Firearms Talk banner

21 - 40 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
Not just for events, but they also like to create names and nomenclature for all sorts of new "conditions" or create "job" positions around all their psychobabble. I heard one a while back I'd never heard of: "Diversity Consusltant." Apparently there are now companies out there who specialized in selling consultation services to other companies to help them "fight systemic racism" and to help them get their "diversity, equity, and inclusiveness" just right....oy ve...
You do know, of course, HydroR and others that any large company has a corporate and societal responsibility to fight systemic racism (whatever that is) and and to provide for equity (whatever that is) in not only their workplaces but as a favor to the continuance of society itself. Just think of how systemically treacherous the path would be if systemic racism and other things with liberal catchy names were allowed to perpetuate themselves or to be perpetuated by people not enlightened (WOKE) by "Diversity Consultants" or by not having a Board of Directors without a member whose duties were to include forcefully communicating the company's "Diversity Statement". It has also become a priority to move out of states that don't address voting by anyone that can breathe, speak any language but English, and to bash states that don't allow food and water to be used as tools to persuade voters to vote one way or another. My goodness how times have "needed" to change, but you apparently know that HydroR. It's the rest of the society with inequity that I most worry about. Well, not really due to Minutemen. Missouri has it together!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,542 Posts
Though, the distinction should be: National policing/military forces acting in the State's interests, versus community protection forces (the People, in their communities' interests).

Agreed, there's far too much "pandering" going on.

And there is the risk of the "wannabe" types coming out to "play" once such stuff is no longer criminalized in a given state.

But the majority will likely be simple, hard-working people who want to lend a hand, who have something to offer, who believe they can help within a community. As with many of the smaller towns and cities across the country that saw "militia" coming out to aid in monitoring and guarding against the violent rioting this past year. As with many communities that had their quite-small police (or sheriff) agencies calling on local militia to assist when stretched.

Always was: the "army" was the state organized forces to defend the nation as a whole, and the "militia" were the rest of the people acting in their communities best interests to protect their own communities and selves against local/regional threats that "national" forces wouldn't be around to deal with. Should still be that. Good reason to keep them separate. And for the primary reason of tyrannical threats and meddling, it really should be something where the State doesn't created, control and dictate terms to it.
I prefer my militias to be "Well Regulated." ;)

If a man wants to play soldier, he should join the Army. Many of the people we see in the "informal militias" couldn't get into the Army on a prayer, and they should stick to butchering wood or carrying hods.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
845 Posts
I prefer my militias to be "Well Regulated." ;)

If a man wants to play soldier, he should join the Army. Many of the people we see in the "informal militias" couldn't get into the Army on a prayer, and they should stick to butchering wood or carrying hods.
Ill bite, what's a "hods"?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,745 Posts
I prefer my militias to be "Well Regulated." ;)

If a man wants to play soldier, he should join the Army. Many of the people we see in the "informal militias" couldn't get into the Army on a prayer, and they should stick to butchering wood or carrying hods.
On one point, well said: none of this has anything to do with a state-controlled "army."

I prefer my outright tyrants to be shoved in the hole. Which is what the well-armed citizenry is about. Tyrants have no place. The well-armed citizens help ensure that.

That's just it, though. This isn't soldiery or the army. This isn't about playing a thing. It's about resistance of tyranny. Millions strong.

Recall that the specific reason the militia were "regulated" was to be trained and made effective as a force, not to be the "regulars" hired on occasion to be the army. Such state laws as existed on the subject, at the time, referenced the individual citizens equipping themselves and only spoke of state involvement insofar as state-directed training and deployments were considered. None of which has anything to do with the well-armed citizenry in general, outside of such directed training and deployments.

Further, the core reason for the militia was as an assurance that the civilian power and authority would remain in the citizens' hands and over the hired staff, to guard against tyranny.

I would think the very last thing we'd want is to have that power and authority diluted via having the hired help stick their fingers into that pie to the point it won't bake. Aiding in the training, sure, IF the individual state in question is going to have any self-interested reliance upon that force as a deterrent. But ONLY within the bounds and confines of its use of such people in operations as a force, not total control of those people merely because the state's interest happens to be one of the possible purposes the citizenry arms itself.

Never forget the lone reference of "the militia" is in the BOR, which was explicitly crafted to deny government authority to screw with liberties. It was never, ever crafted in order to codify government's authority to control a thing, as though government's use (non-use) dictated the sole use of a thing.

The Founders knew all too well the pernicious severity of a tyrannical few who thought far too much of power and far too little of who they trampled to get it. They knew full well tyrants would exist in the future and they took pains to help ensure the people would never be controlled to the point of becoming a non-entity in their own home (their states).

I, too, would prefer the person standing next to me is better-trained as opposed to otherwise. But the mere fact it's in the hired help's interest to have a better-trained individual hardly means that failing their involvement (or even awareness) there's any justification for any control over the people with this liberty. It's ours; not theirs to control.

Be very careful about wishing for Government to control people and their liberties into non-existence. You and the tens of millions like you might very well force it upon us all, with that wish. And much more will go down when that happens, if ultimately threatened with erasure of it all. Caution is due.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,542 Posts
On one point, well said: none of this has anything to do with a state-controlled "army."

