Terrorists come in all flavors

[djwilbanks]

Ever spend any time in northern Michigan? I have.

I remember watching a documentary on some anti-government, fringe "militia" groups. Northern Michigan was full of them, even some of the other militias were like "these guys are nuts."

 

[River]

I remember watching a documentary on some anti-government, fringe "militia" groups. Northern Michigan was full of them, even some of the other militias were like "these guys are nuts."

I believe there's a famous R&R guitarist likes to hang around that neighborhood.

 

[geochem1st]

I remember watching a documentary on some anti-government, fringe "militia" groups. Northern Michigan was full of them, even some of the other militias were like "these guys are nuts."

The woods are full of them. Most are like cartoon characters, but there are some that are very serious.

 

[djwilbanks]

People In Militias are nutters anyways! Join the real Army you bums!

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.

Or

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.

A good question might be, does the amendment say that because a militia is necessary for the security of a free state then the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or is it saying that if a militia is necessary to the security of a free state then the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

I guess it depends on which of the two punctuated versions is the "actual" version.

A different subject for a different place perhaps.

 

[The Fool On The Hill]

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.

Or

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.

A good question might be, does the amendment say that because a militia is necessary for the security of a free state then the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or is it saying that if a militia is necessary to the security of a free state then the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

I guess it depends on which of the two punctuated versions is the "actual" version.

A different subject for a different place perhaps.

The National Guard?

 

[Notorious BFG]

pinheads in my book

 

[geochem1st]

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.

Or

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.

A good question might be, does the amendment say that because a militia is necessary for the security of a free state then the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or is it saying that if a militia is necessary to the security of a free state then the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

I guess it depends on which of the two punctuated versions is the "actual" version.

A different subject for a different place perhaps.

First you have to put the word 'militia' in the proper context. What did the Founding Fathers consider the word militia to mean in their day? There was no formal standing army. Average citizen/farmers were called up and formed military groups, 'militia', that were used to defend the colonies. Today we have the most powerful army in the world. The idea of a militia no longer applies, we have a National Guard that fits that definition. That is not to say that the rights of citizens to bear arms should be infringed on.

 

[djwilbanks]

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. I would consider the National Guard to be a very well regulated, and the only necessary militia, but interpretations do differ. Especially when you distrust the government.

 

[djwilbanks]

First you have to put the word 'militia' in the proper context. What did the Founding Fathers consider the word militia to mean in their day? There was no formal standing army. Average citizen/farmers were called up and formed military groups, 'militia', that were used to defend the colonies. Today we have the most powerful army in the world. The idea of a militia no longer applies, we have a National Guard that fits that definition. That is not to say that the rights of citizens to bear arms should be infringed on.

Again, you have to put it into context. Depending on the way the statement is worded, if there's no need for a militia then there's no need to bear arms anymore, at least it could be argued that is true.

Of course, by saying that I might be opening a can of worms I can't win with any logical arguments.

That said, if the 2nd amendment applies for the rights to bear arms, it applies for the right for a militia. You can't have half the amendment apply to private citizens and not the other half.

 

[geochem1st]

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. I would consider the National Guard to be a very well regulated, and the only necessary militia, but interpretations do differ. Especially when you distrust the government.

Distrusting the government is one thing, organizing and waging war against it is terrorism. No different than the SDS/Weathermen Underground during Vietnam, McVeigh, or any other terrorist group.

These guys are way out of line and are not the 'patriots' they think they are.

 

[djwilbanks]

Distrusting the government is one thing, organizing and waging war against it is terrorism. No different than the SDS/Weathermen Underground during Vietnam, McVeigh, or any other terrorist group.

These guys are way out of line and are not the 'patriots' they think they are.

The same could be said for our founding fathers, wouldn't you say (minus the killing of innocent civilians)?

 

[djwilbanks]

I guess I should reiterate that I believe the militias are no longer needed, but that private citizens should be allowed to be armed should they choose, and that any terrorist, domestic or foreign, deserves any punishment he/she gets.

 

[geochem1st]

The same could be said for our founding fathers, wouldn't you say (minus the killing of innocent civilians)?

No.

The Founding Fathers listed quite a number of human rights violations in the DOI, which they left as an open letter to the world, as grounds for leaving the British Empire. They did not plan or execute any attacks against London. They defended themselves when the British sent their army in to enforce what was globally identified as an unjust system.

Where are the human rights violations in Michigan?

 

[djwilbanks]

No.

The Founding Fathers listed quite a number of human rights violations in the DOI, which they left as an open letter to the world, as grounds for leaving the British Empire. They did not plan or execute any attacks against London. They defended themselves when the British sent their army in to enforce what was globally identified as an unjust system.

Where are the human rights violations in Michigan?

Point taken.

The major malfunction the founding fathers had with the British system was that they were being taxed by a non-representative government. They perceived injustice was being done to them while the British government perceived they were doing what was just by taxing the colonies. They also hated being told what to do, even if they were already doing it. They hated the idea of a government full of representatives that don't represent the people but the government itself. The colonies that were the hot bed of radical ideas were founded on Puritan ideas which already had a problem with authority, especially British authority. They hated the virtual representation of Britain, and they also hated the "virtual" constitution of the British government.

Even before the war, such as during the time of the stamp act, mobs went around "terrorizing" the stamp sellers and their families.

Taking up arms against ones government is terrorism, so you've said, the difference is the amount of human rights violations the government is placing on the people?

When is terrorism justified?

 

[River]

It's crystal clear to me what the militia and keeping and bearing of arms provisions are all about, given the historical context. That's just me, though. I sure don't think the amendment's purpose was to enable armed insurrection - quite the opposite. The good citizens would have the ways and means to put one down.

 

[djwilbanks]

I agree with you, River. I'm just blowing smoke, of course, I like to argue.

 

[River]

I agree with you, River. I'm just blowing smoke, of course, I like to argue.

Me too!

The operative directive should be:

 

[Deus Vult]

I sure don't think the amendment's purpose was to enable armed insurrection - quite the opposite.

i wouldn't be so sure about that. however, i will note that i am NOT advocating insurrection, nor condoning any alleged conspiracy to kill anyone, LEOs or not.

 

[River]

i wouldn't be so sure about that. however, i will note that i am NOT advocating insurrection, nor condoning any alleged conspiracy to kill anyone, LEOs or not.

I don't expect anyone else to be sure about it, especially not the Supreme Court. I'm only sure for myself.

You see, I was there. (sounding of horns as in "Patton", the movie)

 

[DRF]

I think the definition of Terrorist is : people who are under armed,overwhelmed and never win.