Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 567 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 210 of 248

Thread: Do we still need that militia?

  1. #176
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,765

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    Might ask Huey Newton.
    That's Dr. Newton?? I'm missing the connection.
    PaulF

  2. #177
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    13,847

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    That's Dr. Newton?? I'm missing the connection.
    Here's a pretty good summary: https://www.history.com/news/black-p...rt-mulford-act

  3. #178
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,765

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    I see what your getting at. Interesting.
    PaulF

  4. #179
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wright View Post
    If, a very unlikely if, a constitutional convention was held to address the second amendment I believe that it wouldn't be repealed because there is majority support for it.

    That support is not based so much on concepts of the militia, but on a concept of an individual right to self defense. This right was understood at the time the second was written - it was a self evident right. The militia phrase shows the concern of the writers with providing for state armed services, it does not override the self evident individual right (this is what the Supreme Court has ruled)

    In any case, if that new constitutional convention were held I think it very likely that the second would simply be revised to be along the lines of many existing state constitutions. For example, the Washington State Constitution:

    Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: “[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

    You can read similar passages in other state constitutions, and you can also read the restrictions that are specified on this individual right too.
    That's interesting information about the state constitutions. I love living in a society where we don't carry guns but it's good to hear a well-researched, reasoned and intelligent viewpoint from the other side.
    Last edited by Chris249; 09-11-2018 at 05:42 PM.
    Has BigFella and SkyBlue on ignore.

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    Interesting link, thanks. One point that interests and concerns me is that it indicates that some things advocated by the left (in this case, open carry but also judicial activism and violent protest) can be double-edged weapons that will work just as well for the right.

    Of course, the link also shows the hypocritical stance that the NRA has taken when it suits it.
    Has BigFella and SkyBlue on ignore.

  6. #181
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wright View Post
    The vast majority of us, in fact an overwhelming majority of us, agree to the concept of reasonable force.

    The vast majority of us, in fact an overwhelming majority of us, agree that blowing a persons brains out exceeds that principle almost all of the time.

    Are you some sort of antisocial psychopath who thinks otherwise? What's wrong with you?
    The point, surely, is that there are different definitions of "reasonable force". In many western societies, having a gun and using it is much less likely to be considered "reasonable force" than it may be in the USA.
    Has BigFella and SkyBlue on ignore.

  7. #182
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Above flood level, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    17,658

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    No? They were a motivated army of the local population fighting an army on their home turf. Where did the Viet Cong come from...?

    Do you feel the Army attack helicopter of the time was a huge factor in the outcome?
    The idea your RWW militias are anything close to the kind of fighting and terror force the Viet Cong were is an idiotic one. Pure lunacy.

    The idea that any civil conflagration between your modern RWW militias and the modern American armed forces is remotely comparable to the kind of reasons the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong under them fought, or the kind of terrain in which fighting occurred, or the sophistication of armaments, battlefield tactics, and intelligence gathering, is puerile and imbecilic.
    Jarndyce and Jarndyce

    The Mighty Pippin
    Mirror 30141
    Looe
    Dragon KA93

  8. #183
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    26,060

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    An obvious point: The military forces of just about every country on earth are staffed by highly-trained professionals who have studied the best available information about how to fight and win wars. That's their job, and I presume most of them are reasonably competent at it. They want to most effective fighting force possible, given their budget. No country on earth relies on a citizen militia as its military force if it has enough money and organization to do otherwise.

    While a citizen militia may have possibly been useful in 1789 (particularly for guarding against slave rebellions), it is as now as obsolete for national defense as a flintlock. If it were an effective military force, military professionals would organize things that way.
    I'm assuming your referring to a military force to influence foreign policy, or to repel foreign policy. In which case you're correct. The forming of a militia, or standing Army, under the control of the Federal government was required to prevent foreign intervention, or to affect foreign intervention in our favor.

    To preclude that standing Army from taking control of the USA, the right of the people to have weapons was recognized as a right under the 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.”
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  9. #184
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    26,060

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Duncan Gibbs View Post
    The idea your RWW militias are anything close to the kind of fighting and terror force the Viet Cong were is an idiotic one. Pure lunacy.
    Yep. While those folks feel important, they are mostly silly.

    It's the number of normal folks with guns that would keep an out of control government at bay. That includes a whacked out Trump. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't into guns these days.
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  10. #185
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    71,950

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    Yep. While those folks feel important, they are mostly silly.