I prefer my outright tyrants to be shoved in the hole. Which is what the well-armed citizenry is about. Tyrants have no place. The well-armed citizens help ensure that.

That's just it, though. This isn't soldiery or the army. This isn't about playing a thing. It's about resistance of tyranny. Millions strong.

Recall that the specific reason the militia were "regulated" was to be trained and made effective as a force, not to be the "regulars" hired on occasion to be the army. Such state laws as existed on the subject, at the time, referenced the individual citizens equipping themselves and only spoke of state involvement insofar as state-directed training and deployments were considered. None of which has anything to do with the well-armed citizenry in general, outside of such directed training and deployments.

Further, the core reason for the militia was as an assurance that the civilian power and authority would remain in the citizens' hands and over the hired staff, to guard against tyranny.

I would think the very last thing we'd want is to have that power and authority diluted via having the hired help stick their fingers into that pie to the point it won't bake. Aiding in the training, sure, IF the individual state in question is going to have any self-interested reliance upon that force as a deterrent. But ONLY within the bounds and confines of its use of such people in operations as a force, not total control of those people merely because the state's interest happens to be one of the possible purposes the citizenry arms itself.

Never forget the lone reference of "the militia" is in the BOR, which was explicitly crafted to deny government authority to screw with liberties. It was never, ever crafted in order to codify government's authority to control a thing, as though government's use (non-use) dictated the sole use of a thing.

The Founders knew all too well the pernicious severity of a tyrannical few who thought far too much of power and far too little of who they trampled to get it. They knew full well tyrants would exist in the future and they took pains to help ensure the people would never be controlled to the point of becoming a non-entity in their own home (their states).

I, too, would prefer the person standing next to me is better-trained as opposed to otherwise. But the mere fact it's in the hired help's interest to have a better-trained individual hardly means that failing their involvement (or even awareness) there's any justification for any control over the people with this liberty. It's ours; not theirs to control.

Be very careful about wishing for Government to control people and their liberties into non-existence. You and the tens of millions like you might very well force it upon us all, with that wish. And much more will go down when that happens, if ultimately threatened with erasure of it all. Caution is due.
As the Beatles sang, yea, yea, yea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,542 Posts
Ill bite, what's a "hods"?
A hod carrier is generally classified as the least prestigious of all jobs, all it takes to perform well is a strong back.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,745 Posts
As the Beatles sang, yea, yea, yea.
If it had ever been about a government-controlled force of citizens, then the prohibition on screwing with the liberty would never have been placed in the BOR. Yet, it was ... and it still is.

No real way around that fact.

The sooner SCOTUS recognizes that simple fact and acknowledges it for what it means, the better for all this nasty assault upon our liberties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
I prefer my militias to be "Well Regulated." ;)

If a man wants to play soldier, he should join the Army. Many of the people we see in the "informal militias" couldn't get into the Army on a prayer, and they should stick to butchering wood or carrying hods.
Hate to bust that bubble but most militia are either veterans, quite few special forces combat vets, or retired and a smattering of active LEO.
The rest at least the militias i am familiar with are well versed in firearms and while they may not be in Arnold Schwarzenegger physical condition, can hold their own physically or have special coms training etc.

Not everyone in a militia is there to carry a gun and hump 80 lbs up hills. Thats the biggest under estimatating mistake anti militia types make. It aint all about shooting with then anymore than it was when they were in the military.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,745 Posts
As the Beatles sang, yea, yea, yea.
Cute.

Wondering why as an oath-taker you find the constitutional rule of law so offensive, Chain. What is it about the nature of the BOR and the 2A that seems to chap your backside? What is it about the liberties of others that is so offensive?

Lots of oath-takers, in the nation. Oath-keepers, though, not nearly so much. More's the pity.

Missouri's attempting to formally codify its recognition of the well-armed citizenry. I'm sure they'll still hold miscreants accountable to the extent they're able. Including any that feel "puffed-up" by such acknowledgment by the State who go sideways. Which shouldn't affect any of the thousands of others who'll do it right, won't be offensively dangerous toward others unless justified (which is the case in the vast majority of situations involving the 'upstanding' anyway).

Just so long as the State can keep the hell out of the way of people, within reasonable for standards for behavior, perhaps involvement with coordination or planning for training and similar appropriate aspects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Hate to bust that bubble but most militia are either veterans, quite few special forces combat vets, or retired and a smattering of active LEO.
The rest at least the militias i am familiar with are well versed in firearms and while they may not be in Arnold Schwarzenegger physical condition, can hold their own physically or have special coms training etc.

Not everyone in a militia is there to carry a gun and hump 80 lbs up hills. Thats the biggest under estimatating mistake anti militia types make. It aint all about shooting with then anymore than it was when they were in the military.
How does that make them a "well regulated" militia? There have been a lot of vets, that are not well regulated, and some that actually ended up killers, Charles Whitman comes to mind. If they were LEO's why are they not anymore, and why would that make me think they are well regulated?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,745 Posts
How does that make them a "well regulated" militia? There have been a lot of vets, that are not well regulated, and some that actually ended up killers, Charles Whitman comes to mind. If they were LEO's why are they not anymore, and why would that make me think they are well regulated?
If they were a force that was trained and organized BY the State (as with the Founding era's occasional use of militia), that's one thing. In that role, while being state-trained and state-organized, those standards apply. Even after that, the person's been through that training, planning, coordination. Much of that's going to "stick" with a person. (ie, The ~two-year military service requirement some nations have.)

