC, retired) wrote a guide, PM 8-94 How to Start and Train a Militia.

The narrative by the left is that those in the militia are wannabe gun nuts, but the people helping start the militias are very well versed and not without their individual qualifications. One of the co-founders of the Militia of Georgia was Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (US Army, retired. Mohr was the first American captured during the Korean Conflict where he was beaten, tortured and then sentenced to death only to escape and return to duty. Mohr would even go on to later write Army manuals on psyops.

The previous X.O.s in the militia that I've served with include one man that spent four years as an Army Ranger. Quite possibly, veterans make up close to two thirds of the membership of the militia. They are hardly wannabes. They are people that care deeply about the future of this country. We spend so much time arguing over whether the militia is "legal" or not, we cannot examine the record of what the militia has done. That too, would challenge the narrative that the militia critics want to present.

Make no mistake about it: the more liberal states are the ones where the bulk of terrorist attacks are taking place. Those people are blind to their surroundings and make easy targets for the terrorists. There may be no guarantee that prepared people won't be hit, but if / when they are, they may stand a better chance of survival... much like wearing a seat belt in your car.

Community based defense. It's legal and it's a great idea. It is one of the hallmarks of communities with a strong militia based presence.

 

Everybody supports the State Militias. What isn't supported is a bunch of wanna-bees acting as though they are some sort of military force "as a last stand for liberty" or "terrorist hunters" or whatever.

The truth has never support your critics narrative? Your imaginative interpretations of law are fallacies made up under theories of utter ignorance. There is no good records of what the "militia" (not the State Militia) has done. There are records of what ignorant "militias" have done, to include members of "militias".

So now Mohr was a co-founder of the MoG? Here you claim he is nothing more than a speaker at your original "public" meeting

https://www.unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41735&postcount=5

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

If it ever gets to the point of the govt being tyrannical, you will no longer have rights. The USC would then no longer exist.

The federal govt doesn't have jurisdiction over the State Militias? Art 1 Sect 8

Sure looks like Congress has jurisdiction over the State Militias to me.

There can be no legislation that can prohibit citizen militias? And yet there are those very things. You even admit to States having anti-militia laws. You, as a person, do not have the right to form a military organization, i.e. a militia.

The militias, since 1607, have been under the control of the govt.

when [t]he governors of the states failed to stop citizen militias, they were giving them the green light to exist

 

He has told you what he means, have you not followed the thread? The problem is he keeps changing his definition. He argues in circles.

What he is asking is if you support a "citizen militia", specifically, one like this in which he is the CO. http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/defense.html

 

Once again, Liquid Reigns is wrong on all counts. I am NOT the C.O. of the militia on the link; have never been associated with the organization per se. That group is not the militia. They are a participating organization.

Contrary to Liquid Reigns claims, the unorganized militia constitutes the whole body of the people. The governor of the state has the authority to call the militia into service. The federal government has no jurisdiction over the unorganized militia.

Each state most likely has the equivalent of what Georgia has: militia districts. Militia representation is done in Georgia by allowing each district to pick their leadership. That leader is then given a spot in what we call the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee decides the standards we should meet and what is acceptable conduct.

People or groups associated with the militia that get involved in questionable activity are then prohibited from future participation. When that happens, those groups become private militias and not defensible as the founding fathers frowned upon Select Militias (aka private militias or private armies.) The militia, as a body, is restricted as to activities. For example, the militia cannot parade in public with their weapons. They cannot, as a body, engage in paramilitary activities.

OTOH, those same militia members may organize into non-profit associations and / or join - support - participate in activities that are prohibited in their role as citizen soldiers. Again, another example:

Militia members cannot do paramilitary training (sic.) The government usually uses that as code for firearms tactics. But... there is NOTHING that says the militia members cannot go to an Appleseed shoot and learn and hone firearm skills. Nothing prevents groups / organizations, and their members (such as in the link) from offering educational opportunities in skill sets like First Aid, Communications, Intelligence, Community Based Self Defense (aka neighborhood watch groups), Legal training (for the exhaustion of non-violent political and legal avenues of redress), and courses in history, political guerrilla warfare, etc. when such training is NOT being sanctioned by the state militia.

The government and the LEO community in general want you to believe that we have an unorganized militia, but that, on the other hand it does not exist. You can participate in certain activities and be covered by the Second Amendment, but you cannot necessarily call yourself militia. Then you can call yourself the militia and participate in other activities.

At the end of the day, Liquid Reigns knows full well what this means. We have a Right, a Duty and an Obligation to be armed and be willing to defend this country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The real issue is that some liberals will concede a Right to keep and bear Arms, but not a Right to know how to use them safely and proficiently in any SHTF scenario. So, the militia is saddled with playing games designed by tyrants so that they can exist and become an asset to a community despite the wannabe socialists that run the Establishment System.

 

Wrong on all accounts?

The federal govt does have jurisdiction over the unorganized militia, US Constitution Article 1 Section 8, to include conscription into active service.