    It's the number of normal folks with guns that would keep an out of control government at bay. That includes a whacked out Trump. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't into guns these days.
    They're probably all too aware of the firepower and mobility of the US military and don't indulge in Rambo fantasies.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  11. #186
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    26,060

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    On the other hand, Brian, I've read a huge number of people claim that if the US had not fought under such severe political restrictions (such as not targeting many bridges and not chasing fighter jets to their bases close to China, IIRC) they would have won easily in Vietnam. Some of them are veterans.
    Yeah man, I'm with ya. We may have lost the Vietnam War due to politics. I feel the fact is the local population made that outcome uncertain, even with motivated response from the French, and then our actions. In the end though, the locals beat us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    If there was a showdown between the US forces and the citizens, would there be such restrictions in place?
    On US soil, the standing Army would be so hamstrung they be very ineffective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    On a tangent, I still can't understand why so many US citizens have so little faith in their own compatriots and in their own political system. Why do they feel that they will be the only modern western country to be taken over by a dictator? Don't they have faith in the Constitution and the system it set up, like the rest of us have faith in our systems?
    Perhaps we could explore that "Only modern Western Country" point more. How about Cuba, or Venezuela? I'm not an expert in either, but I could learn.
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  12. #187
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    26,060

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    They're probably all too aware of the firepower and mobility of the US military and don't indulge in Rambo fantasies.
    That sounds cool, but we've all witnessed the limitation of US superior firepower and mobility.
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  13. #188
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    71,950

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    In Vietnam and Afghanistan but the militias aren't VC or Mujaheddin. They'd end up fighting each other for beer.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  14. #189
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    50,459

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    You mean the catholic and episcopalian militias and the happy clappers and snake handlkers wouldn't get into a barney over coverage?

  15. #190
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post

    On US soil, the standing Army would be so hamstrung they be very ineffective.

    Hamstrung in what way?


    Perhaps we could explore that "Only modern Western Country" point more. How about Cuba, or Venezuela? I'm not an expert in either, but I could learn.
    I'm no expert but a quick Google indicates that many people do not consider Venezuela or Cuba to be western. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wester...Orthodox_world

    The current president of Venezuela won the last general election. That sounds like democracy.

    Cuba is a traditionally poor country that was subject to a coup in 1933 and then another coup in the '50s. If you believe that the USA's system of government, including its much-lauded Constitution and Bill of Rights, is as weak as that of Cuba in 1933 (or of Venezuela) then that is your prerogative. However, in that case surely there should be more pressure to improve it, and certainly citizens of the USA should not be proud of their country's system and its Constitution.

    The countries that are generally considered to be clearly modern western countries don't appear to have been taken over by a dictator in recent times. Even Hitler was invited to take over the government by an elected President, and given that was 80 years ago it doesn't really fall into the "modern" category to me.

    By most definitions, there's about 35 countries in the Western World. None of them has fallen under dictatorship by force of arms since the Spanish Civil War, I think, which was one hell of a long time ago by our standards. The Spanish Civil War is hardly an advertisement for the ability of a militia to vanquish the regular armed forces.

    So if other western democracies have survived for 70 to X00 years without falling under the reign of a dictator and without a militia, why do so many citizens of the USA have so little faith in the system that they so often trumpet as superior? Surely either the US system is better in which case it won't become a dictatorship, or it's worse in which case they should stop praising it and start fixing it?
    Last edited by Chris249; 09-16-2018 at 06:17 AM.
    Has BigFella and SkyBlue on ignore.

  16. #191
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,010

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    I'm assuming your referring to a military force to influence foreign policy, or to repel foreign policy. In which case you're correct. The forming of a militia, or standing Army, under the control of the Federal government was required to prevent foreign intervention, or to affect foreign intervention in our favor.

    To preclude that standing Army from taking control of the USA, the right of the people to have weapons was recognized as a right under the 2nd Amendment...
    Except that the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment WAS the army OF the government. Also the police force. NOTHING in the constitution describes the militia they way you just did.

    The militia referenced in the 2nd amendment was to be armed and trained BY THE GOVERNMENT. It was to be call up to enforce laws, stifle uprisings, and defend against invasions.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  17. #192
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,760

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    I'm assuming your referring to a military force to influence foreign policy, or to repel foreign policy. In which case you're correct. The forming of a militia, or standing Army, under the control of the Federal government was required to prevent foreign intervention, or to affect foreign intervention in our favor.
    No state with the resources to do otherwise has used a citizen militia for any purpose requiring armed force for a very, very long time. This includes defending their territory, intimidating their neighbors, wars of conquest, repressing ethnic minorities, keeping the populace from rebelling, rounding up the political opposition, catching criminals, or anything else. We can conclude from this that a citizen militia is simply not an effective military force anymore, although it may have been in 1789. If they were, governments would use them. In just about every field, trained professionals are superior to impromptu amateurs.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    To preclude that standing Army from taking control of the USA, the right of the people to have weapons was recognized as a right under the 2nd Amendment...
    That is not what the amendment says. That is a much later interpretation, one quite foreign to the thinking of those who wrote it. Those who wrote the constitution did not build in a self-destruct clause.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  18. #193
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,973

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    Yep. While those folks feel important, they are mostly silly.