Not that that single use implies any other existence of "militia" is verboten, let alone unlawful. Not in America.

Still, there's "trained" and then there's "trained." Given that the reticence over standing armies no longer exists, it's not as though the State has much need for bothering with training and coordinating planning with militias. It's got its own. And so, the people do it themselves. As with any group, it'll be accomplished with varying degrees of success. Though, we shouldn't forget that the mission is largely different these days. It's about community protection and the long-standing guarding against tyranny, which was always the case; but it's not as though the citizens' militias are likely to hit the battlefield, given the standing armies. Different level of training is needed for that, as compared to learning to be capable of winning a war against fielded armies.

Recognizing a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep arms and to bear them shall not be infringed upon. All the reasons in the world to have a well-armed citizenry. Some good reasons to have a "well-regulated" militia. Even if a few, from time to time, go off their rockers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
How does that make them a "well regulated" militia? There have been a lot of vets, that are not well regulated, and some that actually ended up killers, Charles Whitman comes to mind. If they were LEO's why are they not anymore, and why would that make me think they are well regulated?
Point being they , the actual militia, not NG or a state controlled force, dont CARE what you me or state or fed gov thinks about them . Doesnt affect them in the least

They never have. And militia are as old as the nation.

And just like gov wild goose guesses at how many guns are in this country that are hilariously low. Their " gov intelligence " (now theres a contradiction in terms) is totally off base on how many militia are organized in this country and how effective they can be if ever driven to actually act in force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Point being they , the actual militia, not NG or a state controlled force, dont CARE what you me or state or fed gov thinks about them . Doesnt affect them in the least

They never have. And militia are as old as the nation.

And just like gov wild goose guesses at how many guns are in this country that are hilariously low. Their " gov intelligence " (now theres a contradiction in terms) is totally off base on how many militia are organized in this country and how effective they can be if ever driven to actually act in force.
But you guys would be no different than ISIS trying to take over the United States. ISIS was well organized and tried to inflict there will on the citizens, and take over oil fields. It didn't really take to long to stop them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,745 Posts
But you guys would be no different than ISIS trying to take over the United States.
False. Hyperbole.

Unjustifiably inflicting will upon others is a crime. And should absolutely get treated as such. There are statutes and codes for that sort of thing, irrespective of whether it involves a "militia" person or group, irrespective of what sort of infliction it happens to be.

Being well-armed, even heavily-harmed, isn't really anyone's business. Even the staffers'. Only the unjustifiable criminal actions of people, when it comes right down to it.

Aside from all of that, the justifiable defense of self, others, community ... that's utterly lawful. And it is, quite simply, the role of the well-armed citizenry. Always has been. (In addition to government eyeing them for its own purposes, of course.) So is forcibly resisting outright tyranny (ie, the sort of crap the British tried at the outset of the Revolutionary War); the major duty of the citizenry if such unlawful assaults upon the citizenry begin to occur, some might say.

As to whether any given individual or group goes "sideways" or keeps to the constitutional rule of law ... well, that's on them. But let's not paint with such a broad brush that "militia" is wholly maligned as a bad thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
But you guys would be no different than ISIS trying to take over the United States. ISIS was well organized and tried to inflict there will on the citizens, and take over oil fields. It didn't really take to long to stop them.
Us guys??? I dont recall saying im a member of any militia.

Our military is STILL fighting with Afghan sheepherders armed with AK 47s rpgs and homemade explosives WE left laying around.

The US citizenry is more heavily armed than most nations armys, even assuming everyone has always folliwed the NFA and GFA , you figure the odds of that.
All arent in militias for sure. But a good number are and as was seen last summer when LE called on local militia they also got , usually a larger number of just plain heavily armed citizens show up as well.

If everything blows up, which is likely as not now with a alzheimers patient in the white house, the same will happen .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
All I know for sure is that the people that live on my block are a militia and extremely heavily armed good conservatives. No, that is not an oxymoron.....to you know who.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,745 Posts
How does that make them a "well regulated" militia?
On that point, we should never forget, again, that the BOR was (is) about one thing: prohibiting governmental interference with the liberties the people hold.

There is no governmental constraint upon the RKBA demanding or requiring that the armed citizenry BE "well-regulated" (functional, operable, effectively trained and equipped). That reference merely points out how high the stakes are for the citizens remaining armed. Due to how vital it is that the citizens be capable of being an efficient, capable and effective fight force if called upon to and in their own defense (for any reason), the citizens shall never be stripped of their ability to own or carry arms as they see fit.

"Well-regulated" is nice. It just isn't a requirement. No more than there's a requirement to speak only "nickel" words or "the King's" English. No more than there's an approved list of valid associations people are tolerated to have (ie, no "card-carrying commie" membership).
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Top