And yet they are not really a/the militia. If it were the/an actual militia the Governor would appoint the leadership of each district.

So they call themselves the Militia of Georgia yet they really aren't a "private militia" in the real since of the word.

The "Select/Organized Militia" consists of Law Enforcement and the National Guard. The "Unorganized Militia" is every able bodied male that meets the requirements as put forth by the state and federal code. 10USC311

An "independent/citizens militia" is a private army, or "private militia" which is banned from organizing, associating, parading, and training as a group.

there is NOTHING that says the militia members cannot go to an Appleseed shoot and learn and hone firearm skills. So you claim to be a militia, yet really aren't.

You can call yourself anything you want, that doesn't make your group an actual militia in the eyes of the law.

Accept your not really a militia, just a bunch of wanna-bees playing Red Dawn and interpreting history from the eyes of utter ignorance.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

BACK TO THE FACTS:

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Tench Coxe in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken by Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

“…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #29)

I want those of you following this to bear all of this in mind. When I get a few minutes, we will expose that erroneous notion that the Constitution only allows for a government controlled militia.

 

It is important for us to face the reality of the fact that terrorist activities is not only a threat from outside America. We must know there are enemies within... The truth about enemies within is that there are the most dangerous, because without their activities, the enemies from outside may not be able to perpetrate their evil acts and if they do it will be minimal. We must remember, that it not easy to walk in the dark without a prior knowledge of the environs....

 

So in previous comments you agree that there can not be a "militia" formed by citizens, yet in this comment you turn 180 degrees and claim there can be.

Here is where you got your quotes from http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm which doesn't even explain what they mean, they just simply quote them because they are talking about Amendment 2.

As usual, your quotes are prior to even the US Constitution and are poor attempts to use. The first quote is discussing the people simply being able to keep arms.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_coxe.htm

Your second quote is in regards to changing the proposed Amendment "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." to what it now reads A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html

Your third quote is a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists

He's talking about a State militia and the people being able to keep arms.

As usual, you don't comprehend your quotes, nor do they pertain to a "private militia" as made by citizens and not regulated by the State.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 5

While we've been treated to one person hijacking this thread to discuss whether or not the militia is legal, the facts remain that America is under siege. We have terrorists, political propaganda prostitutes, people flowing in from every country in the world and the criminally insane running the show in the U.S.

Yet we're having to listen to self proclaimed "classic liberals" give us their opinions on the legalities of citizen militias and what every statement that the founding fathers made relative to self defense of the individual and the duty to the country.

In participating in the legal v. illegal aspect, the back and forth between a liberal and myself is not conducive to any meaningful conversation. We know, in spite of what the liberals claim, that the citizen militia must be legal. The militias that have existed for decades have not been shut down by the government. Liquid Reigns is mad because so far he has not been able to arrest a single member of the Militia of Georgia nor any of the U.S. affiliates that have existed for some years and do not get involved in prohibited activities.

At the end of the day, each of you must decide who the militia is. The organized militia is the regular services like the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, Reserves, etc. The unorganized militia is the citizenry other than the organized militia. If you are willing to take a stand and defend your country; if you are an able bodied legal resident; if you are not prohibited by law to own a firearm and not prohibited from serving (i.e. public officials, members of the armed services, etc.) then you qualify to be a militia member.

Liquid Reigns has never arrested a single person involved in a legitimate militia. On the contrary, the government has set up a lot of unsuspecting people that buy into the liberals definition of what a militia is all about. Unfortunately for them, the liberals do not get to define what a militia is nor is their version and interpretation of the statements by our founding fathers the definitive view of what the law is.

Somehow there will always exist a mechanism whereby the people ultimately hold the government accountable for what they do (or don't do) relative to Freedom and Liberty. If you have a Right to keep and bear Arms for both personal defense as well as to defend your country, then you have a Duty and an Obligation to do so safely and efficiently. This is all common horse sense.

The critics have painted you a picture of what a militiaman is. Their stereotype is a redneck that has a few days growth of whiskers on his face, cigarette dangling from his snaggle tooth smile, holding onto his SKS rifle while he tries to live out a fantasy from watching the old version of Red Dawn.

It's a nice try until you wind up with people that don't fit that profile. So, then it becomes imperative to discredit them with constant attacks and disinformation campaigns. America is truly in a war. Those who speak out serve as proof that we need the militia just to balance out the tyrannical acts of those in the system seeking to silence any voice of dissent. John Adams summed it up best:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"

EVERY statement from our founding fathers that I've quoted fits that principle in both spirit and law. Our forefathers did not fight and die for Liberty only to leave the ultimate power to a standing army and misfit politicians that have done all they can to circumvent the Constitution as originally written and intended. The critics of the militia want to hijack the effort with doubts about legality when their efforts to stop the militia have not yielded any results in thirty years plus of my having been observing and working with them.

I did not ask the question about whether or not citizens have the Right to stand against unconstitutional government, but that is where the hijacking took us. It's irrelevant because it is not what was asked. We cannot get to the truth because the liberals don't want you to know the truth. Yes, the militia IS legal. Even if the powers that be told us we could not use the term, we would still be legal because each and every one of you know that over the course of history if some people had exercised the right to keep and bear arms, Pol Pot could not have murdered millions - plus umpteen more examples that we can cite to the chagrin of the opponents of the militia. Self preservation would trump any law to the contrary.

While America is being destroyed, silence is not golden - it's treason.

If my critics had their way, if the government turns against the people (and they have in times past), your recourse is to allow them to kill you without your having resisted in the least.

 

Citizens of a free country should always be able to form a militia, because whatever Obama says, there is always a risk for any goverment to become a tyrany.

 

I want to thank you for your insight. It was far more meaningful than a rewrite of our history by people that support a God / Government. In the United States, the colonists were the immigrants that stood against the government and demanded Liberty. The snake oil being peddled by the critics of the militia holds that all those quotes I gave, along with the logic by many posters on this thread ends with all the talk being about the country's right (the right of government) to maintain a standing army.


As the government of the U.S. is dismantling our Constitution and the threat of terrorism from abroad looms over our heads, we have a decision to make. Do we submit to tyranny or should we be determined to live like slaves?

 

Yes, I just don't know how a President of the United States could dare to mock scepticism over government this way.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/06/transcript-obamas-commencement-speech-at-ohio-state/

So what Obama says is that you should trust goverment blindly because it is "brave and creative experiment in self-rule". After a statement like this I'm sure Americans need as many guns in private hands as possible.

 

Talk about re-writing history. The colonists wanted representation if they were going to be taxed, it had nothing to do with demanding Liberty.

All those quotes you gave took them out of their context. Your quotes do not mean what you are trying to make them mean, which is why you were given the entire paragraph before or after, to include the rest of your quote, to place it into context, which then made your inept rants, inane.

The govt isn't dismantling anything, the feds have no control over private weapons, the states do, and it is the states that regulate them. There is no tyranny to submit to, it's nothing but voices on your feeble mind. Live like slaves? Your propaganda is

I suggest you take a history class or two and read the founders verse typing in "Amendment 2 quotes" into a search engine and basing your knowledge off of ignorance.

I forgot, I'm on your ignore list so you probably won't read this.

 

As stated, each time I post, Liquid Reigns posts. So, I feel obliged to say something - even though I've quit reading his posts.

Participating on this thread has forced me to soften my opinion of private militias a bit. In the mid 1980s I, like many Americans, was fearful of a One World Government / New World Order. At that time the John Birch reigned supreme on the right and gun owners within the NRA began declaring "We are the militia" on NRA t shirts.

The government went after survivalist groups because many were getting their survivalist training supplemented with paramilitary training that was available. Former OSS officer, Mitch Werbell (aka the Wizard of Whispering Death) used to offer courses here and I was all to eager to learn what I could. Then Frank Camper came along with his mercenary training in Alabama. Well, the government began cracking down on those kinds of groups and they went out of existence until the "militia movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective came along.)

Today, survivalists are called "preppers" and many of those people covertly identify as citizen militia. The big difference between survivalists / preppers and militia is that the people identifying as militia believe they have a Duty and an Obligation to defend Liberty.

Now, with the U.S. Militias - and the Militia of Georgia in particular, they came along during the 1980s with every intention of supporting the Constitution and offering a support mechanism if America were to be attacked and needed a force that could assist. In addition, the people who were drawn to the militia were not willing to submit to a yoke of slavery. They are very attuned to issues like eminent domain abuse, unchecked immigration, gun control, the attacks on the Constitution, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Despite what you hear, most people that get involved are not Rambos. There are many quasi militia type organizations like the Oathkeepers and there are private militias. I won't try and judge them. Self preservation is, in my opinion, the first law of nature. For that reason you cannot outlaw it. And with respect to the critics:

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution relates to the organized militia. That is first off. Second, the Dick Act tried to outlaw the citizen militia and the powers that be argue that the National Guard, etc. is the militia. But all those forces owe their allegiance to the federal government and its dictates. Who then represents the people and their interests when they feel threatened by tyranny? Do the liberals really feel that the founding fathers did not leave us a mechanism to fight back against tyranny in government when the founding fathers had to separate from a government power in order to create our form of government?

No, the government cannot outlaw the militia. Many of the laws themselves that are aimed at circumventing the original intent of the Rights of the people are blatantly unconstitutional. So, we have to exercise all our our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress to rectify the situation AND we must never disarm, regardless of what the law says. Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.

 

We have a militia that we support,
the National Guard is the official militia of the country, I don't support the private groups of mostly bigots that call themselves militias

Quick arm the Peoples Front of Judea

 

I am a militia of one

 

what was the second amendment designed to do and why does the blanket prohibition on the federal government recede when it comes to "assault rifles"