    It's the number of normal folks with guns that would keep an out of control government at bay. That includes a whacked out Trump. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't into guns these days.
    What a delightful little fantasy!

    The problem is that you seem to believe any oppressive government would raise arms against its citizens.

    That's not how it works.

    First, the gov floods the country with fear and loathing and weapons, then it precipitates an ethnic cleansing/political purge, then it prances around wringing its hands saying 'Oh, won't you stop the violence', out of one side of its mouth and 'Oh, you boys are doing a fine job' out of the other side until the international outcry causes the gov to make an end of it and crush the folks that have been doing their murders for it.

    That way, both the original dissenters are wiped out, and those who had the gumption to actually take up arms are wiped out as well.

    At that point, this evil government in your fantasy declares martial law, suspends habeas corpus, crushes journalistic dissent, and empties the treasury into the pockets of the malefactors.

    That's the script.

    Anybody who tells you the Founders wrote the 2nd to ensure the gov could be overthrown is feeding you a bill of goods, whether they believe it themselves, or not.
    Rattling the teacups.

  19. #194
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,765

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    There is this Oz! That's how they do it.

    The other thing of note is how VN, Afganistan and Iraq are talked about as though they were declared wars. They weren't, they were BS pumped out to move cash into the MIC.

    Our freedom was never under foreign threat. It was all an exercise..built up false rage BS. Lots of money changed hands and the ignorant still think it was a noble cause.
    PaulF

  20. #195
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    50,459

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    There is this Oz! That's how they do it.

    The other thing of note is how VN, Afganistan and Iraq are talked about as though they were declared wars. They weren't, they were BS pumped out to move cash into the MIC.

    Our freedom was never under foreign threat. It was all an exercise..built up false rage BS. Lots of money changed hands and the ignorant still think it was a noble cause.
    What he said, if any of them had been an 'officially declared' war it would have been subject to the Geneva Convention, and Gitmo for one would have been illegal and subject to inspections by the International Red Cross. And legal provisions enshrined by the Nuremberg Judgements similarly would apply. The administrations, and their allies, involved were very careful about their wordings so not to be caught.

    And re #193. There's a manual on that, written in europe some 75-80 years ago. It's called a history book.

  21. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,271

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    Yep. While those folks feel important, they are mostly silly.

    It's the number of normal folks with guns that would keep an out of control government at bay. That includes a whacked out Trump. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't into guns these days.
    I've come around to the idea that the 2nd allows me to protect myself from the Trump wackos should they pop off. I've personally been, in a round about way, threatened at least more than 25 times in the past month by Trumpers who say they're going to revolt if Trump is "removed", they're getting more fevered as more of Trump's world unravels. I wouldn't feel threatened if guns weren't so prolific in our society however.


    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    That sounds cool, but we've all witnessed the limitation of US superior firepower and mobility.
    No we haven't. You know as well as I do, in fact, better than I don't you, that the ROE prevents our military from wielding our power to it's fullest potential. In fact, I'm a bit disappointed that you "forgot" this fact while formulating your point. Disappointed, but not surprised.

    . . . oh yeah
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  22. #197
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,508

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    No state with the resources to do otherwise has used a citizen militia for any purpose requiring armed force for a very, very long time.
    I pretty much agree--but the U.S. has made extensive use, including overseas combat deployments, of National Guard units in the past 17 years. They may not quite be the "impromptu amateurs" you mentioned, but they come uncomfortably close to that in my opinion (having been a member of 2 reserve units after my active duty service).

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Those who wrote the constitution did not build in a self-destruct clause.
    Well, here I think you're incorrect. The Revolutionary generation was keenly aware that people have a right to resist governments that oppress and over-reach. Not surprising, given the country's own origins. While that is more explicitly expressed in the Declaration of Independence than in the Constitution, six of the Founders signed both documents.

    But I think it is the Declaration that establishes the right of rebellion as a last resort (and by implication, the right to bear arms). The 2nd amendment seems pretty clearly to refer to a government-controlled citizen military force (since the idea of the standing army had not been accepted yet).

    The Founders very definitely intended that citizens should have the power to overthrow their government if other reforms proved impossible.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  23. #198
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    50,459

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    #197
    "But I think it is the Declaration that establishes the right of rebellion as a last resort (and by implication, the right to bear arms)."

    I would have thought that your Civil War put paid to that idea?

  24. #199
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,508

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    #197
    "But I think it is the Declaration that establishes the right of rebellion as a last resort (and by implication, the right to bear arms)."

