Firearms Talk banner

Time For Modern Minutemen ?

14K views 298 replies 29 participants last post by  locutus 
#1 ·
Like most prudent people in today's America, I keep a pistol handy . Doing so is a nuisance but not a danger . If I never need it, the nuisance will be the only price paid for preparedness . So.....I've covered all the bases, or so I thought !
About 2 active shooter massacres back, a former NRA instructor got an AR-15 out of his safe and ran toward the danger, loading a magazine as he ran . He shot the murderer and we're grateful for that but ---- the hero was obviously not prepared for an active shooter situation . If he had kept his AR-15 loaded and accessible, he could have probably saved more lives by getting to that church sooner . ( And people would have called him a paranoid nut for thinking he needed a loaded AR-15 in his house .)
Question : Are active shooters and ISIS " lone wolves " reason enough for citizens to keep rifles ready and should local police and elected officials be encouraged to call on such citizens in emergencies ?
Perhaps it is time to unleash a " well-regulated militia " on the occasional mass killer .
Your thoughts and comments are invited .
 
#176 ·
sorry, but the times of the wild, wild west have long gone and what you're hoping for is simply wishful dreaming.

in other words, extremely unlikely ever to happen. but you are allowed to day dream and wish for unicorns and rainbows at the same time as well.
About that " Wild Wild West " crack : No one is encouraging a " wild west " mindset here and you are unfair to so characterize it . By the way, the real west was not at all like there Hollywood version so often cited by liberals .
There was never a case of a rowdy group of men riding into town firing pistols into the air and taking over ; That was a case of Russian Jewish emigre movie makers putting cowboy hats on the Cossacks they saw as kids .
There probably never was a Hollywood-style showdown featuring two men facing each other down a dusty street either .
 
#184 ·
Ragtag revolutionary "army" made up of a tiny portion of the population wore down and sent, at the time, the world's most powerful military back home tail tucked between it's legs.

Today one or two persons with crock pots or a couple of rifles invariably turn major metro police forces into panic stricken mobs .
Who out of sheer fear shoot up shoot up vehicles driven by white women when a black male is who they are after
Or resort to robotic bombs rather than engage.
Or Feds simply tuck tail and leave if faced with anything near an equal fight.

Authorities are authorities as long as the population allows them to be.

Something King George had to learn the hard way. But true all thru history, all over the planet.
 
#186 ·
Not really what I was trying to convey.

Point is that a very small percentage of a population can and has all through history regained their freedom AND defended their country from what was considered vastly superior forces.

And oft times volunteers are more effective than the so called "professionals".
 
#187 ·
Ragtag revolutionary "army" made up of a tiny portion of the population wore down and sent, at the time, the world's most powerful military back home tail tucked between it's legs.
I don't think it was that simple, Most of the British military were busy elsewhere and they did have some help.
France did a great deal to help the American colonists during their war for independence from the United Kingdom. It is possible to argue that the American colonists would not have won the war if it had not been for the French assistance.
 
#188 ·
We had a lot of German Mercenaries (Hessians) the British hired desert and stay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kfox75
#196 ·
guess I shouldn't post when i'm getting p!sed over how some people treat others who don't share their views.. i'll just delete that, and keep my thoughts and opinions to myself from here on out.

i'm tired of the politics and BS, as well as being labled as an anti, because I have a more moderate view on things.

disregard that last. i'm taking it down.
 
#200 ·
There is a bill in Arizona to get rid of the upper age limit on the State Militia. It should just be able bodied men and women with no upper age restrictions. We have a lot of older veterans here that would still be very useful in a dire situation. While we might not be able to hike 20 miles we could still man barricades and checkpoints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#201 ·
The left and the media have successfully demonized the militia movement.
some of the so-called militia, have brought unfavorable opinions of them by their own actions, or words. and it's not just the left or the media that will demonize them either.
 
#203 ·
Bundy stood up for the COTUS and against fed corruption from the Top down to fed LE.
And he won.
In 2 states. On the ground and in court.

The only violence was committed by fed LE.

The only ones quilty of wide spread corruption? Fed LE, prosecutors and judges.

And still against a that they won, are still free and still ranching.

0dd which side some think are the scatter brained ones considering.
 
#205 ·
Thank you kindly for the prayers.

Doesn't change the facts though.
Bundy beat BLM on the ground in Nevada and the Feds had so much corruption, lies, and violent acts attached to them they couldn't even make it thru a trial in a Federal court with a fed judge doing everything she could to bury the Bundys, without getting their whole non case dismissed.

And Mel Bundys case dismissed as well before it ever started. Lol

Bundy outright beat the BLM in court in Oregon, and now the feds along with the Sheriff and OSP face a wrongful death suit they are sure to lose.

Meanwhile Bundy has no charges against him, is filing his own suit and is still ranching a herd of happy
fat cattle.

So what did I get wrong.?
 
#207 ·
the Bundy's may have won their cases in the courts. and i'll even concede the point that the Feds in those cases probably overstepped their boundaries in the methods used in trying to prosecute the Bundy bunch.

but IMO, that in no way exonerates, or justifies the criminal acts committed by the Bundy's. and whether any of us agree or disagree with the policies, or actions by the BLM is irrelevant at this point. because until things change, the law was on the side of the BLM to enforce their policies. Bundy failed to pay for grazing fees that he owed, and he knew he owed, but refused, than tried to confuse the facts, by stating his family had rights to that land much earler than official documents showed that proved him wrong. and then the BLM which had the authority to evict his cattle from the land, and they put up armed resistance? it wasn't his land. it was BLM land, which in essence belongs to the citizens, not the Bundy's.

then these so-called militia show up and put up armed resistance to the eviction of his cattle. and the BLM had suspicions that there might be armed resistance, since one of the Bundy bunch in words to the effect pretty much threatened them with armed resistance. so, yeah, they showed up armed. and we can argue the point that the Feds left with their tails tucked because of the armed resistance, but i think that it's quite possible given some of the other disasters of the Feds in the past, they felt inclined to deal with it without bloodshed. maybe cooler heads prevailed, and backing off kept people from being needlessly killed over a bunch of trespassing cattle.

some of you may look upon the Bundy's as some sort of folk heroes, and that is your right. but some of us see them as a bunch of deadbeat ranchers mooching off federal land to feed their cattle. in essence a bunch of thieves. and those so-called militia? a bunch of gun waving radicals, who thought they were riding in saving the day.

and now if they were trying to run Bundy off his own land, and he was defending his own land, i might be inclined to have some sympathy and support of what he did. but it was BLM land, not his.

my family has been involved in farming and ranching for close to a hundred years. i have grown up and knowing and being around many farmers, and ranchers for many years. and i know quite a few and ourselves as well that have leased land for farming and ranching operations. but we either owned our land, or leased private property for running those operations. it wasn't public land, or BLM land or any other land owned by the state or federal government. so my gripe is, if Bundy didn't have enough land to run his cattle on, they he owned personally, then maybe he should have scaled his cattle operations back. and if he couldn't afford, or just felt he didn't feel like paying the leasing of the BLM land to run his cattle on, then they were within their legal rights to evict him and his cattle from BLM land. the land of the BLM is land owned by the people of this country. the BLM are the stewards or landlords of that land and by law, until it's changed, have the right to set the rules and regulations for that land. now there have been cases where i feel the BLM has overstepped their authority. but this wasn't one of them IMO. and i hold no personal fondness, or like of the BLM either. but the place to challenge them is in the courts. and get the laws changed, in the courts.

so here's a question. if any of you owned land, or rental property or a rent house, just how long would you allow some one to use it for their own personal gain, before you evicted them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: locutus
#210 ·
the Bundy's may have won their cases in the courts. and i'll even concede the point that the Feds in those cases probably overstepped their boundaries in the methods used in trying to prosecute the Bundy bunch.

but IMO, that in no way exonerates, or justifies the criminal acts committed by the Bundy's. and whether any of us agree or disagree with the policies, or actions by the BLM is irrelevant at this point. because until things change, the law was on the side of the BLM to enforce their policies. Bundy failed to pay for grazing fees that he owed, and he knew he owed, but refused, than tried to confuse the facts, by stating his family had rights to that land much earler than official documents showed that proved him wrong. and then the BLM which had the authority to evict his cattle from the land, and they put up armed resistance? it wasn't his land. it was BLM land, which in essence belongs to the citizens, not the Bundy's.

then these so-called militia show up and put up armed resistance to the eviction of his cattle. and the BLM had suspicions that there might be armed resistance, since one of the Bundy bunch in words to the effect pretty much threatened them with armed resistance. so, yeah, they showed up armed. and we can argue the point that the Feds left with their tails tucked because of the armed resistance, but i think that it's quite possible given some of the other disasters of the Feds in the past, they felt inclined to deal with it without bloodshed. maybe cooler heads prevailed, and backing off kept people from being needlessly killed over a bunch of trespassing cattle.

some of you may look upon the Bundy's as some sort of folk heroes, and that is your right. but some of us see them as a bunch of deadbeat ranchers mooching off federal land to feed their cattle. in essence a bunch of thieves. and those so-called militia? a bunch of gun waving radicals, who thought they were riding in saving the day.

and now if they were trying to run Bundy off his own land, and he was defending his own land, i might be inclined to have some sympathy and support of what he did. but it was BLM land, not his.

my family has been involved in farming and ranching for close to a hundred years. i have grown up and knowing and being around many farmers, and ranchers for many years. and i know quite a few and ourselves as well that have leased land for farming and ranching operations. but we either owned our land, or leased private property for running those operations. it wasn't public land, or BLM land or any other land owned by the state or federal government. so my gripe is, if Bundy didn't have enough land to run his cattle on, they he owned personally, then maybe he should have scaled his cattle operations back. and if he couldn't afford, or just felt he didn't feel like paying the leasing of the BLM land to run his cattle on, then they were within their legal rights to evict him and his cattle from BLM land. the land of the BLM is land owned by the people of this country. the BLM are the stewards or landlords of that land and by law, until it's changed, have the right to set the rules and regulations for that land. now there have been cases where i feel the BLM has overstepped their authority. but this wasn't one of them IMO. and i hold no personal fondness, or like of the BLM either. but the place to challenge them is in the courts. and get the laws changed, in the courts.

so here's a question. if any of you owned land, or rental property or a rent house, just how long would you allow some one to use it for their own personal gain, before you evicted them?
All due respect in Oregon they were found not guilty by a jury.

So by our laws in Oregon they are still quilty? Even after a jury found them not quilt?

I can see where some with a axe to grind might say, well the case was dismissed in Nevada . But Oregon?
 
#217 ·
Same folks who stopped it at Bundy ranch.
It's a sure bet that Bundy and family would have met a similar fate as those at Waco and ruby Ridge had armed supporters not shown up in large enough numbers to forcibly halt such a thing.
Although they would probably have been killed by the Fed snipers deployed that the Fed felt the need to deny existed instead of burned out.

No reason to deploy them a week or more ahead of the rustling otherwise.
 
#220 · (Edited)
The feds could of taken them out no problem, for whatever reason they chose not to.
Really? Out numbered 20 to 1 with a sniper on every fed sniper .

You really believe that?

No they couldn't, they chose nothing. They had no choice.

As long as Fed LE are facing an equally armed force in anything close to equal numbers they will not do anything.
Never have in those situations and never will.

Put all Fed LE together including the Sept of education and they will still be outnumbered 50 to 1.

Waco was the main cause of the militia movement, oath keepers etc, and to prevent something like that again.

Bundy Ranch would have been another Waco but for armed supporters of theirs showing up to protect them.

Plain fact is the citizenry is policed as long as it agrees to be.

Bundy ranch they didn't agree to be.

Had not the BLM haf the history they do of riding rough shod over anyone disagreeing with them. And Fed LE agencies in general not been known to be corrupt to the bone.
Had Ruby Ridge and Waco not happened likely no one would have come to Bundys aid.


But they are known to be corrupt and Ruby Ridge and Waco did happen. In many ways the Fed brought the kickback onto themselves and have nobody to blame but themselves for it.


This nation is a powder keg waiting for some arrogant politicians or le agencies to light the fuse. One shot fired by the Feds at Bundy ranch would have lit that fuse right then ,right there.

Folks should be thanking their lucky stars that BLM nor FBI fired a shot at Bundy ranch. We wouldn't be calmly debating over the web if they had.
 
#221 ·
Really? Out numbered 20 to 1 with a sniper on every fed sniper .

You really believe that?

No they couldn't, they chose nothing. They had no choice.
Yes i really believe that, the feds could have brought thousands more men in if they wanted, not to mention armoured vehicles, helicopters and the militia ruining for the hills looking for a toilet. As for the sniper on every fed, have you evidence of that. ?
 
#222 ·
Evidence of it in the form of what armed militia said at the time and what fed agents said later.

Manta you don't get it.

The fed doesn't have thousands of men and women agents combined to throw at anything and even if they did they would be outnumbered 100 to 1.

Mraps mean nothing if things reached that point.
Helicopters either.


You honestly believe Americans don't have military grade weapons just because the fed passed a law saying they can't?

Even the most dedicated anti gunner knows in this nation the people hold the advantage in numbers and arms.
Otherwise a forced confiscation would already have been done.

But there is no use in the fed starting a war when they know they are in the wrong and can't win.
 
#224 ·
Since your "militia" is only a few thousand whacked out dopers, one or two armored vehicles would have handled them in an hour.

And if your "militia" actually had military grade weapons, tanks and fighters would take them out almost instantly.

There will be no civil war even if there are a dozen more Wacos because 95 percent of the American people would never support the neo-nazi so called "Militias and oath-keepers.".

Saddam Hussien, with the third largest army in the world, and modern military weapons only lasted 100 hours against U.S. air power and armor.

Are your so-called super patriots ready to face down an A-10??
 
#225 ·
There will be no A10s used by LE
Or Armed tanks.
We both know that.

The military itself is sworn to uphold the COTUS.
NOT POTUS, nor Congress or any law they pass.

Active military will not obey an order to fire on its own citizenry over enforcing some dubious at best law.

They are more likely to arrest the idiot that issued that order than follow it.

Not one active military piece of equipment would be brought to bear.

Fed LE would have to carry it's own water and it ain't got a big enough bucket lol
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top