    I would have thought that your Civil War put paid to that idea?
    It's an interesting question, but the right of rebellion is quite explicitly stated--not only a right, but a duty:

    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.
    One could argue that the South's secession was illegitimate because the aim of the North was not absolute despotism. One could argue that the North failed to live up to the standards expressed in the Declaration.

    But no one can say that the Declaration of Independence does not explicitly endorse the right of rebellion.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  25. #200
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    50,459

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    So the Civil War is ongoing? Or just in recession?

  26. #201
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,508

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Nothing in the Declaration guarantees the rebels have to win. Just that they have the right and duty to rebel.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  27. #202
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    50,459

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    How very interesting…………………… So where does this leave Websters definition of treason….

    Definition of treason

    1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
    2: the betrayal of a trust

    By definition under the 2nd there is no allegiance to the Government of the day, or the state for that matter if they wish to establish another. At least that's my reading.
    Last edited by skuthorp; 09-16-2018 at 06:03 PM.

  28. #203
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,973

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    It's an interesting question, but the right of rebellion is quite explicitly stated--not only a right, but a duty:



    One could argue that the South's secession was illegitimate because the aim of the North was not absolute despotism. One could argue that the North failed to live up to the standards expressed in the Declaration.

    But no one can say that the Declaration of Independence does not explicitly endorse the right of rebellion.

    Tom
    I would argue that the Declaration of Independence was a Declaration of War, and that the language in the Declaration explains and clarifies the reasons the Founders felt they had a duty to rebel, not any sort of general endorsement of anarchy.
    Rattling the teacups.

  29. #204
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,765

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Nothing in the Declaration guarantees the rebels have to win. Just that they have the right and duty to rebel.

    Tom
    Duty? By who's order, by what standard?

    Is rape and pillage included? Who is responsible?

    A pack of nitwits with fire arms...what could go wrong?

    One organization, or several?, with various creeds and motives?
    The whole theory is a crock, those who push it are foolish.
    PaulF

  30. #205
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,508

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    I would argue that the Declaration of Independence was a Declaration of War, and that the language in the Declaration explains and clarifies the reasons the Founders felt they had a duty to rebel, not any sort of general endorsement of anarchy.
    But you'd be wrong if you argued that:

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
    They didn't write: "In our specific case, for these exact reasons and no others, we have the right to rebel" but "Whenever any Form of Government..."

    It is very clearly an assertion of a general human right to rebel. They even labeled it a "self-evident Truth."

    I agree the Declaration does not endorse anarchy--it specifically says that rebellion must be followed by a move
    to institute new Government
    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  31. #206
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,973

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    But you'd be wrong if you argued that:



    They didn't write: "In our specific case, for these exact reasons and no others, we have the right to rebel" but "Whenever any Form of Government..."

    It is very clearly an assertion of a general human right to rebel. They even labeled it a "self-evident Truth."

    I agree the Declaration does not endorse anarchy--it specifically says that rebellion must be followed by a move

    Tom
    Of course they did.

    What were they to say, that they were tired of paying the toll?

    These were a bunch of guys justifying the theft of what would become thousands of billions of dollars from George.

    They had to make it seem like a matter of principle!
    Rattling the teacups.

  32. #207
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,508

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    The whole theory is a crock, those who push it are foolish.
    History and modern scholarship takes a much kinder view of Jefferson and his co-authors. I think the preponderance of informed opinion is against you.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  33. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,765

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    These were written 242 years ago, they are as relevant as a medical book from that time.

    There is good in there but we have moved on, your flint lock is not necessary in New York these days.

    The things that espouse freedom are worth keeping...the crap about armed revolution is BS. And it only took on that flavor recently as borderline idiots want to threaten fellow citizens under the false pretense of preserving freedom. Informed opinion...ya right.
    PaulF

  34. #209
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,508

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    Of course they did.

    What were they to say, that they were tired of paying the toll?

    These were a bunch of guys justifying the theft of what would become thousands of billions of dollars from George.

    They had to make it seem like a matter of principle!
    I hope you're not actually so cynical to believe that all of the sentiment behind the Declaration was feigned. If you really believe that, why are you so strong in your opposition to today's Republicans?

    Principles matter to you (and me). Don't you think it's conceivable they mattered to the Founders, too?

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  35. #210
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,973

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post

    I agree the Declaration does not endorse anarchy--it specifically says that rebellion must be followed by a move
    to institute new Government
    Tom
    So, before that government gets a shot at governing, some other bunch of malcontents decide they are being oppressed, and rise up and destroy the first batch of rebels.

    Ad infinitum.

    Anarchy.

    The whole point of having a government is to have a framework within which to work out our differences.

    If it can be tossed aside on a whim, and one's opponents murdered willy-nilly in the street, What. Is. The .Point?
    Rattling the teacups.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •